Shooting .308 Out of 7.62 NATO Chambers

I may have created confusion or worry on the topic of shooting .308 Winchester out of guns chambered for 7.62 (.308) NATO. This is not my intention and I hope I can help out. New Jovian Thunderbolt posted the following comment:

Well, now you got me worried. I went and got a better reference for my Garand, re-barreled for 7.62 by the Navy.

The Authority says... don't worry about the pressures. The Garand can handle that. But do worry about head separation if you are not in THIS range on the headspace. That common range for the 7.62 vs .308 was pretty wide...

2 thousandths.

Hmph.

Now I have to get something and check it.

Or maybe a.. what do you call it? Field gauge for both calibers? If it closes on both I'm ok?

More study needed...

Let me try and help.

There are many resources I have found to have useful information on this topic. These are here, here, here and here.

Let me explain what I've learned.

Rather than provide a precise definition of headspace, take it to mean the minimum and maximum recommended dimensions for the chamber that will allow the gun to fire safely. These are the GO and NO-GO values. There is one more value: the FIELD value. This value is the absolute at-the-limits maximum dimension that is acceptable for a gun chamber for minimum safe operation. If this value is exceeded, the gun is not safe to shoot under any circumstance and must be repaired.

We measure these values through the use of headspace gauges. These are steel slugs of varying lengths precision shaped to fit the chamber of a gun . They generally come in sets of two (GO, NO-GO) or three (GO, NO-GO, FIELD). FIELD is optional since not all chamber specifications have a FIELD limit. FIELD limits are generally found in guns derived from military service rifles. The FIELD limit means exactly that: it is the limit that, if exceeded, the gun will not be issued for use in the field by troops.

Now for the technical bit.

For guns chambered in 7.62 NATO, here are the headspace limits (in inches):

• GO: 1.6355"
• NO-GO: 1.6405"
• FIELD: 1.6455"

And for .308 Winchester chambers:

• GO: 1.630"
• NO-GO: 1.634"
• FIELD: 1.638"

Put simply, 7.62 NATO chambers are longer. Yes, we are talking about a few thousandths of a inch but it is important. Notice from the limits above that a 7.62 NATO chamber should be able to happily swallow .308 GO and NO-GO gauges. In a .308 rifle, this would indicate the rifle might be unsafe to shoot. For a 7.62 NATO gun, it is still well within its acceptable GO limit.

This is the problem in a nutshell and why the FIELD check is so important. If a 7.62 NATO gun doesn't chamber on a .308 FIELD gauge, it means the gun is probably safe to shoot .308 Winchester ammunition since it means it is within the safe chamber limits for that cartridge, specification-wise.

If a 7.62 NATO gun closes on the .308 FIELD gauge, it is not safe to shoot .308 Winchester. Look at the dimensions. If the 7.62 NATO gun swallows the 1.638" .308 FIELD gauge, it is still within the safe range for 7.62 NATO ammunition with a NO-GO limit of 1.6405"! You would have to use 7.62 NATO NO-GO and FIELD gauges to ensure the gun would be safe to shoot at all if it swallows the .308 FIELD gauge.

If the gun closes on the 7.62 NATO NO-GO gauge, you must use the 7.62 NATO FIELD gauge to ensure the gun is safe at all. If it closes on that gauge, your 7.62 NATO rifle is a wall hanger.

Thousandths of an inch do matter in this game.

Reverse this process and you see why a .308 Winchester chamber can shoot any 7.62 NATO round. Even the .308 FIELD limit is less than the NO-GO limit for 7.62 NATO. As a result, it will safely chamber 7.62 NATO ammunition. Remember, we are checking chamber dimensions, not cartridge dimensions. 7.62 NATO and .308 Winchester cartridge sizes are identical.

We use the headspace gauges to ensure our chamber dimensions are between the GO and NO-GO limits. This is ideal. It means the chamber is well within the NATO or SAAMI .308 specifications. In fact, the ideal chamber length for 7.62 NATO and .308 Winchester is 1.631" to 1.632", which would be very tight in a 7.62 NATO rifle but middle of the road for .308 Winchester.

Ideally, we would use all six gauges in the following sequence to determine where our headspace lies:

.308 GO 1.630"
.308 NO-GO 1.634"
7.62 GO 1.6355"
.308 FIELD 1.638"
7.62 NO-GO 1.6405"
7.62 FIELD 1.6455"

Using the list ordered as above, you can now see why the .308 FIELD check is important for determining whether or not .308 Winchester is safe to use in a 7.62 NATO rifle.

If our gun closes on the .308 NO-GO gauge but doesn't close on the 7.62 GO gauge, we know our headspace is between 1.634" and 1.6354". This would be a nice, tight chamber. It would be safe to shoot both types of ammunition.

If our gun closes on the 7.62 GO gauge but fails to close on the .308 FIELD gauge, we know the headspace is between 1.6355" and 1.637". Likewise, this gun would be safe to shoot both types of ammunition.

However, if our gun closes on the .308 FIELD gauge and doesn't close on either the 7.62 NATO NO-GO or FIELD gauges, the gun can only safely shoot 7.62 NATO specification ammunition. At that point, the chamber dimensions are outside of the safe range for .308 Winchester.

It means the chamber is too large for .308 Winchester and if you shoot it out of such a gun, you are potentially facing a number of unsafe scenarios. On the low end, the thinner .308 brass could suffer head separation on extraction due to brass overexpansion.

Worse would be minor case ruptures with gas leakage and blowback against the bolt face and locking lugs. Moving up the scale you can run into dangerous overpressure issues where the firing parts can be damaged and the very worst would be catastrophic failure of the bolt or chamber. This can result in broken metal going in a variety of directions as shrapnel, hot, high-pressure gas being released or outright destruction of the receiver, all of which occurring directly in front of the shooter's face.

Bear in mind that shooting .308 ammo out of a 7.62 NATO chamber that is beyond the safe limits for it may cause no problems initially. Some guns may never suffer a problem if you do this without knowing any different and a lot of shooters do. But you are potentially gambling with your life if you run out of safe days and combined incremental overstressing of the gun finally causes it to fail.

You could never have a problem or your first shot could be your last. Armed with knowledge, why take the chance?

To answer NJT's question, what you will need to check your rifle will be at a minimum a .308 FIELD gauge. Brownell's carries them. This will determine whether or not it is safe to shoot .308 Winchester out of your rifle. If your rifle closes on this gauge, you can't shoot .308 Winchester safely. At this point, you would be advised to get a 7.62 FIELD gauge just make sure the rifle is safe to shoot 7.62 NATO at all. But that is a "just to be sure" confirmation. Odds are good the rifle is fine on 7.62 NATO headspace. The 7.62 NATO gauges are harder to find and I am looking for a source.

Checking the headspace using the gauges is gun-specific. Many guns require the bolt to be partially disassembled (such as removing the firing pin or extractor). Usually, the check requires the bolt to be closed gently by hand pressure without resistance. Check the armorer's or service manuals for your specific rifle to determine the proper procedure.

I hope this information helps anyone understand the specifics of 7.62 NATO vs. .308 Winchester in 7.62 NATO guns. It can be a confusing subject.

Let me know in comments if you need more information.

Battle Rifles: Ups and Downs

I am frankly quite surprised at the number of comments I've received over my CETME rifle headspace issue regarding 7.62 vs. .308. If you find this type of technical gun stuff interesting, I am happy to post more of it.

My .308 headspace gauges should arrive today. Assuming I can find my metric feeler gauges, I will do the headspace checks tonight. I'll post pictures of the process so you can see how it is done on a CETME/G3 pattern rifle.

That's the good news. I'll know for sure the safety margins on my CETME for this weekend and I can make a decision on going after Bambi with it after that.

The downside is I think I was hopelessly optimistic I would have an FN FAL rifle in the cabinet by the end of the year.

The FAL is a dream rifle of mine. After building my ARs, I decided that I would build my FAL rather than buy one assembled. FAL supplies have pretty much dried up in the past two years and finding one for under $1000 is hard. I can remember a FAL going for $500 or so 5 years ago. And CETMEs for less than that.

I have two metric Imbel FAL parts kits in storage. I've been sitting on one for over a year and bought the second early in the summer after imports stopped. What cost me $180 in 2006 was going for $275 in mid-2007. Now they're gone. Even if I just sat on them, I could turn a profit by selling them a year or two from now. I won't. I plan to use them.

Done right, you can build a FAL rifle for far less than what a new one would cost. But to do so you need one part that is hard to make outside of a very well equipped machine shop: the receiver.

DSA makes the best US FAL receivers, bar none. Their products are expensive but their reputation for quality is very well-know. A complete FAL SA58 rifle from them will set you back $1200 or more. Their stuff is so popular, they have a 12-14 week wait for complete guns and receivers.

This was back in late June. It was when I placed my order with my local FFL for a DSA FAL receiver. Keeping in line with those delivery figures, I should have seen my receiver sometime in October. No such luck.

Basically, until the receiver actually arrives at my dealer, they won't know anything about the order. So I called up DSA in Illinois and asked them how backed up they were. I explained I had my local FFL place an order for me in the summer and was wondering when they would have receivers ready to ship?

The answer: At least two more weeks.

Taking into account Maryland's useless 8 day waiting period, even if the receiver shows up in two weeks or so, I won't have it in my possession until the closing days of 2008. And that would be highly optimistic of me.

So no FAL for me this year.

So I'm going to order AK receivers instead.

Islamic Tolerance

I usually don't discuss or do posts on religious issues. I tend to keep my opinions to myself. However, lately there have been a series of stories coming out regarding Islam.

The latest is the Teddy Bear Scandal.

Short summary: A British schoolteacher in Sudan allows her class to name some stuffed animals. One of the names chosen and accepted is Muhammed. As a result, this teacher is arrested and convicted on charges of insulting Islam. She is sentenced to 15 days in prison and is to be deported.

She got off far better than the Saudi woman who was got a harsh punishment for being the victim of a rape. I'm not going to discuss my views on that except to say I need a range trip to work out the red rage that hangs in front of my eyes as a result of that.

Now, the British teacher was in another country. As a rule and out of respect, we are expected to follow their laws and customs. Sudan is a Islam-dominated country and operates under Shari'a law. Whether you or I agree with that is beside the point. It is their country and thus, their rules.

The question is should the teacher have known that using the name of the Islamic prophet in such a context would be a crime? Or did she didn't think of it and simply went along with what the children wanted? The latter is clearly what appears to have happened.

And then the fact the bear was named Muhammed reaches ears who are far less understanding, sees a religious violation and acts. The only thing that saved this woman from a harsher punishment is the fact Sudan tends to practice a less-harsh punishment strategy for non-Arabs and non-Muslims who wouldn't know any better.

Cold comfort to a woman forced to do prison time in a foreign country and loss of her livelihood.

Now for my thoughts on the matter.

I feel bad for her. This could have been handled with a quiet office conversation and an announcement to the class they were going to rename the bear. As one commented on CNN's site pointed out rather succinctly:

My God! Who is saying anything bad about Allah or the Prophet Muhammad. If it is so offensive to name a teddy bear Muhammad, then why is it ok to name your children Muhammad. Give me a break! Relax, there was no harm intended by the teacher and the children were the ones who named the bear. People of Sudan and the Muslim world need to realize that not everything is cause for a Jihad.

Emphasis is mine and you know, I'd like a Muslim to answer that question for me. Because me as an infidel non-believer, an explanation to this dichotomy would be welcome. Otherwise, my take on the matter is the Sudanese officials are being petty and intolerant.

I hear a lot of about Islam being a tolerant religion. That may be but all it takes are incidents like this played out on the international stage and seen by pretty tolerant folks like myself to start to develop a real negative view of the religion as whole. Now, I dismiss extremists in any religion out-of-hand for being exactly that: extremist. But this isn't suicide bombing. This is a teddy bear.

This teacher didn't dip the bear in pig fat. She didn't shove it into a toilet bowl and piss on it. She didn't dress it up to be a caricature of the Prophet. She didn't even name the bear! Her class did! If anything, the children need remedial education from their parents and religious authorities so they don't use the Prophet's name inappropriately.

But the teacher was expected to know and as a result, got punished. She's lucky it wasn't somewhere else. She could have wound up stoned.

So I am not surprised if people turn around as a result of this and decide they don't really like Islam. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them in the slightest.

Be thankful we live in a free culture. Because we don't have such forces punishing us for such trivial acts that aren't even crimes in our culture. And even if someone stands up and says, "Muhammed was an asshole!", you don't go to prison. You may get folks saying that was intolerant or offensive but that is how far it goes here. And should.

Unless your boss is a Muslim, hears you and fires you. Exercising rights does include taking responsibility for the act even if the consequences were unintended. But overall, the consequences need to be commensurate with the severity of the act. Does this incident qualify? You decide for yourself. I don't think it does.

No religion in our society has right to demand special treatment. I think the folks who believe otherwise don't understand the meaning of the word "tolerance". It does not mean acceptance. It does not mean censorship. It means I can say offensive things to you about your religion and you are free to be offended and respond in a like manner. You are not free to dictate that I cannot do it or make moves to stifle my statements through the use of force, legislative or otherwise. You are only free to express your views and thoughts in a negative manner. Nothing more.

Being tolerant means having the ability to hear contradictory or offensive views and defend the other person's right to make them. You don't have to accept them and I would encourage you to respond in a civil fashion. This is a foundation concept of our civilized society. Throwing a woman in prison is not a civil response.

Such actions show the world-at-large that Sudan is not a tolerant country. That it punishes harshly for actions that don't even rate as crimes in British society (yet). They sure as hell don't rate as crimes here in the USA.

So don't be surprised Sudan if many western people take a dim view of your country as a result of your actions.

And if you're a Muslim in the USA, take careful note of where you are. There is no Shari'a law here. If you take offense because someone says something derogatory about Islam or your Prophet, suck it up and deal with it. People of other religions in this country do so all the time. Speak your mind at the perceived offense, make it clear you are offended, disassociate with that person, whatever. But that is it.

The moment you demand special treatment under the law to protect your feelings or your religion, expect me to turn on you like a starving, rabid mountain lion. And that applies to anyone of any such stripe. It just seems that certain practitioners of Islam have a problem getting along with others.

Tolerance does not equal acceptance. Drive that point into your skulls. Embroider it into your prayer mats if you have to.

Otherwise, if you keep this crap up over time, don't be surprised if western countries as a whole begin to really decide to do something about it. If you make it into a war of values where there can be only one winner and you decide to do it through force, expect to suffer. Us infidels will put up with a lot of stuff we disagree with but trying to force us to buy into your beliefs at swordpoint isn't one of them. Count on a violent response in return.

I have Muslim co-workers. They are pleasant folks. We obviously come from different worlds. I really don't care if my co-workers sees me as an Godless infidel and beneath them as a person. I don't even care if they say it to my face. It'll be an interesting conversation. At worst, I'll be offended. I don't have the right to strike back at them physically for that belief and nor would I. For some in the Muslim world, they believe otherwise.

I don't hate Islam. But I am starting to develop a real negative view of it that the Muslim world isn't doing a thing to counter. If you want the non-Muslim world to believe that your religion is truly one of peace and tolerance, we better actually start seeing real tolerance. Or moderates coming out and denouncing stuff like what happened to this teacher. Better yet, entire Islamic countries denouncing this action in diplomatic terms.

Because the alternative over time is to start seeing regular folks becoming quite intolerant of your views. Up to and including free speech demonstrations of such. I know of bloggers that have received death threats from less-than-tolerant individuals of a certain faith for expressing their views on this in a rather violent fashion. We will not stifle our free speech because of your hurt feelings and your beliefs do not trump ours. Get used to what free speech really means.

Otherwise, don't be surprised if I start to use pages of the Koran as sighting targets as an expression of my annoyance with your "tolerant" religious values. Or drilling 5.56mm happy faces Mel Gibson-style into Muhammed's likeness from that Danish cartoon at 100 yards as a show of my markmanship abilities and an expression of my displeasure at your holier-than-thou attitude. And if you get offended as a result, speak away. Go further and I'll leave your imagination to the potential outcomes.

In foreign countries, your laws, your rules. I can tell you I'll never set foot in Sudan unless it is with a rifle in my hand. Here, different laws apply. I can tell Muhammed to sleep next to the pigs and all you have the right to do is getting royally pissed off at me for it. Insulting one's religion is not libel or slander in this country and nor will my right to speak my views be suppressed because you're offended. Cry to Allah because you don't get any sympathy from me here.

Learn what tolerance means because you aren't practicing it.

Rant over.

Do Your Research

Damn CETME!

Let's just say I won't be getting many more roller-locking delayed blowback rifles in my collection if this is the type of stuff I have to deal with to check a simple problem.

No, nothing is wrong (yet) with my CETME. I just fired round two in my function check salvo with this rifle and I think I just spent $75 I didn't have to.

In my research on checking headspace in 7.62 NATO chambered rifles for .308 Winchester, I found all the information I needed. In summary, if the gun doesn't close on the .308 FIELD gauge, it isn't safe to use to shoot .308 Winchester. I'm willing to believe the ammo makers don't load their commercial rounds to high pressures.

At this point, I am starting to cross the threshold from gun enthusiast to budding serious armorer. I went online and ordered .308 Winchester headspace gauges from Brownells. I opted for those made by Forster. They have a very solid reputation in this area.

Since I figured these will be usable in the future and I am looking at such rarely used tools as investments, I ordered all three gauges: GO, NO-GO and FIELD. I really only need the FIELD gauge and I am still looking for military spec 7.62 GO and FIELD gauges. Anyway, that's the $75 I just spent.

Just one minor detail: Headspace gauges aren't used to check headspace on a CETME or G3 (or any roller locking rifle)! At least, not as the primary measurement tool.

You see, in that pesky roller locking system, the key word is "roller". The rollers extend into cavities in the trunnion and it is their contact point within this space that determines headspace. Essentially, they hold the bolt face back from the chamber face at a specific distance. The gas pressure against the bolt face by the cartridge case causes the bolt to unlock and the rollers to begin to withdraw. The rollers create the delay.

But it is the gap between the bolt face and chamber that determines the timing of this event. And the timing is determined by the residual gas pressure against the cartridge case. It is where the case rests in the chamber that determines this pressure. The gap of the bolt ensures the pressure will be correct.

To measure this gap, you check the space between the bolt and the bolt carrier with the bolt closed on an empty chamber. You use feeler gauges rather than headspace gauges. If the gap is too wide, it means the headspace is too tight and the bolt isn't locking fully in place. Too narrow and it means the headspace is excessive. In a rifle like the CETME, both cases are trouble.

However, unlike other rifles, headspace on these guns tighten with time rather than loosen as the parts work in.

According to the HK G3 Armorer's Manual, the acceptable headspace is 0.1-0.5mm. This is the measurement of the gap between the bolt and bolt carrier.

I don't have feeler gauges. That's another $60 or so.

Sigh. All this to ensure a gun is safe to fire .308 from. At this rate, I am going to have to start a second tool bag for armorer's and smithing tools separate from my cleaning supplies.

It isn't to say the headspace gauges won't be useful but I don't need them for the initial checks. The .308 FIELD gauge will be useful in making sure the bolt won't close fully by displaying an excessive gap between the bolt and bolt carrier. But I've put the cart before the horse because without the feeler gauges, the headspace gauges are useless in checking clearance on my CETME. I can't even determine if headspace is correct at the moment.

As they say, do your research.

The saving grace in all of this is thus far, the rifle fires without excessive gas blowback or signs of stress on the casings. And the FFL I got the gun from did clean and test-fire it prior to shipping it out. So I am reasonably confident the gun is in correct working order. These guys build their own guns in-house so I have a higher degree of confidence in them. I am just wanting to make sure. If it wasn't for the hunting issue, I probably wouldn't be doing this. Then again, it is useful knowledge.

Another good thing, my CETME isn't a Century kitbash. It's an old Hesse Arms build. Hesse Arms guns have a bit of a reputation as hit-or-miss but compared to Century, they are good builds overall. At least they are known to more-or-less work correctly and with far fewer build quality issues.

It can't be too bad. I've already put 100 rounds through it with no issues save for the failure-to-ejects. And those were late in the game. Flawless up to that point.

We'll know tomorrow. AR-15s are much easier rifles to work on! God help me if I ever manage to swing a FAMAS!

Random Thought

Why is it some people believe if a man carries a gun to protect himself, he is compensating for something but if a woman carries a gun to protect herself, she is empowered?

It's Still Tyranny

This is why I will never own a house where this a homeowner's association (HOA).

He and other owners have also tried to fight it, but with only limited success. Last month, two lawmakers tried to take legislative action against blanket bans on trucks used as personal vehicles but withdrew their bill after an outcry from opponents who didn't want to see the state meddling in home association rulemaking.

In other words, they didn't want the government interfering in their own private little tyranny. What I cannot understand is how on earth these groups can have this type of power over a private transaction? If I buy a house, that is between me and the bank. I should be allowed to tell the HOA, if any, to piss off.

They banned pickup trucks in the 1960's because they didn't fit in with the proper image of the community. Time change but people don't. Power taken is rarely relinquished, no matter who holds it.

If you agree to rights abrogation as part of a private contract, do you have the ability to appeal to the government for a redress of grievances if the local fascists refuse to hear them?

Answer:

It would be possible to strip the pickup bans from neighborhood associations' list of covenants, but in most cases that would require votes from a majority, or even a supermajority, of homeowners. Lanahan said one pickup owner tried to get the rules changed in his community, but he couldn't even get a serious petition drive started.

To even change the rules require a level of agreement locally equal to amending the Constitution! In other words, tyranny of the majority. It's still tyranny. The only difference between totalitarian government and an HOA is you can fight a totalitarian government.

To hell with HOAs.

Always Learning

I'm in a dilemma solving phase at the moment. Here are some things I've been dealing with.

7.62mm vs .308. Do you know how bloody irritating this is? If you didn't know, 7.62x51 NATO and .308 Winchester are not the same cartridge. Not so much in the dimensions but in the acceptable chamber limits.

In the 5.56mm vs .223, the dimensions are identical. The only difference is chamber pressure. 5.56mm chamber pressures are 10,000 psi higher than .223 (55K vs 45K). As a result, you don't shoot mil-spec ammo in a .223 chamber. It tends to go "Boom!". Hence why all of my chambers are 5.56mm. They'll shoot anything safely.

Not so with 7.62 NATO. The very opposite occurs. .308 Winchester has a higher chamber pressure than the mil-spec round. At first reading, these pressures are wildly different. But when equalized to the same measuring standard, there is only around 2-5K psi difference. Still bad regardless.

I've read that most .308 ammo isn't loaded to the maximum pressures allowed by the SAAMI specifications. Most commercial loadings fall neatly in the middle ground for 7.62 NATO. As long as you are using good, high-quality .308, you can likely shoot it out of a 7.62 NATO chamber without it exploding under your cheek.

The real issue is headspace. The acceptable headspace ranges for 7.62 NATO are different for .308. If you try to use go and no-go gauges for .308 in a 7.62 NATO chamber, a 7.62 rifle will close on both. The 7.62 NATO chamber is slightly longer. This despite the fact that dimensionally, the two rounds are identical. The issue is the amount of space allowed for the shoulder. A .308 chamber is narrower.

So my dilemma is simple: I want to go hunting with a 7.62 NATO chambered rifle. The problem is, the only hunting ammunition available to me is .308 Winchester. After reading many sources, I have learned that as long as the headspace is acceptable for .308 and I use good ammunition, I can likely shoot it safely from a 7.62 NATO chamber.

Unfortunately, the only way to check this is to use a SAAMI field gauge. If my rifle closes on this gauge, I can only shoot 7.62 NATO spec ammunition from it. Otherwise, the headspace will be too great for .308. And using a roller delayed gas blowback rifle with excessive headspace with .308 ammunition is a not a bright idea.

So I'm looking for a SAAMI field gauge. Why don't they print dimensions as part of the listings for the gauge on Brownell's?

In related trivia, I now know that the Federal blue box ammo I was shooting previously is, in fact, 7.62 NATO spec. I've learned my latest cartridge stamp. 7.62 NATO spec ammunition will have a circle with a cross in the center on the rim of the case. Sure enough, the Federal ammo has it. I was worrying about it for nothing.

Uncle had a nice little poll on a "What Would You Do?" scenario involving an anti in a public place. I realized I have been missing out on some fun. I would apply options 3, 1 and 2, in that order. But unless I have some means to attract the necessary derogatory and shocked looks at my local, very liberal, community supermarket, I won't have any opportunities.

I have decided I will use this. Hey, if you're going to go for shock value, go with the biggest and the best. Plus, worn around the house, I can use it as a handy shopping reference. When asked what I want for my birthday or Christmas (for the next several years), I can just point down to one of the four items on my shirt.

On the subject of Barrett Firearms, in perusing the site, I have discovered much evil lurking within. Even though they just raised the price 50%, this course is so tempting.

The reason is I may be finding the glimmer of a side career. Put bluntly, I like working on guns. I have no fear of mechanical objects and I have the necessary attention to detail to deal with the minutiae.

My local gun enabler Kevin left to pursue a job as a gun maker with Les Baer. He was, to my knowledge, the in-house armorer for my gun shop and did most of the training on his own. When the shop was expanding, they were hiring and they point-blank stated they wished I could work for them. Alas, as a non-citizen, I can't work in the gun industry. But the Barrett course got me thinking.

Setting aside the fact I'd happily pay $1500 to spend a couple of days shooting .416 and .50 caliber rifles at 1000 meters, this would be a good first start. I am little over 2 years away from my US citizenship. If I did courses like this off-and-on over that time, I could sell myself as a part-time armorer to my local gun shop. It would be a win-win for everyone involved. I'd be doing something worthwhile with all that knowledge in my head and they wouldn't need to pay me in cash. Just let me work off rifles.

Two years from now, I could be useful to someone.

Lastly, anyone have any good recommendations for books on ballistics? I'm starting to get really interested in the details of bullet flight. Something that walks you through like a primer on the subject into the calculations required to work out various values. Math is fine as long as it is explained. Something along the line of "Ballistics for Dummies" paired with its follow-on book.

I'm open to suggestions.

A Little Ho, Ho, Ho (and Ha, Ha, Ha!)

Bitter Bitch asks if I could have one gun in my stocking this Christmas/Hannukah, what would it be? Admitting, of course, it would have to be in the realm of household possibility.

Possible, yes. Likelihood, no. Not with a $2600 price tag.

Drum roll, please. If I could have only one stuffed in my stocking, it would be...

The Barrett M468 6.8SPC rifle.

I already have Dave Hardy's .17 rimfire. Hey Dave, if you want to come out to the NRA Range, I'll set you up for an afternoon of .17HMR fun! The Savage 93R17 is a fantastic rifle. Fees and ammo on me.

I'll compromise on the M468 and just take the upper. I have a lower with a full stock as pictured. But you really need the Barrett name on the lower. This is one time I would want the brand. Barrett deserves it, after all.

The Muse Is Silent Today

Having one of those "blah" kind of days. Everyone else seems to be covering the world just fine. I don't have much more to say about the Heller case at the moment.

I'm trying to get my thoughts in order on some political stuff that I've had rolling around my head. I'm also starting to look ahead to the 2008 Legislative session in Maryland and wondering how bad it will be. I really don't want to have to move my stuff out of the state.

I will say this much on politics: At least Barak Obama is honest. At least, honest by political standards. He believes the DC gun ban is Constitutional. He's wrong but I am willing to respect him a little for staking out a position on the issue. A lot of other Democratic candidates are mumbling the "2nd Amendment is an individual right and I respect that" stuff without qualifying what they think the limits are. At least Obama has. He believes in strong gun control up to and including a total ban on all semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines of any stripe.

As far as I am concerned that is political suicide for him nationwide but if he wants to take that view, more power to him. I'd rather a politician be forthright with a platform I disagree with than try to hide behind semantics and innuendo. I'll always respect anyone who is consistent in their views and acts upon them even if I find them wrong or misguided.

He'd still be a terrible President. But I'd have no worries about guessing his position on gun control. That's comforting. It makes it easier to fight.

Overall, just lacking time today to get stuff down. More to come.

Must Be The Holiday

You get to see some strange stuff in the referrer logs...
The answer to this query is: No.

Reason: The .50BMG is a little lacking on the velocity side. Using data for the M33 .50BMG ball round, it leaves the muzzle at 2800fps. This equates to 1909 miles per hour. Low earth orbital velocity is around 17,500 miles per hour. The .50BMG is off by a velocity factor of at least 9 assuming zero drag from atmospheric friction and the effects of gravity.

To put a .50BMG round into orbit would require a lot more powder and a reinforced chamber to push it to well over 25,590 feet per second plus whatever extra is needed to overcome air and gravity on its way up or around.

Any takers on working out the velocity needed of a .50BMG so that it will circle the globe (assuming a clear line of travel all the way around) so you can shoot yourself in the back?

Here's to geeking out for Thanksgiving! Have a good holiday everyone!

A Misconception on Heller

I've been reading the comments on Washington Post and on various forums such as Maryland Shooters and I'm seeing a commonplace misconception being bandied about by both gun owners and non-gun owners alike.

It is a misconception based out of ignorance of what the DC gun ban case is about. They believe that if the ban is overturned then suddenly private citizens will have the right to carry guns to protect themselves from criminals.

That is what this case is not about. Even if the Supreme Court upholds Heller, it does not mean you'll be legally allowed to carry a gun in the District on the following day.

This about guns in the home, not on the street. If the ban is overturned, the District will have to write new laws that will allow private citizens the ability to possess functional firearms in the home and allow them to use them in a law-abiding manner, in the home only, up to and including lawful self-defense as permitted by existing DC code.

All an overturned ban means is now citizens will be allowed to own handguns and move them around the home subject to whatever requirements the District places upon them. These requirements will have to be short of requiring a permit to move them from room to room and the having them disabled/unloaded. You will be allowed to have loaded rifles or shotguns in your home where you aren't allowed to do so today.

What it also means is the District may still (and likely will) require registration of all guns, may introduce a licensing system for possession and purchase or any number of things provided that they pass Constitutional muster within the limits handed down in the decision from the Supreme Court. In fact, I'd wager money on District doing it.

Carrying those arms on your person outside the home will still be against the law in DC unless the District changes the law. That is no different than any other state. Don't read too much into this.

This thinking stems from ignorance of what has gone on in this case. If you haven't been following it, all you have to depend on is the spin and opinions of various press articles. Or people projecting their own values into the meaning of the case.

Let me reiterate: A victory for Heller in this case doesn't suddenly mean free and unrestricted access to guns or carriage of them on your person in the District of Columbia. They will have the option to place restrictions and regulations around that right unless the decision is so encompassing as to define the limits that shall not be crossed. If they don't, the line is

1. handgun possession may not be banned but may still be subject to registration, etc and,
2. functional, loaded firearms of all types may be kept in the home and moved about within it without prior Government permission. Long guns may still be subject to registration (just as they are today).

But that is it. Anyone who carries a gun on their person in the District the day after a Heller victory comes down is going to be a criminal under the law. Remember that. This case isn't about concealed or open carry and never was. It is about guns in the home only.

Cert Granted!

Ok, Kevin, get out your marble bag and prepare to play all-or-nothing.

The Supreme Court has granted cert in Heller vs. DC!

Here is the question they will answer:

“Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”

Uncle and SCOTUSBlog have the details.

Let the nail biting commence.

Transformation

I accomplished most of the goals I had set out for myself at the gun show this past weekend.

As mentioned, I was going with the intent to buy ammo and to "pimp out" one of my AR-15s. The target of my "pimpage" was detailed in Bite Me, Brady #4. It is a homebuilt Eagle Arms/Model 1 carbine with an 11.5 inch barrel on an A3 upper with detachable carry handle, collapsible stock and green furniture.

For your edification, here is the gun before:


I decided that the rifle as configured was adequate but limited in practical use. I liked the idea of the scope mounted on the carry handle as additional sighting mechanism in addition to the iron sights. Except for the practical detail of accuracy. Turns out without a cheek rest, a chin weld doesn't cut it in using the scope. It works fine from the bench but shot from any other position, I am more accurate using the iron sights.

Then I started thinking about the purpose of the rifle. This is a short-range rifle. It gets used primarily indoors at 50 yards. For outdoors, it is adequate at 100 yards. Beyond that, other ARs take precedence on the firing line.

Over time, the more I've realized this rifle serves two purposes. One is simply for fun recreational shooting. Something to relax with and shoot at the NRA Range. The other is personal defense. In a SHTF situation like Katrina or the Metro DC equivalent, a means of defense is very important. But for this type of situation, you are looking at 20-50 yard distances. Someone 100-150 yards away, unless they are shooting at you, is not a threat.

An AR-15 is a very recognizable platform. It is one of the reasons it is useful as personal defense weapon (PDW). More powerful than a handgun and is obvious in its purpose. For scaring away potential thugs or looters, an AR-15 is ideal.

Except my gun wasn't properly configured for it. This I decided to change.

Please note, I didn't have to do this. Like anyone who is a passionate gun owner, I don't need a reason. I did this because I wanted to and because I could.

I realized the appearance of the rifle is so 90s. It really needed to come into the 21st century. Green furniture is so passe. We needed to go "tacticool". Hence, the first change is to add a railed handguard.

The second thing I wanted to change is the stock. Hate to say it, folks, but I prefer fixed stocks. Always have. I don't mind the collapsible but my heart really rested on a fixed stock. And a specific one. For some reason, I just like the appearance of the ACE ARFX skeleton stocks. Plus, the foam padding makes them more comfortable to use than a standard A2 stock.

What you may not realize is I had predicted I would do this when I built the rifle. I used an A3 flattop upper deliberately. I wanted the option to change over to optics in place of the carry handle. Now I'm thankful for it.

One of the great influences on this change was the Barrett M468 6.8SPC rifle, one of my dream guns. One of the features I like on that gun is the flip-up front and rear sights. It uses a Knights Armament S.I.R rail system and mated to the matching sights, makes for a beautiful platform. The gun is intended to accept optics but the sights are readily available in an emergency. This I wanted for myself.

If I am ever in a situation where I can only grab one gun, I want to make sure that gun will remain usable under the worst possible circumstances. Batteries can die, scopes can break. Always have a backup plan. This was the reason I had used a see-through carry handle scope that didn't cost me my iron sights. I wanted at least one gun to have a backup. So I decided that a flip-up rear sight was in the cards. I would replace the front sight if I could but the front sight cannot come off. The flash hider is welded to the end of the barrel. If I ever do a future build, I will go with a railed gas block instead.

Which brings me to the other major change. In playing Airsoft, I had used many replicas with red dot sights. Other than dynamic entry where you use your body to aim rather than the sights, I had come to appreciate the advantages of "both eyes open" shooting. As long as I could see the dot and place it on the target quickly, a pull of the trigger meant a hit.

I found that I liked this a lot. I figure it was time for me to do it on one rifle for myself as a counter to my prevalence of scoped and surplus rifle.

Everyone needs at least one tactical rifle. And in a practical sense, if I ever need that rifle for home defense, I want to bring it up and acquire quickly.

Which brings me to the choice of sight.

My desire to retain backup iron sights meant that whatever I mounted, it would have to allow the front sight to be clearly visible. Ideally, the sight that I mounted would allow for the red dot aimpoint to be placed naturally above the front sight post. This keeps sighting familiar and reinforces a natural sight picture when reverting to the iron sights. It also meant that whatever sight I mounted would have to be a natural fit to the sight radius of the AR-15.

The obvious choice was an EOTech holosight. I had used these on other ARs and liked it. But I find the EOTech to be bulky and quite honestly, they are very expensive. If I had one rifle and no-holds-barred, it would be a natural choice. I wanted to do this on a budget. So I decided that a 30mm 1x red dot or an inexpensive holosight knockoff would do. I would check out the scope vendors at the show and look for something that struck me.

Lastly, you can't have a tactical rifle without a front hand grip. I'm mixed on them. I like using them some days, others I prefer to grip the handguard. On grip, rail covers were essential. I don't mind a railed guard but I want it to feel comfortable in my hand when I am not using the grip.

By this point, you should have a clear vision of what I was looking to accomplish. So without further ado, here is the result of my efforts:

The front rail is a Yankee Hill Machine (YHM) two-piece, four rail carbine-length handguard. I would prefer free-floated but that requires me to take the rifle apart. The gun is more than capable in the accuracy department with standard guards so why tempt Fate?

YHM is very much low-to-middle of the road in price. I could have gotten a UTG knockoff for $50 less but didn't. Sorry, UTG stuff is cheap for a reason. I'll put UTG rails on an Airsoft gun. I want something with a little bit of ruggedness. I hadn't heard anything bad about YHM. I just needed a basic set of Picatinny rails. The handguard is UTG though. It's a piece of plastic and not integral to the gun. So are the rail covers.

These went on with only a slight tap of a hammer. The vendor I got them installed them at no extra cost.

The stock is a ACE ARFX skeleton stock. I wanted it and I got it. I have but one question about the stock: How on Earth do you get the foam on the buffer tube?!? I struggled for two hours before deciding that some sticky two-sided tape would do and slit the foam with a knife. Still just as comfortable and it doesn't move. If I want to try again when someone tells me how they do it, I'll buy a replacement foam overtube. No biggie, they're $4.

The sights are the big change.

The rear flip-up sight is the same ARMS 40L sight fitted to the M468. I liked the postive retention of the sight, the two standard apertures and adjustable windage. I found it and just had to have it. Enough said. Strangely, it cost more than the primary optic.

I thought I would never buy an NCStar sight or scope. I am taking a $70 chance here.

Cheap generally equals crap when it comes to sights and scopes. NCStar is a cheap Chinese brand and they are really hit-or-miss, literally. I've only used them on replicas where there is no recoil and where minute-of-torso accuracy is what I am after. Even though I would like a Leupold, I can't afford them. I do tend towards the low-end of the scale but the scope I use are known to be decent if budget models. Tasco, Bushnell, Simmons and Nikon. I've gotten good results from all of them. Case in point, the Tasco 6-24x50mm mil-dot scope fitted to my 6.5mm Swedish Mauser. A relatively inexpensive scope, it has finger-adjustable turrets, 1/4" MOA, adjustable objective and it holds zero fine. Inexpensive does not mean bad. NCStar seems to be a different story.

I was deliberately avoiding NCStar until I saw this optic. It is a knockoff holosight. I liked it because it would allow for an unobstructed view with my iron sights, it had four different reticles, multiple intensity settings and adjustable for windage and elevation. It looked good turned on and very clear even on the lowest setting.

I bought it because I figured it is harder to screw up a holosight than a regular scope. And because it was $70. If it doesn't hold zero, I learn a lesson and get something better. We'll find out shortly. I've since see several exact copies of this sight so I wonder who makes it for whom.

Mounted on the rifle, the height is perfect. The reticle was to the right of the front sight post so I clicked in the windage to bring it on center. Assuming the sight is holding on the centerline of the rifle, it should on need adjustment on elevation. I can hold the rifle to the shoulder and the reticle comes naturally to my eyes. And it doesn't interfere with the rear sight.

To finish the gun, I swapped the pistol grip for a Magpul MIAD grip. I am going to get the core that can hold a spare bolt and firing pin. I have a larger hand so I went with the larger backstrap. The grip just feels better in my hand and adds a little bit of brand-name bling to the gun.

A three-point sling finishes off the rifle.

I think she's ready to go.

More Additions to the Blogroll

A few more late-comers to the party...

Chris Byrne, the Anarchangel. Up there in the "Best of" gun blogs.

I should have added Thirdpower a long time ago. He writes Days of our Trailers.

Fighting for Liberty is the latest addition. He comes highly recommended by other blogs and this post had me snorting Diet Coke onto my keyboard. Here's why:

Next time there’s a disaster - whether manufactured by islamo-thugs or nature, you go ahead and figure it out on your own. Earthquake? You fix your own roads. Mt. Ranier blows it’s top? Good luck. Raining zombie frogs with an insatiable appetite for brain-chow? See you later.

I lost it. I highly recommend him. His style is right up my alley.

Enjoy!

Gun Show Lessons

With the gun show over, my wallet is reeling. But it was so worth it! Tomorrow you will see the results of that lightening of the leather money holster.

I want to pass along some experiences of the show. This is intended as a message to the vendors and participants.

As I stated previously, I went with a gun on my shoulder. My black/green AR-15 specifically. Like the last time I went to the show with a gun, I had people stop me and ask me how much. This despite the fact there was no sign or any indication that the gun was for sale. For all you know I could have just bought it.

I am flattered though that you offer me cash for my AR. Aren't there any at the show that attract your attention?

If I'm not carrying a sign, it isn't for sale.

I did enjoy one fellow stopping me not to ask how much but just to ask what it was and where I got it. This type of thing I am happy to answer. So I explained that I had built it from a stripped lower, that it had a short barrel under the flashhider and that it was my plinker. He smiled, looked at it for a bit, said "Nice gun." and went on his way.

Not so nice was the dealer who stepped out while I was wandering by his table to ask if it was for sale. I said "No". He then asked what it was. So I held it up and he looked at it. His response: "Eagle Arms? That's cheap crap. Why didn't you build on a Colt?".

You know, pal, if I wanted a Colt, I would have bought a Colt. You go from a glitter in your eye looking at my rifle and the prospect of me selling it to you to pissing on it a second later because it isn't a brand-name AR. He proceeded to go off on the value of a Colt, how much better it was than the cheap knockoff receiver I had used and so on. This was an FFL with a table.

At the end of his little spiel, I said I don't mind it wasn't a Colt since the gun was a shooter. I wandered off but I was pissed. What the fuck does he care? It's my gun and my problem. A gun I have had precisely one failure-to-feed with and that is it (bad magazine).

If I am happy with it, none of your damn business. What he did manage to do was absolutely guarantee I will never buy anything from him or send anyone his way for a gun. Ever. In fact, I actively encourage people to avoid such dealers regardless of how good their deals are. Dark Sun Surplus comes to mind here.

I get really tired of people pissing down on other peoples guns because they aren't made or owned to their standards. There are snobs in every facet of the shooting sports and I had one step into my face: The AR Holier-Than-Thou Bigot. You know, Colt isn't the be-all-end-all of the AR world. You want it because it says "Colt" so you can show off. Fine, if that makes you happy, go for it. But it doesn't make it better. In my world, if it accepts standard AR parts in the lower, it's an AR. Period. End of story. It's a chunk of aluminum. As long as it goes "BANG!" when I pull the trigger and doesn't split apart in two with wear, I'm happy.

So I really don't give a shit about the name on the receiver. Eagle Arms is made by ArmaLite and is considered their "budget" line of receivers. They work. That's all that mattered to me. There isn't a lot of difference in construction between a Colt, DPMS, Rock River, Bushmaster, ArmaLite, Stag Arms or Eagle Arms receiver to me. It's just a name. I care about best bang for the buck, not bling.

But you pissed on a fellow gun owner. Enjoy never getting my money, buddy. And I was spending it when you stepped out in front of me. Someone else got it. Ever think that a guy with a rifle valued on the high-side of three figures might have some to spend? Especially given that he hadn't just bought it and wasn't selling it? I was carrying it for a reason, you moron! You just didn't realize why thanks to your short-sighted ignorance.

Some of these vendors don't realize that I am, in fact, a fucking customer. Contrast this asshole with David's Collectibles, a regular vendor at the Chantilly show.

They don't have the best prices on everything at the show but they have a nice selection of compliance parts, accessories and the like. You know why I like them? They are pleasant and ask if I am after anything and they do it with a smile. I don't spend a lot with them. Generally $35-$70 a show when I do. But they get that every show and it is to the point that they recognize me. The fellow even asked how my Enfield magazines were working while I was looking for AK compliance parts.

That is customer service, folks. I may not spend much but because they are pleasant and helpful without being intrusive or obnoxious, I go back to them. Over and over. $70 may not be a lot but added up over several shows over the past two years, they've made money from me. A repeat customer is the best kind of customer.

Think about it. If there are just 10 people like me doing repeat business at the show, we've just paid for his tables and made him a small amount of profit. Anyone else is money in his pocket, free and clear. All for "Hello! How are the parts we sold you working out?".

If you're looking for AK or SKS compliance parts, surplus rifle accessories, inexpensive bags or AR accessories, I can't recommend them highly enough. Prices are average on most stuff, good deals on some, expensive on others. In other words, a typical vendor. But overall, I'd rather pay $5 more for a part to get the customer service that goes with it. Over time, it has more than evened out.

Thanks guys! You'll see me again next year.

Overall, one of my more frustrating experiences but generally a good one. More to follow.

National Ammo Day

Today is National Ammo Day! Many thanks to Kim du Toit for starting this.

Have you done your part yet? I have. Here is my contribution to the effort:


My total is 700 rounds, broken down as follows:

• 140 of 7.62 NATO
• 200 of 7.62x39mm
• 200 of .303 British
• 100 of 6.5x55mm Swedish
• 60 of 7.5mm Swiss

That folks, is what 700 rounds of ammunition looks like. It isn't a lot. It would have been 840 but they were out of the South African 7.62 battlepacks when I decided to go back for another one. One reason why you go to the gun show early!

I hope the gun controllers cringe with terror at the sight of that massive stockpile.

German School "Shooting" Thwarted

I seriously wonder if the news media hasn't lost their collective minds.

CNN and MSNBC have posted their breathless tales about how a potentially deadly German school shooting rampage was stopped and one of the potential perpetrators committed suicide after being confronted about it.

Go look at the photo in the CNN article. Take a good look. Now, note the weapons listed in the article:

After Cologne police were alerted to the plot to attack the Georg-Buechner Gymnasium in the western district of Junkirdors, they confiscated two crossbows, two air guns and a list of intended victims, Laggies said.

Of the four "weapons" list including the sinister photo referenced above, only two are. But as always, show the deadly, high-powered gun-looking weapons. Only the crossbows qualify as weapons here. What were these two going to do with air guns against their victims, sting them to death?

I'm not making light of the potential for mayhem but on the scale of carnage, this one isn't up there. I've been shot with air guns. Many times. And many of those where with the gun at skin contact or under two feet. Welts, nothing more. The crossbows are a different story but even then, after the first bolt hits a victim, they're going to wait for them to put the bows into their feet and reload? And these don't even look like particularly powerful crossbows. More like low-end recreational ones.

But no, the news media has to scare the public with scary looking replicas to make the public believe guns are everywhere, that the threat is ever present. Guys, come on, this isn't even copycat. This is just pathetic.

I just wanted to point out the lows to which our news media sinks. You can even see the seams on the air gun up top! If they had actually tried this, I hope whoever they were targeting would have had the fortitude to stand up, ignore the plastic BBs, yank the crossbow bolt out and then stab them through the heart with it.

That would be a proper response to this.

2A Blogger Bash Booked!

Ok, folks, I took Ahab's advice and booked my hotel room for the NRA Annual Convention in Louisville, KY next year. Got a room 6 blocks from the convention site and I am sure that will not make some of you happy since other hotels were listed at distances of over 100 blocks away.

Now I'm looking for flights unless someone from the DC area would like to share a car for 9+ hours over 560 miles.

Looking forward to it!

The Fields Where the Giant Mushrooms Grow

Here's a little Friday fun for you.

Pay a visit to this link.

At first glance, this looks like a picture of Mars taken from orbit. Zoom out a little and you are looking at a geeky part of Cold War history.

These are the Fields Where the Giant Mushrooms Grow. This is the Nevada Test Site where the USA tested nuclear weapons in underground detonations. These craters are nuclear blast craters from these subterranean explosions.

There are hundreds of them. The USA went to underground testing after atmospheric testing was banned during the 1960s.

Just one of those history buff, geeking out kind of things you might like.

A Most Wonderful Day of the Year

Ahh, the smell of cordite on the breeze, the clang of ammo cans, the feel of cold steel chilled by a November wind.

You guessed it...

Today begins the last gun show of the year. This is the big one, the one I love. The Nation's Gun Show in Chantilly, VA. You know you're a gun nut when you mark the passage of time through the year in quarterly sections demarcated by when the gun show comes to town.

I have received my most stern warning. I am not to bring home more projectile flingers without consulting the powers-that-be. I am permitted, however, to indulge myself within reason since the gun show for me is what an afternoon at Nordstrom is for her. It all evens out in the end.

A mere six hours to go. And like a kid at Christmas/Hannukah, I have my list. Here is what I am going to be after.

Ammunition:

• 60-120 rounds of 6.5x55mm Swedish
• 60-120 rounds of 7.5mm Swiss (GP11)
• 140-280 rounds of 7.62x51mm NATO (South African battlepacks)
• 100-200 rounds of 7.62x39mm
• Up to 500 rounds of 5.56x45mm (.223)

Priority is given to the 6.5mm and .308 NATO. Everything else is at whim and opportunity.

Accessories:

This trip is for cosmetic surgery. I would like to redo my AR-15 to be more fashionable. With that in mind, here are the accessories I am looking for:

• 50-100 .223 stripper clips
• 20-100 7.62x39 stripper clips
• 0.50 caliber, 20mm and 30mm dummy rounds
• 20 round AR-15 magazines
• 20 round AK magazines
• 15 or 25 round PRI 6.8SPC AR-15 magazines
• MOLLE tactical rifle bag in ACU
  

• Carbine-length railed handguard
• Red dot scope, 30mm or larger
• Flip-up rear sight, standard apertures
• Ace ARFX skeleton stock
• Magpul MIAD grip
• Chromed bolt carrier
• AR-15 lower parts set
• Single-point sling

In accessories, quite simply, I am looking to pimp out my AR-15. The rest is just general stuff I want to add. I'd like enough stripper clips on-hand to load up all my loose ammo and pack it into a bandolier for SHTF emergencies. It also helps avoid legal problems since you can't transport loaded magazines in the state of Maryland but strippered ammo is ok. In a grab-and-go situation, grab the bandolier and the vest with the empty magazines and load them up when needed, not until.

And lastly, guns and parts kits are on the wish list. Here is what I would like to bring home if the price is right and I can get permission to do so:

• IMI .308 M1919A4 Browning parts kit
• AK compliance parts

• Spanish FR8 in .308 NATO
• SVD Dragunov
• Springfield M1 Garand
• Springfield 1903A3
• M96 Swedish Mauser

Today is going to be a fun gun day. Sigh, if I had $2000 to spend all at once, I could do it all. Someday...

If you happen to be at the Chantilly Gun Show today, I will be the guy with the black sweater with "Canada" on the front, a black and red backpack and an AR-15 carbine with green furniture/collapsible stock slung across my back. Feel free to say hi!

O'Malley Vetoed on "Sensible" Gun Legislation

I blogged about this issue previously here. From Pro-Gun Progressive, he has the details that the House overrode O'Malley and will allow used police firearms to be turned back into the manufacturer in order to save Marylanders their tax dollars.

We're going to need them as they are working to make Maryand the most heavily taxed state on the East Coast in order to fund their projects.

I'll take small victories. Hopefully others will follow in 2008.

Feeling Like a Sellout

I am upset at the post I made yesterday in response of what would I do if the chips were down and my gun rights were about to depart forever. Essentially, I would comply with the law as written up to and including confiscation.

And for this, I feel absolutely terrible.

As a anonymous voice weeping into the wires here, I still feel a sense of desire for acceptance to others I have never met. The bloggers and readers know who they are. The ones that generously crosslink my little blog on theirs, the ones who read and comment. Who share our common interest. To you, I feel like a traitor.

There are things this medium does not support. You can't look into my eyes and see the nuances and feelings behind the words. Here, there are no subtleties I can express to make you understand my feelings. My words must suffice.

But those words will exist for a very long time, however, and be read by those who aren't as passionate as us and who may draw different conclusions. It is that type of judgment that I can't afford. No matter where my sympathies and feelings lie, they must give way to unpleasant reality.

I am not a citizen of this great nation. If I were, my words would be very different. Unlike you, fellow American, I don't have the luxury of taking for granted rights you were born with. I must earn each and every one of them. And my final receipt of those rights in the form of citizenship can only come at the hands of the government. Until that day, my life here and the rights and freedoms I do enjoy are solely at the whim of that government.

I am held to very high standards as a potential citizen. Things that would earn you a slap on the wrist would get me deported. I have no choice but to comply and if necessary, go overboard to ensure compliance. I can't afford the loss of which I have spent the past decade working towards.

I want to be a citizen of this nation. As such, I have to obey. If they passed a law tomorrow that stripped me of the highest rights I have to exercise, my 2nd Amendment rights, I would have no choice but to comply.

You most likely don't have a dossier with the FBI. You aren't known to numerous government agencies by a name and a number that tells the story of your entire life (other than your SSN). I do have such a number. A number that marks me as not one of you and opens me up to increased scrutiny every time it is asked for. That feeling of being a second-class citizens with rights that are really privileges is sometimes hard to live with. Even free of the shackles of modern indentured servitude, I am still not truly free.

Imagine if you had to walk into an office tomorrow and justify your American citizenship, your birthright, to a strange official who doesn't know anything about you. And couldn't care less about you, your life, your job, your family or your interests. All they are interested in is determining by their own criteria is whether you are worthy of keeping the rights you have and as a result, determine your entire future in this country.

You'd be appalled at having to do so. It is almost beyond comprehension that you would have to justify to someone rights you were born with. Imagine having to earn the right to vote. Imagine having to wait years to earn your 2nd Amendment rights. Imagine your rights to travel being removed and having to ask permission of the Government every time you wanted to leave the country.

I don't have to. I've lived it.

I feel terrible at having to comply. I feel like I let fellow gun owners and rights supporters down. But I have to. I have to earn what you probably take for granted. As a result, the rights I do have I cherish greatly. The right to keep and bear arms and eventually, the right to vote, the option to serve the United States mean more to me than you can possibly imagine. Not long ago, I didn't even have them. Now I do. So I value them greatly and will do almost anything to keep myself from losing them.

When I meet you in person, if you'll let me come along, you will be able to understand. There is more to this than I can say and I will leave it at that. Until then, all I feel like doing is burying my head in the sand in shame.

What Would I Do?

Well, the post I was working on just got punted for a later date. Joe Huffman and Sebastian started it and we're all piling on. I'll save my thought exercise for a future date and chime in my thoughts on the subject.

The topic of discussion is what would you do if gun confiscation actually happened in this country. If they really went and said "Turn them all in.". As always, it brings out some wondeful comments. Some would turn them in, ammo first, others would comply and hide an off-the-books gun for a rainy day for when the Second American Revolution was underway and join in.

As Joe says, much of this is a victory in the mind, a fantasy to placate ourselves. At the end of it all, the vast majority of us would comply. Why? Joe points to the answer on his own postings on the subject and it is a simple answer. We would comply because we are law-abiding citizens and would wish to remain so. Our own strong moral imperatives instilled in us since childhood cause us to want to do the right thing even if we would find compliance morally repugnant or distasteful.

Because of our desire to stay within the bounds of the law in order to preserve our rights/privileges, we would obey. After all, we can't be agents for change in a legal sense if we ourselves aren't law-abiding in our own right. Any standing you would have in the gun rights community, especially at the political level, would be immediately lost if it were revealed you had been convicted of a firearms related offense no matter how trivial. So we avoid it all cost.

Now more down-to-earth: What would I do?

I would comply within the letter of the law.

Let me state for the record that I tend towards the "cold, dead hands" mentality and ideals. I do believe the right of self-defense is absolute and that citizens should be allowed to pursue legal, if politically incorrect for the times, activities unmolested.

Having said that, if I received notice or a knock on my door to turn in X, Y and Z guns because they had been banned and subject to confiscation, I would turn them in. If the police showed up with 6 4473 forms in their hands, the 6 firearms on those forms would be leaving with them.

Yes, I would be mad as hell. I find the idea of "ex post facto" laws and the subsequent taking of property under them to be a flagrant undercutting the of the ideals this nation is founded upon. But I would comply. As I state above, my moral compass would demand it of me.

With a caveat, I will do what is required of me under the letter of the law. I will not offer up information against my own self-interest or assist those empowered with enforcing it beyond what I have to. If I don't have to let them in and just bring the guns to them, that is what I will do.

Allow me an example of what I mean and this is a present situation.

Maryland has registration for handguns and certain classes of long guns and I own both types. If you purchase such a gun in this state, your gun is automatically registered with the State Police. You have no choice in the matter. And the law doesn't allow a Maryland resident to purchase these regulated firearms out-of-state unless they are transferred to an in-state dealer to be subject to the Maryland waiting period and aforementioned registration.

What about if you move into Maryland from another state like Virginia without such laws? Unlike California, you can move into Maryland possessing firearms that would normally be subject to registration by the State.

Except in that case, there is an exemption crafted into the law. If you owned or possessed handguns or these certain long guns prior to moving into the state, you don't have to register them with the State Police. You have the option to do so but only a moron would do so if they had a choice in the matter.

When I moved here, I went to find out if I had a choice because the information on the State Police website was somewhat contradictory on the requirements.

During this process, I made it clear to my fiancee that if I had to register my guns with the State of Maryland, they would not be entering the State of Maryland. This she couldn't understand. You see, I abhor gun registration. I abhor it on principle and I will do things strictly on principle even if I find it damn inconvenient.

If my guns were subject to registration in Maryland, I would leave them out of Maryland. Not one word would be spoken if I had to rent a storage unit somewhere to store them or leave them with a friend. She felt my willingness to do this to be out-of-proportion to the nature of the act. Just submit to registration and save the money but at the same time, if keeping them out-of-state made me happy on principle, so be it.

As long as I had a choice of what law I had to comply with, I will take the one that doesn't place me in the position to do so. I would not register my guns with the state as long as there was always an option not to do so no matter what it took. Even if the guns had to stay in a safe 1000 miles away in the wildness, registration would not happen as long as I could stop it.

As it turned out, such registration is voluntary for such "out-of-state" legally acquired guns prior to moving into the State. So the guns came with me and the State has no idea I have them unless they get their hands on the 4473s used in purchasing them from their state of origin.

But I do have one gun the State does know about. Because I purchased it after I moved here and I complied with the letter of the law. And if they came for it, they would get it.

As a potential future citizen of this country, I will not break the law even if it conflicts with my principles. But as long as there is a choice to me to do so by not complying here by doing something somewhere else, I will. Short of Federal confiscation and registration that was funded and enforced equally on all the States, I will comply with the law until I run out of options.

At its simplest, if the gun can be legally stored elsewhere when they come for it, it will be elsewhere. If the law doesn't include accessories or ammo, they don't get those. Those will be elsewhere as well. If the law specifies these as well, whatever is on their list, they will get it.

I will follow the letter of the law.

Does this make me a sellout? No, I don't think so. At some point, the law may take things from you but your principles remain. I would rather stand disarmed knowing I gave it my all to prevent it right up to the edges of the law. If I have to make the police and officials run rings across several States to find the stuff they are looking for, so be it. My attitude is they've earned it. I'm not going to make it easy on them and if I consume their time and our tax dollars to make it happen, it is worth it.

The only way that would change is if armed insurrection is under way. As to what I would do then, I cannot answer and I don't think any of us can. Circumstances would dictate what we would have to do for ourselves and our families. Even principles and obeying the law may have to give way to survivial issues. If my registered but unconfiscated gun was my only defense against rebels controlling my city, I will probably fight to keep it. Or find a way to keep a gun that legally doesn't exist. Too many scenarios to comtemplate and until faced with the reality, it is a thought exercise only.

I will deeply respect anyone willing to lay their life on the line for their principles. I would do so myself. There are things I feel strongly enough about that I would die for them. If my only option was slavery on my knees and I saw them dragging the chains towards me, yes, I would prefer to die standing up, a smoking rifle next to my body. But it would have to be the concrete slavery that we could see and recognize. A slavery we were fighting against in the purest guerrilla sense.

Same would apply if I was being told, "Convert or die!" in a religious sense. On this, I wouldn't need a revolution. If there was a cleric and his goons on my doorstep delivering me that ultimatum, I guarantee there'd be at least one dead cleric before they got to me. I will not live under theocratic totalitarian rule if I have no other choice. I'll die first and I'll take some of them with me. I'd rather die as the last free man on Earth than be their final convert.

I don't think makes me a traitor to gun rights. It would take extraordinary events for me to break the moral compass that guides me. I'd literally have to have nothing left to lose and no one around me that my actions could affect save for my conscience. As long as there are those who depend on me or care for me, I have to act in a matter beftitting them as well as myself. Even those tax evaders who declared to fight to the death in New Hampshire wound up in handcuffs rather than coffins.

I won't be part of the 5%. I will honor you, remember you and respect you to the ends of the Earth. You will be a martyr to my cause. But I will not be one of you.

I'm sorry.

Ok, I'm Coming Too!

As other bloggers like Ahab and Uncle have posted and noted, the 2A Blog Bash is being organized.

Ok, guys, I'm in.

If you'll let this insignificant foreigner in, I'll be happy to share company with other like-minded folks. And then you can find out if I really say "Eh" in real life. And you'll get to hear what us funny Canadians sound like and hear strange words like "pop", "chesterfield" and possibly see misspelled words like "flavour" and "colour" while we go to the "theatre".

And by the way, Non parlais vous Francais.

Looking forward to it!

Random Nail Biting

This is it, folks. We should find out today whether the Supreme Court will take up Heller vs. DC. For this subject, I volunteer the following mandatory reading:

This One is For All the Marbles by Kevin Baker
Tomorrow is the Big Day by Joe Huffman

I don't have much more to say on the subject at the moment than I've already said and that they don't already cover completely.

Now for some random stuff...

This week is the last big gun show of the year. I'm torn on what to get. I can always use ammo but I don't know whether I want to pimp out one of my AR-15s or pick up an M1919A4 parts kit for a future build. I would really like a semi-auto Browning at some point in my future and I am not above stockpiling and spending a year or two getting there. Problem is, I really can't do both. So $400 for parts kit or set up my AR-15 the way I like? Or get a 6.8SPC upper? Decisions, decisions! Damn you, gun show!

I had yesterday off for Veteran's Day. November 11, Remembrance Day as we call it in Canada, is a bittersweet day for me. It has always been a significant holiday for me since I was a child. Schools have always had the assembly for two minutes of silence on the 11th minute of the 11th hour of the 11th day to honor our war dead. I always regret not having a red poppy to wear on that day and I do make it a point of thanking a soldier if I bump into one on that day.

It is a bittersweet day for me now because November 11th was the day my grandfather died three years ago. I always wish I could be home on that day to go to the cemetery with my Mom to place a flag on his grave. On the other hand, it is a fitting date for him since he was a veteran of World War II and I think if you were going to chose a day to die as such, November 11th would be a good one. So a little depressed for me on Sunday because I was aware of the date and could do nothing.

And lastly, my fiancee decides she is going to wear a really nice pair of boots to a meeting yesterday despite her foot troubles. She had foot surgery a couple months ago and has been technically forbidden from wearing heels and tight shoes. But she decided these were what she just had to wear.

I warned her, "Your feet are going to be killing you later and I don't want to hear it when they do.".

Her reply, "These are $325 boots and they look fantastic! I don't care about my feet.".

Apparently fashion is more important than comfort. I, of course, did hear about it later and grumbled through her foot massage since she had brought it on herself.

Note the price: $325. She complains I have expensive hobbies but I don't wander around in $300+ pairs of shoes. I noted to her that I have only 5 guns that cost more than $325. The vast majority are far less than $325. She has a few pairs of shoes in this price range so I think we're even now.

The difference being that guns are optional, shoes are mandatory.

I'll leave you to ponder how many guns you might own that cost less than a good pair of women's shoes.

More to come. Thanks for stopping by!

Follow-Up to What If We Lose?: Overly Optimistic

An hour after I made the post below, Arms and the Law posted an unpublished 6th Circuit decision that took a collective rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Sebastian posted his views on this and the more I think about, the more I believe I am being overly optimistic as Sebastian states.

It's in my nature that in the end, right will prevail. If anything, it is my greatest flaw. I recognize that opinions will shift and the wind won't always blow my way by overall, a proper and right balance is generally achieved. Some out-of-whack situations may only last a few years. Others, like gun rights, may take decades to correct.

One of the central pillars of the American system of government is that the Courts exist to correct the overreaching and errors of the legislative and executive branches. Any excesses these groups indulge in were meant to be corrected by men and women of the bench sitting about the fray and do what the law commands, not the what minions in power at the time desire.

At least, that's what I thought until reading the 6th Circuit opinion. If the standard applied in this opinion becomes the standard by which possession of arms would be evaluated in a collective rights model, Sebastian is right, we don't have the right anymore. It will be a privilege that will exist for us at the whim of the Government at all levels.

The standard applied by the 6th is excerpted from the decision as follows:

[26] As a threshold matter, [a defendant making a Second Amendment claim] must show that (1) he is part of a state militia; (2) the militia, and his participation therein, is "well regulated" by the state; (3) machineguns are used by that militia; and (4) his possession of the machinegun was reasonably connected to his militia service.

Substitute "arms" for "machineguns" in the above for a moment.

The 6th Circuit concluded, based on this test, that since the defendant in question was in possession of machineguns that were not needed by the State Militia (under their own stated policies and state law itself), he could make no successful claim that his possession of them was "reasonably connected to his militia service".

In addition, the State Militia used semi-auto converted full-auto M16 rifles for familiarization but not as a standard issue item. Despite the fact that under present BATFE regulations such rifles are considered machine guns under a civilian standard of possession, they could easily exempt them from that standard as they were being used in a military capacity and not subject to NFA'34 or FOPA'86/Hughes standards and make the answer of machine guns connected to service in the militia be "No". Don't you love having two standards: one for us and one for the "Only Ones"?

What if we apply this test to arms in general if we use the argument that our personal possession of "arms" would be connected to militia service? This is logical extension of the sawed-off shotgun argument raised in Miller'39.

On the surface, our argument has merit. It wouldn't be a leap for us to use the confusion over "assault weapons" (cosmetics) for us to argue that an AR-15 was intended to be suitable for militia service to someone unfamiliar with arms. For once, VPC garbage works in our favor. Just have to show someone a picture of a soldier carrying an M-16 and our AR-15 lookalike.

This would work right up until we bump into the 6th Circuit. Because the defendant's own State Militia in this case did not require and, in fact, forbade the use of personal arms in its service on penalty of court martial, our argument as rights supporters that a "collective rights" interpretation would allow our possession of certain protected arms goes right out the window.

All the militia has to do is say they don't want us to use our own guns and, poof, we can never satisfy the 10th Circuit test cited. It becomes a game of circular logic and one we would never be able to win. Just as what happened to the defendant in this case. He was able to met the first two tests but failed the third because the State Militia said "no personal arms". As a result, the fourth test could not possibly be argued successfully. And he had meet all four in order to prevail. It was impossible for him to do so.

Sebastian is right. If things go this way, our "right to keep and bear arms" has well and truly been turned into a Government granted privilege courtesy of the Court system and subject to any regulation or restriction that could be thought up and passed. Up to and including full confiscation.

Your hunting rifle would not be protected.

Your target rifle would not be protected.

Your handgun would not be protected.

Your "assault weapon" would not be protected.

Your NFA firearm would not be protected.

It wouldn't matter about any American tradition of arms. If the politicians decided you didn't deserve to have them, they'll ban them and then take them. They might let you keep a few for a while until the next Virginia Tech, Dunblane or Columbine and then they'll come for those too.

The 6th Circuit decision makes me feel that cold pit of fear in my stomach that the gun controllers must have felt when the District decided to move forward with the appeal to SCOTUS. At least with the present status quo on gun rights/gun control, ground could be gained or lost in small increments. But as long as the conflict remained, both sides could fight over small pieces and both be victorious at the same time.

A collective rights test changes all that. It would be a victory for gun control to be sure and it would destroy them in the end as well. Once things had gone their way, their role would diminish since the Government would simply carry out their directives and be done with it in line with the Court's interpretation. Over time, there would be no need for the VPC, BC or Joyce Foundation to exist. They wouldn't need to.

For the first time, I'm scared. It has been an article of faith that even in a worst case, the 2nd Amendment would protect something. The reading of the 6th Circuit decision changes all that because it opens the possibility that the Court could well go in this direction.

We find out next week.

Interesting times indeed.

What If We Lose?

With the Supreme Court deciding today whether on not to grant cert on Heller vs. DC, the thinking comes around to the outcome if they do decide to hear the case.

If they decide not to hear, that's a victory. Enough said.

Where it gets interesting is the speculation on what the outcome will be if they do opt to hear it. It is pretty much a given among rights supporters that the Court will find in favor of an individual rights view even if they have to craft decision narrowly to avoid upsetting the national applecart.

What I've been finding myself wondering is what alot of us haven't talked about: What if we lose?

What if the Court supports a collective rights view of the States to form militias that doesn't apply the right to bear arms to specific individuals?

It's a possibility and one we have to acknowledge. I find myself wondering where it will lead.

First off, I don't think it will be an immediate catastrophe. Most certainly the media and the blogosphere will be buzzing and there will be many, many, many pissed-off gun owners. But once the outrage and vitriol die down, we will begin to settle into this new world.

Strangely, the world looks much the same as it does now. All that will be done immediately by a collective rights ruling is our inability to look to the Federal Government for help. The law of the land will be the same as it is today. Set at State and local level.

Gun laws won't change. The status quo remains. For a while, at least.

The longer term picture gets more interesting. For States with traditional anti-gun biases, they will be emboldened. They will see such a ruling as a green light to do as they will and their constituents won't be able to fight above them to stop it. Expect places like California, Illinois, Massachussets and New Jersey to go completely out of control within a few years.

On the opposite side, I expect strong pro-gun states to either maintain and reiterate their freedom stances. But not all. I suspect some States may try to go the route of the Blues and begin to introduce new regulations now that a big plank has been removed from their citizens to fight it.

Over time, I can easily see the country dividing up along freedom/socialism lines far more stark than it is today.

Gun control groups would feel themselves back in the driver's seat and may actually gain support in the wake of such a ruling. It would be one of their wildest dreams come true, after all, and it would vindicate them.

This is a wildcard in all of this in a post-collective rights world: Us.

You see, the average gun owner will hear about it and probably shrug it off. But over the coming months or next few years, they will see the encroachment begin and it may involve them for the first time where generations of gun control had passed them by.

Affect enough of these people and suddenly they are going to get involved. And for a lot of the more vocal rights supporters but who actually don't do anything when the chips are down, it will probably get them off the fence. Backed by the aforementioned pissed-off right supporters, I would expect their to be citizen involvement in the gun issue like there never has before.

I would also expect to see the NRA engaging in its biggest fund raising drive in its history. A loss at the Federal level would mean it would have to pull out all the stops and begin to fight hard at the State and local levels. In fact, I could imagine their membership demanding it.

We would be organizing to vote anti-gun politicians out of office in droves. Political suicide wouldn't cover it. We would be demand gun rights as a campaign issue and make sure those promises were kept. It would involve us in the political process front-and-center. In my home state, it would bring the gun owners out to try and save themselves. In somewhere like Virginia, I could easily see a gun control politician in conservative area being run out of town on a rail. Or anti-gun politicians winning massive victories in sympathetic areas.

On the other hand, I could also see this backfiring on the gun control groups in a big way.

You see, their contention has been the 2nd supports the idea that States have the right to form militias from their local populations as needed. It is logical to conclude that arms protected by the 2nd would be the ones suitable for militia service. Of course, what these groups don't say is the fact they would expect such arms to be provided by the State and not by the individuals themselves. A collective body of troops, organized and armed by the States.

But if the Court sees differently and says that certain arms would be protected for individuals serving in a militia, real fun would ensue. You could have no "assault weapon" bans anymore. Handguns would also be safe as would certain sniper (read: hunting) rifles. Not all arms to be sure and a lot of the arms most people see as their birthright could be subject to restriction.

But, of course, you need a militia for these individuals to serve in in order to possess these protected arms. What if a collective rights view leads us rights supporters to demand our States organize and train us as the militia? Properly and fully as envisioned by the Founders and within the confines of the Courts ruling?

Gun laws could fall as a result. They'd have to. You could carve exceptions out of NFA'34. All in the name of us preserving our collective ability to form and serve in a militia.

Don't tell me for an instant that enough of us wouldn't be lobbying our State legislatures to do this. I know I would and I am pretty sure a lot more would follow. We'd form the "militia loophole". And when the gun control groups scream about having to do something about, we can point to the Supreme Court as our defender. If a militia is the way we need to follow in order to preserve gun ownership, I predict a lot of demand for the States to "do something".

I could see the landscape from a gun ownership perspective becoming vastly different. And I don't think it will be a good one from the gun control perspective nor one we will like from a rights perspective. Time would tell.

Or maybe the Federal level will use the impetus to push through sweeping gun control and bans nationwide, Heller be damned. And then we just might see the biggest legislative fight between politicians and their constiuents that will make the illegal immigration fiasco seem like a bad game of pattycake. Using legislative means to gut court rulings works both ways. We could use a defeat to galvanize us to actually gather immense numbers to the fight. It might take years for it to happen as challenges wind their way through the Courts but eventually, an equilibrium would have to emerge.

Or we could all be disarmed and be powerless to stop it. Especially if such a ruling came as Hillary Clinton and Democratic majorities take over in 2008. They could try for it.

Many say that America could never be disarmed. The gun is too entrenched in our culture. Perhaps for this generation. Maybe it might lead to pockets of armed insurrection and resistance. Maybe there would be widespread civil disobedience to registration or "turn them in" orders. Maybe there might be a run on post diggers and 6 inch PVC pipe.

It also might our turning point. Conversely, it might be the start of our demise.

Just remember, we can lose. What happens then will be the interesting part.

Quote of the Day

Marko has a wonderful post discussing State's Powers, not Rights as he explains and the role of government. As usual, it is a great read.

In the comments though, comes my favorite anonymous comment:

it makes me wonder why people put so much faith into local government when they have such distrust of the federal bureaucracy.

The locals are within rifle range and less likely to forget that.

Ah, if only we could remind my legislators of that fact in Annapolis using AR-15s and Surefires as the modern day equivalent of pitchforks and torches.

Wishing for an Apocalypse

Ever find yourself wishing for an apocalypse?

There are days I look around and despair of ever seeing any meaningful change in my lifetime. Just more "me, me, me" culture, nanny-state intrusions into our lives, more Government regulation to the point that our rights exist in name only and the final turning of the key on the invisible shackles that control us. And as a result, find yourself wishing for some catastrophe to give us a chance to start over.

You wonder sometimes if you'd have the mettle to survive in a world dominated by force and chaos. Or you might wonder if you have the dedication to use force and build a new society in an acceptable form to you. Wondering if you could actually pull it off.

It's a very anti-establishment, anti-civilization, survivalist mindset and I'm not prone to it often. But there are days I look around and think, "You know, I could find a way to manage without a car, my soft bed, modern conveniences, computers, iPods and the like if it came down it.". And then wish it might happen if for no other reason that to let Nature prune away those who have screwed things up so badly to let you have that chance to start over.

I subscribe to certain views esposed by Heinlein. One of which is to take a leap of faith and do something to prove to myself that I could. "To be a man. Not an economic consuming animal, but a man.". It has manifested itself in me in my desire to give back in civic and duty sense. I've discussed that desire in the past in looking at joining the National Guard and I've been dissuaded from it by those I love and those I trust. But you still find yourself wondering if you're capable of it.

It's a very depressing thing to think about. To briefly wish for calamity and destruction. To believe that such circumstances would be better than the boring, drone like existence you feel you lead from time-to-time. To feel your life lacking and wanting more if for no other reason than to feel free.

An apocalypse would bring you freedom, assuming you survived the initial stages of whatever form it might take. Suddenly your worries about making your house or car payment, juggling your hectic schedule, when you're going to fix that leaky roof, all fall by the wayside. You are reduced to essentials. Find food, find shelter, protect yourself and those around you, find a way to make it day by day. Preferably from a position from strength because you don't want to be the one screaming skyward or to the absent Government for a handout that will never come. You want to be the one to make it and persevere to the coming of the next Golden Age. Preferably as one of its architects.

That is true freedom. The freedom to do anything because you've lost everything. As the movie Terminator 2 says, "There is no fate but what you make for yourselves.".

It's amazing how cold and dispassionate you can be, sitting in your warm truck stuck in traffic and letting your thoughts wander into such cruel places. I suspect there are those out there reading this who would think me in need of deep mental health treatment to combat such thoughts in my idle moments. I don't think so.

I think having the imagination to conceive of such terrible and dark things is the sign of a healthy psyche. One willing and able to face the challenges and onslaughts of life because of the ability to contemplate outcomes vastly more terrible. It helps to keep situations as they arise in perspective. There could always be something worse.

Most of us just don't think about it aloud most of the time.

That is what I thought of this morning. Make of it what you will.

Some Reading for You While I Get My Thoughts in Order

There is so much I want to write and talk about right now but I can't keep it all straight. In the interim, here are some good reads for the day.

New Jovian Thunderbolt has a nice little piece on voting. I have a little controversial thunder I would like to add to this topic at a later date.

Kevin Baker comments a little bit on the Finnish school shooting. Want any predictions on hoping common sense breaks out over there when the furor dies down? He does a nice little job at showing how some people are just plain idiots when it comes to guns and other societies.

Mrs. Kim du Toit has a new essay up. I will let it stand on its own. It'll make you think and probably piss you off a little bit at the same time.

Jeff Soyer has a beautiful piece on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. The quotes alone are worth linking this for future reference. Great stuff!

And lastly, Sebastian has a piece up (crosslinked from Jeff) regarding Parker (Heller) and the NRA's attempts to scuttle the case. I definitely want to comment on the possible outcome of Heller should the Court grant cert.

Enjoy! More will follow.

O'Malley and "Police Weapons"

Courtesy of Maryland Shooters comes this article from WJZ.com on news that the Maryland Senate is planning to override Governor Martin O'Malley's veto of a bill that would permit Maryland police departments to sell or trade their weapons back to the manufacturer.

O'Malley vetoed the bill with this message:

...O'Malley stated that "police weapons should not be potentially made available outside of the law enforcement community."

O'Malley is clueless and worse, dangerous, when it comes to guns in the State.

And he's being complete idiot on this topic and it shows he thinks only the police should have guns.

Hey O'Malley, what exactly is a "police weapon"? Is that your contribution to the "patrol rifle" subset of terminology that has arisen.

Got news for you, Teflon Leprechaun, there is no difference between your so-called "police weapon" and the same gun in the hands of a civilian. If the gun is on the Maryland Handgun Roster and a cop carries it, so can I (within my own home at least).

You want to know what he is objecting to? Police departments saving taxpayer money. The article references current law...

The current state law requires police departments to either destroy the guns or sell them only to another police agency or an active or retired officer.

The only way a police department can presently recoup costs on officer firearms is to sell them to another agency or sell them an officer that carried it. Obviously, this is very hit-or-miss and severely limits the potential market.

The change in the law that O'Malley vetoed would save taxpayers money because it would allow agencies to trade the guns back to a manufacturer (not necessarily the maker of the guns either) in exchange for a discount on new weapons. The traded guns would then be the property of manufacturer to do with as they please. They generally do one of two things: destroy the guns or refurbish them for sale.

That second item is what O'Malley has his panties in a wad about. The possibility that these remade guns could be made available for civilian sale! Heaven forbid, a gun maker actually selling used guns to the public! Except they won't be, you idiot, unless they are shipped to a licensed dealer and sold under normal firearms regulations.

There is no special "manufacturer selling loophole" here. If the company wants to sell used guns to us peons, they have to do it through dealers and in compliance with Maryland law. There will no sudden surge of "guns on the streets".

What this single, small issue reveals is O'Malley's stance towards Maryland gun owners. He doesn't see us as responsible citizens but serfs to be controlled from on high. And guns in our hands it not something he likes.

We need to make sure that any anti-gun bills get stopped cold in the House or Senate this upcoming year, folks. Because O'Malley is no friend to gun owners and could be the end of gun rights in Maryland.

Get ready for 2008, Marylanders, it's going to be rough.

Part 2 of 2: Building the Zackmaster

This is the second post on my discussion regarding World War Z. In my previous post, we discussed zombie battle doctrine. This post deals the history of the great emancipator: the Standard Infantry Rifle (S.I.R for short). This is a follow up to this previous post about the SIR.

This is what books, firearms knowledge and an overactive imagination will do to you. Put simply, I am out of musings land here. I am working out what exactly what form the SIR would be in if it were to exist.

And trying to figure out how to make it exist because I think if such a rifle existed, there would be a market for it.

If for no other reason than to own a rifle with carved relief in the stock for "Zackmaster" along with a carving of a member of the undead. If we can engrave commemorative lever actions from the Civil War and M1 Garands from World War 2, I think a commemorative SIR "Zackmaster" rifle would sell in brisk numbers to an eager populace.

If I manage to develop some artistic talent, I'll try for a sketch of what I am about to describe.

Here is the form I think the SIR would take.

The Standard Infantry Rifle is a semi-automatic only, gas-operated, magazine fed carbine chambered for the 5.56mm NATO and PIE round. It is bedded in an all wood stock with the barrel free-floated forward of the action. It is equipped with standard 100/300 meter selectable rear aperture peep sights and a front hooded sight. It has a flash hider/muzzle compensator on the end of the barrel as well as an 8 inch spike bayonet that folds under the barrel when not in use.

The qualities of the SIR rifle are described in the history of World War Z. It is speculated it is based on the AK-47 or even the XM-8. Based on what little information is provided, I make the follow speculations and observations about the S.I.R.

First, choice of ammunition.

The choice of the 5.56mm round isn't ideal but look at the mission. Accurate headshots on Zack at 100 yards. Even excluding the enhanced post-death lethality of the PIE (pyrotechnically initiated explosive) round that cooks Zack's mutated brain crispy, the 5.56mm possesses the requisite accuracy the anti-Zack mission requires in standard FMJ form.

Honestly, this is a case where a bigger round meant to stop or do massive trauma isn't your friend. The 7.62x39mm round lacks tight accuracy at 100 yards and although the 7.62x51 NATO would work, it really is overkill. You need to get the round onto a small target at short range consistently. Out of the box, 5.56mm does it. It may do a marginal job on breathing humans but on shambling Zack, it's permanently immobilizing.

Remember the first rule of zombie hunting: Kill the brain and you kill the ghoul. To do this you need to park a round in said ghoul's brainpan with regular consistency. Say what you want about the "poodle shooter" but the one thing it is known for is its ability, out of the right rifle, to leave one small ragged hole an inch wide at 50 yards or more marking the passage of 20 rounds rather than 20 holes scattered over several inches.

Plus, from a logistics standpoint during the resource-poor time of World War Z, there were millions of rounds available from surviving stocks. With the USA isolated like everyone else, we had to go with what we had. In the Holy Russian Empire, they used WW2 surplus Mosin-Nagants with decades-old ammunition. Why? Same reason we used the 5.56mm: They had millions of them sitting gathering dust in warehouses since Stalingrad.

In the end, there is no point in arguing about it since history shows that is what we used. Anything else is mere speculation or someone looking to start a flame war. And we know how well fire worked against Zack. With the reasons for the choice of ammunition laid out, let's move on to the design of the S.I.R. itself.

Many historians believe the SIR had its origins in the AK-47 or XM-8. Although we know that it certainly drew from various firearm designs out there, I honestly believe its designers probably owned a few SKS rifles at some point. From the standpoint of building a solid, rugged and reliable rifle, the SKS is a much better rifle to be inspired from.

The rifle itself has bits and pieces from existing rifles. Although people curse this, we did reuse AR-15/M-16 components in the SIR. With modification, of course.

There were two reasons we stopped using the AR-15/M-16 rifle in sustained anti-Zack operations. One was practical: the lack of armorers. Skilled labor was in short supply and a lot of those with knowledge on keeping these rifles in good repair simply disappeared into Zack's ranks. Later programs corrected this but for a long time, the man or woman who could maintain the Army's rifles was worth their weight in food.

The second reason we all know. The AR-15/M-16 was prone to fouling and jamming over long periods of sustained fire. The thin gas tube and the bolt simply couldn't take the sustained abuse even with our troops maintaining the rifles properly. Which they certainly did to the best of their ability. This isn't to say the M-16 was immediately discarded. It wasn't and served admirably in the defensive time and the opening stages of our offensive against Zack. But it was a headache, it was a resource consumer and we needed something better.

Next let us move on to the heart of the rifle: the S.I.R action.

The receiver is made of milled steel. It is square in cross-section with cutouts at the bottom for the magazine well and trigger. The sides are drilled for trigger group components, rail positions, ejector port and cocking lever. The top is open to ease manufacture and accepts a simple receiver cover. It terms of appearance, very little was done on the finish other than paint. Why waste resources on smoothing and shaping? Just a serial number and marks for the selector switch. All were embossed onto the receiver with simple hammer blows .

The serial number itself is an interesting piece of historical trivia. It consisted of a three letter code for where the rifle was made (assigned by DetStRes) and the number itself was the date of manufacture and the # of the rifle that day. For example, a highly sought-after Honolulu made S.I.R would have the code 'HIH', say a date of 20140521 and a number of 0032. The whole serial number would be HIH210405210032. This would have been the 32nd rifle to be completed at the Honolulu armory on May 21st, 2014. A very collectible rifle indeed.

The heart of any rifle is its action. Let's examine the one on the S.I.R.

The S.I.R uses a lever-delayed blowback system such as that found in the French FAMAS or TKB-517 assault rifle. Given the trend towards gas-piston based systems in military rifles before the war, this choice is unusual. But like all things, it was done for two good reasons: cost and simplicity.

The following illustrates how the system works (click image below to see how the action works):


There are fewer parts in the lever-based delayed blowback system. No gas piston or springs to make. Also, the bolt design can use a simple, flat breech face with no locking lugs. The mechanism operates solely by the gas pressure against the case while the bullet in still traveling down the bore.

This system dramatically reduces the complexity of the design from a manufacturing standpoint. The pieces are easy to make and are relatively square in cross-section. With the exception of the timing grooves and the lever itself requiring some careful shaping, the parts are easy to turn out from basic machine shops.

Furthermore, the system lends itself to high accuracy since the barrel can be free-floated. The guide rod for the lever block can be isolated through the receiver and never contact the barrel. Given the need for high one-shot-kill probability on Zack, this is a very desirable attribute.

The fire control group is borrowed from the AR-15 pattern rifle. It's simple, proven and there are tons of spare parts available to service the rifles. Newer S.I.R rifles used a lighter trigger spring to reduce the trigger pull to 4 pounds. Early rifles retained the standard M-16/AR-15 heavy trigger pull.

Also common is the magazine. The magazines are modified with a groove in the back to allow for an AK-47 style magazine catch. A simple cut in the back of the magazine in a jig and it is usable in the S.I.R with the added bonus it remains compatible with existing M-16 pattern rifles.

A short recoil spring allows the bolt to be cycled once the lever has fully unlocked and the bolt is free to travel. The upper bolt carrier hooks to the bolt by simple latches such as those found on the SKS and a cocking handle is screwed into the right side of the carrier. Unlike the M-16/AR-15, there is no bolt hold open device. Doctrine enforces steady counting of shots and soldiers are trained to pull the magazine at their 30th shot.

The guide rod for the bolt carrier slides into a sleeve that is threaded onto the receiver above the barrel. There is a small spring in the sleeve to allow the bolt carrier to assist with cycling in a "pull forward" manner and to ensure positive sealing of the breech against the back of the chamber.

A receiver cover fits on top of the receiver via retaining pins which lock into place such as those found on HK rifles. The rear sight is attached to the aft of the receiver cover and is a dual aperture design. It has two settings: 100 and 300 meters and is adjustable for elevation and windage in 1/4" increments. Of all the parts of the S.I.R, the rear sight is the most precise component on the entire rifle and the most difficult to make.

The front of the receiver is drilled and threaded to accept the barrel.

The S.I.R barrel is available in three types: urban pacification, carbine and marksman and vary only in lengths of 10.5, 16 and 24 inches respectively. The barrel itself is made of stainless steel with no additional finish. Why finish the barrel when Zack doesn't care? The rifles were regularly maintained by the troops so corrosion was not a major issue.

All barrels have a 1:9 twist rate, the basic standard for the M-16/AR-15. The profile of the barrel is straight with no taper from chamber to muzzle and is a little over an inch in diameter throughout. This makes it a "heavy bull barrel" by civilian standards and was done for heat dissipation and to minimize distortion under constant firing. Some S.I.R barrels were fluted to improve their cooling ability but this was not commonplace. The barrel itself was rated for 20,000 rounds of steady fire before noticeable impacts on accuracy began to be seen.

The barrel contains the chamber and the ammunition feed ramp as a single unit. The barrel attached to the receiver by simple threading. Contrary to popular belief, the S.I.R did not use a quick-detach system for the barrel to allow for quick swap out from one profile to another. The choice of barrel configuration was determined by the mission and role of the unit involved and such a change would be done by the troopers themselves in their lagers and camps prior to moving out.

The barrel has a flange with catches to accept the barrel wrench. At the bottom of the flange is a larger cut for the barrel retaining screw and there is an index mark on the back of the chamber face that matches a similar mark on the inside of the receiver. To affix the barrel, it is simply screwed into the receiver until the outside flange is flush with the receiver surface. This places the cutout for the retaining screw just short of its alignment and the inside index mark is likewise offset. The trooper then uses the barrel wrench to turn the barrel until the inside mark and outside cut are lined up. An allen screw is threaded into the outside through the retaining cutout and snugged down. This screw prevents the barrel from rotating under fire. The barrel was designed so that the tug needed to bring it into line ensures it is at the proper torque.

With a little bit of practice, a soldier could swap a cold barrel for another in under two minutes. Standard issue to a soldier were 1 urban warfare barrel, 2 carbine barrels (one fitted to the rifle), 1 marksman barrel, the barrel wrench and four spare retaining screws. Two carbine barrels were issued and were expected to be swapped between missions to keep wear even.

The front sight is integral to the barrel. It is a simple tapered post design and is fixed to the barrel. It is not adjustable for windage and elevation. All adjustments were done at the rear sight. A hood over the front sight allows for a better sight picture not unlike that found in a competition target rifle. All barrels are also equipped with a flash hider threaded onto the end which can be removed and replaced with a suppressor as needed.

The bayonet mount is integral to the barrel and is virtually identical in design to the spike bayonet found on pre-war Chinese SKS rifles right down to the locking latch and swivel assembly. The bayonet itself is round in section and is called informally "Sternhauer's Spike" after one of the S.I.R's principal designers, Alexia Sternhauer.

A screw retains the bayonet in place and unscrewing it allows the bayonet to be swapped onto the different barrels. All of the barrels are designed to be fired accurately with the bayonet closed.

Lastly, we come to the stock.

Many soldiers compared the S.I.R to the rifles carried by their grandfathers during World War II. High impact plastic was in short supply during our struggle against the undead so we naturally turned to our abundant supplies of wood. This wood gives the S.I.R a traditional look.

However, the gun is modern in ergonomics. The stock is two-piece and most closely resembles experimental stocks fitted to the M14. Unlike traditional hunting stocks, the S.I.R stock has a pistol grip. The stock itself droops slightly to allow for a natural cheek weld that places the shooter's eye naturally behind the rear sight. Given that the S.I.R lacks a recoil buffer system, the mostly inline design of the stock coupled with the grip allows for controlled shooting.

The entire action is bedded into the lower stock and secured with two screws into the fore and aft of the receiver. The stock under the barrel is open to allow the barrel to float free and extends far enough forward to allow for natural support of the rifle with the off-hand. A smaller stock piece fits over the top of the carrier guide rod tube and does not contact the barrel. It is held in place with a barrel band.

All in all, the S.I.R resembles a pre-war target rifle. The shiny stainless steel barrel, hooded sight and modified wood stock lent to this assumption. The presence of the magazine and bayonet tends to jar ones thinking and makes the S.I.R a difficult rifle to classify just like the SKS. In reality, it isn't. It looks like the role it was intended for: a rugged, accurate Zack driver.

Most of the S.I.R parts were cast or forged as local resources permitted. Final shaping was done with available machine tools in well-equipped centers or with hand Dremel tools in smaller batches. It was possible to build an S.I.R completely by hand with the exception of the barrel. Barrels were universally produced at well-equipped armories and production was tightly guarded and controlled. Fortunately, many of the pre-war gun makers had survived in Green Zone territory and their tooling was put to good use.

Today, with the war over and the plans of the S.I.R in the public domain, there is renewed interest in this rifle. Many S.I.Rs remain in service as the standard rifle for domestic "sweep and clear" teams. Others remained in the hands of their users after discharge. In many cases, the Army turned a blind eye to this "walkaway" of their rifles. Many officers considered it a reward for the trooper's service and would be useful in their hands as part of reserve operations post-war. And is.

The S.I.R was amazingly reliable. Despite not being based on an AK action (another myth) and made to tighter tolerances (but not as tight as the M-16/AR-15), it proved remarkably jam free. Like most guns, it didn't like sand but showed a good ability to shake it off in southwestern desert conditions. Unless sand or mud got into the lever pockets, the gun never failed to cycle and fire. With the ejector port cover closed, it wasn't difficult to keep the gun free of debris during routine operations.

With the resurgence of civilian shooting sports in a now peaceful world as well as being the rifle that won the war, many civilian shooters are talking about an S.I.R rifle being made available for sale. Given that the gun was only a semi-automatic design, even if the pre-war old BATFE regulations on arms still existed, the gun is legal for civilian possession. Its well known accuracy and modularity make it a desirable rifle for recreational purposes. For others, they would like a reminder of their days fighting and defeating Zack.

It is hoped that companies like HKAR (Heckler-ArmaLite-Ruger) will produce a commemorative "Zackmaster" rifle for civilian sale. With military orders winding down and sufficient stocks of these rifles in service, such a product would have a welcome following. They already have the tooling and the means.

Build it and we will come.

It would be nice to see "Zackmaster" #1 win at Camp Perry on the zombie silhouettes. It would only be fitting.

The Good and the Bad at the Range

I took the two deer rifle candidates to the range for sight-in last week. One of them you've already met in a previous post, my sporter 6.5mm Swedish Mauser.

Want to talk about happiness? I pick up the 6.5mm and put it on the bag. The last time this rifle was fired it was at 300 yards in a left-to-right 25mph crosswind in the rain. So I knew she was going to need to have some right adjustment dialed in.

So I stand there for a moment and think "I think I dialed in about 3 inches of left adjustment to compensate for the wind. That sounds about right.". So I turn six clicks of right adjustment for windage. That works out to around 3 inches at 300 yards. I load the rifle, steady up on the bag and sight the target in the scope.

The bullet went right through the X in the center. Four more rounds group nicely around this one.

Sight-in adjustments complete. Did I mention how much I LOVE this rifle? She's now zeroed in from 0 to 300 yards and I can write down any changes to the scope going forward to return it to a calm zero. Got to love a rifle that shoots flat to 200 yards and is only slightly high at 300 yards.

Unfortunately, the same sweetness cannot be said of the follow-up rifle, my CETME/HK.

I had done function check and familiarization on this gun previously. I had a scope fitted on a high claw mount and wanted to dial it in for potential Bambi work. So I start with 3-5 round strings. Within 10 shots, she's on the paper at 35 yards. So I move out to 50 yards and begin to fine tune the zero. Another 15 shots or so and she's parking them in a nice 2 inch wide group dead center. Not bad at all for South African military surplus ammo.

So I roll the target in and pull off the scope mount. I want to check if the mount will hold zero if taken off and put back on. When I take the scope mount off, I notice the scope is wiggling. The ring bases have loosened off. Crap. That explains the 2 inch group.

I tighten the rings up with a screwdriver and sigh. Now I need to resight the rifle and see what happened to my zero. By this point, I had fired off the 30 rounds of milsurp ammo I had brought and needed to switch over to the Federal 7.62x51 commercial ammo I had brought along for follow-up shooting. I figured they'd be ballistically close.

Not even. The first rounds went to the left edge of the target and were ragged. So I start my zeroing all over again. Off to the left but on the target at 50 yards I can deal with. Within a few shots, I am back on center. However, the rounds are just going wild. They're on the 8 inch circle I was shooting at but they simply weren't grouping reliably. Some centering, some high and spread evenly across the bull. This ammo just plain sucks.

By about 30 rounds, I'm pissed. This Federal blue box stuff just doesn't seem to be happy in this gun. So I figure I'll bring the target in and fire 10 more or so check grouping on a clean target and call it a night with the CETME.

So I proceed to fire off the remaining rounds in the magazine. And the rifle promptly fails-to-eject.

No biggie. I drop the mag, kick the brass loose and reload. Bang! Another FTE. Round chambered and the bolt is jammed open with the stuck case. Clear the rifle again and reload. Bang! Same thing. By the fifth round, I'd had it and now I am really annoyed. Five failures-to-eject in a row. At this point, I'm concerned that the Federal ammo had damaged the gun somehow. The cases were sooted up something severe. I wasn't sure if this ammo, despite having been marked 7.62x51 on the box, might have been too high a pressure for the gun. I'd read you're not supposed to shoot .308 Winchester in a 7.62x51 NATO chamber. Opinions on this are mixed but I was worried.

My shooting buddy Tom was convinced the gun was just fouled. Possible. Regardless, the gun was packed up and I we switched off to my .22 rifle for the rest of the night.

But the CETME wouldn't shake off me. I knew when I got home I was going to take it apart. There was no way I was going to let that gun sit in the cabinet and gnaw at me. And take it apart is exactly what I did.

Yes, she was fouled up something severe. But this is not unusual in HK delayed roller locking systems. Like the AR-15, they crap where they eat. The chamber face was coated in carbon along with the bolt. A good hour to scrub all that mess out. Bore and chamber looked shiny and smooth. No apparent damage or uneven stress marks on the bolt face or breech block.

The answer to my problem came, as usual, from the Internet. It turns out a failure-to-eject is not an unknown problem in CETME/G3 class rifles. They say to look for the ejector marks on the cases. Thankfully, I had scavenged a bunch of my brass to look for evidence of overpressure. And since the brass got progressively dirtier, I knew which rounds were fired last. Sure enough, this brass lacked the ejector marks of the earlier rounds.

There are two causes for a failure-to-eject in a G3 type gun. The first is the rounding of the top of the ejector which allows the rim of the case to ride over it as the bolt moves back rather than having the case engage it and get popped loose. My ejector had only slight wear on the top but it was still sharp and edged.

The second is what I think my problem is and it was my own doing. I had swapped a G3 stock onto my CETME. The problem is, the G3 stock is slightly longer and uses a different recoil spring that was much tighter. What I think was happening as the gun got warm and settled in, the bolt began to short stroke. Short stroking is where the bolt fails to move to its full extent of travel during cycling. In AR pattern rifles, a short stroke will prevent the gun from chambering a new round.

In a G3, a short stroke sufficient to clear the magazine can fall just short of the full rearward travel needed to engage the ejector. We are talking about a few millimeters here. In which case, the G3 will happily strip a new round from the magazine with the hung empty case still in place.

Once I realized this is the likely cause of my issue rather than the ammunition, I put the original stock back on. I haven't been back out yet to check functioning and I hope I'm right. If my ejector needs replacement, I'm probably screwed since I'll need to steal one from a new trigger pack. CETME/G3 pattern rifles are not good do-it-yourself type guns and such work will probably require a gunsmith. First, I'll see if the gun is shooting normally again on both ammo types. If not, I have a problem.

Such is the life of a gun enthusiast at the range. We have to take the Good with the Bad.

A Reply to "Gun Control Revisited"

I have decided to respond to Timothy Bal's posting on "Gun Control Revisted".

I understand the sensitivity to registration, but I am not familiar with the reference to California confiscating assault weapons after they had been registered. Perhaps the types of weapons which were confiscated ought to have been taken due to their lethality. I think it is a matter of degree, and not a black and white issue.

The incident the poster's are referring to referenced here and here. These are only a small subset of links on the subject. The situation deals with a rifle, the SKS, that was not considered an "assault weapon" under California's definition of such and as a result, were not required to be registered with the State.

However, during a legislative definition change slipped into a bill, the SKS was now determined to be an "assault weapon" and subject to registration and the State opened a limited period of registration for these rifles. Most people who had the rifles with the promise that there were legal were suddenly felons. And for those that failed to register their rifles (mostly out of the fact they didn't know they were now criminals under this new legal definition), their property was now subject to confiscation by the State.

The part that upset people with this was the fact that owners of this class of rifle had been promised by the Government that they had nothing to fear. Only to see a new set of people in power go back on that promise because of their agendas and with a little help of the Legislature.

On a related point, the situation that happened in California is a very good example of why gun owners have problems with registration. Because the only people registration (or failure to register in the case of California) targets are the law-abiding.

As to guns being confiscated or restricted based on lethality, other commenters on your blog have taken you to task on that one. Such a statement illustrates that you have no firearms knowledge and do not understand that "lethality" has numerous variables. I can kill you dead with a .17HMR (a tiny, fast round) given the right circumstances and opportunity as I could with a .338 Lapua (a large caliber, high-powered round used for big game hunting and long distance sniping at 1000+ meters).

The line between a legal gun and illegal gun will always be blurry and somewhat arbitrary, but surely all of you has seen some guns which you privately must have felt ought to be illegal. Isn't there some point where the caliber of the bullet, or its speed, or the number of firings per minute, or the penetration characteristics, or explosive characteristics, ought to be regulated? What about RPGs?

What you feel is irrelevant. I don't care how a particular guns based solely on how they appear make you feel. If you feel revulsion over the sight of an object, I have no problem with that. We all do over certain things. It should take more than revulsion to dictate laws, especially when the object of revulsions' uses by the law-abiding outweigh criminal uses by over a factor of 100 to 1.

As to arguing about at what point vis-a-vis to caliber, penetration abilities, etc we should regulate guns, that has already been done for you. The National Firearms Act of 1934 draws the bright, shining line between a civilian round and one that requires registration and regulation as a "destructive device". That line is set in the ground as the .50BMG (the infamous .50 caliber round). With few exceptions (certain large-caliber big game rounds), owning rounds or shells larger than this requires permission of the Government.

It also covers your RPG argument. Yes, Timothy, private citizens can own explosive devices and projectiles. Assuming you can find a legal RPG launcher to purchase, you can own one. And each round it fires will be required to be registered separately and a tax paid on each. Not to mention conforming with any Government mandated storage requirements for said explosives. So you don't need to worry about it. RPGs and their ilk are already heavily regulated.

I favor intelligent gun control. It should at least be national. There is no point in having a state law that can easily be defeated by crossing a state boundary.

...

It doesn't matter much what the gun laws are in DC, since it is so easy to go from there to Virginia, which has weaker laws. That is why we need national gun control, as opposed to a bunch of conflicting and self-defeating state or local gun controls.

How, Timothy? Federal and State laws are clear on who can purchase guns interstate. It really depends on State law here. For example, my home state of Maryland permits me to purchase non-regulated guns (as MD defines them) out-of-state and transport them back in. For regulated arms (handguns and certain classes of rifle), I have to have them shipped into the state for transfer through a licensed dealer.

The example cited later of a DC resident coming into Virginia to buy a gun is illustrative. Is it legal? Certainly. However, the DC resident would be required to comply with DC gun laws with regard to their purchase. Many out-of-state dealers simply won't sell to DC residents for the simple fact that DC gun laws can hold the dealer responsible for an otherwise legal sale if the resident fails to comply with local laws.

Such a case would be a sale of a handgun to a DC resident since no handgun could be legally registered in the District. Such possession by the resident may be legal outside of DC but there would be no way to prevent them from bringing said restricted gun back into the District. Just the act of doing so is a crime. And the dealer could be held liable for that act even as a non-participant.

So I ask you, what intelligent gun laws are you looking for?

All of the major gun laws passed have been national in scope.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 meant to control the possession of machine guns by gangsters in the 30s who were "outgunning" the police (does this sound familiar?). This made it illegal to possess a machine gun, short barreled rifle/shotguns, explosives and certain "any other weapons" unless you paid a Federal excise tax on each, subjected yourself to a full background check by the Government before taking possession and had each registered with the Government.

The Gun Control Act of 1968, passed in response to the poltical assassinations that were happening in that time. Rumored to be modeled after Nazi gun control laws that lead to the disarming of the populace and specifically the Jews. This law brought serial numbers, licensed dealers and a "sporting purpose" (determined solely by the Attorney General) into being.

This law ended mail order and anonymous sales of firearms in order to be able to monitor and see which criminals were buying guns. It also established into law the first standards by which a person could not be allowed to possess or own a firearm. Originally limited to being a "mental defective" and certain other classes, this list has been greatly expanded to now include people merely accused of a crime without actual conviction.

The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 was passed to curb government abuses of firearms owners transporting their guns interstate because they were running into the very patchwork of local laws that made them criminals as they crossed one county line to another. If anything, State laws were proving to hinder the law-abiding, not help them.

Unfortunately, FOPA'86 had a poison pill tacked on: the abominable Hughes Amendment. This amendment outlawed the possession of machine guns to civilians if manufactured after May 19, 1986. This created a government-mandated market condition that has driven the cost of the already heavily regulated full-autos (restricted since 1934) out of the range of the average collector. Such firearms are now so lucrative as investments they appreciated in value better than stock and are recommended as good investments for those with large amounts of cash looking for a place to earn a good return.

The Brady Act of 1993 brought into being a national background check with a mandatory waiting period for the purchase of a handgun. This originally was a manual background check and subsequently modified to bring about the National Instant Check System (NICS) used for all firearms transactions in lieu of the waiting period. So for the price of convenience, all guns were now subject to mandatory background checks. This system was fully realized during the latter half of the 1990s.

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 brought into being the famous "Assault Weapon Ban" and high-capacity magazine ban. This law banned the manufacture (not possession) of certain firearms possessing certain "evil looking" features after 1994 and likewise restricted the manufacture of magazines greater than 10 rounds capacity for civilian purchase (law-enforcement and the military were exempt).

This law, touted as a means to control criminal access to these types of rifles (with the usual cry of them being the "preferred weapon of criminals" despite evidence to the contrary), did nothing but infringe law-abiding citizens rights to own guns with certain features that did nothing to affect their functionality. This law sunset in 2004 with nary a bang and serves as a wonderful example of the ineffectiveness of such laws.

So if you're arguing that we don't have a national policy on guns or we need more "intelligent" gun laws, why don't you use these laws as starting points. Virtually every tired argument used to justify gun control has been repeated over and over to get these laws passed. And none of them have been shown to effectively reduce crime.

So tell me, Timothy, what intelligent gun control did these laws fail to take into account? We have heavy regulation and registration of machine guns, outlawed possession or manufacture of the same by civilians since 1986, harmonized Federal transport rules that are routinely ignored by certain States, full background checks on all firearms purchases, outright denial of firearms possession and purchase by several classes of citizens, criminal or not and at one time, restrictions on certain types of firearms based solely on appearance in civilian hands.

What else do we need?!? What else can possibly be done to curb the possession of firearms by criminals that has not already been done?

We should not outlaw guns. We should have gun control laws which reduce the high rate of crimes and accidents committed with firearms.

We already do with regard to crime. Not even going to registration and owner licensing will the situation change as long as the justice system continues to release violent criminals onto the street. They don't care about the gun laws they break and honestly, what is a firearms charge next to a rape or murder charge? Gun control laws like the ones listed above, passed to "prevent gun crime" have done virtually nothing of the sort.

As to accidents, I am going to reply.

There is no such thing as a gun "accident". All accidents involving guns save for a tiny percentage are "negligent discharges". The tiny percentage I refer to are those involving mechanical defect with the gun in question and these are very, very rare.

Any "accident" involving a gun involves the user doing something to violate the four basic safety rules that all responsible gun owners, including myself, hold dear. Guns don't "go off" without reason or if dropped. They need a finger on the trigger. If a gun was found loaded and some child shot themselves, odds are very good that laws were already violated (many States including my own have safe storage laws to supposedly prevent this).

Any time you hear about a hunter getting shot (very rare nowadays) or someone shooting their friend by accident, some research into the specifics almost without exception reveal a failure of the individuals involved to obey basic safety rules.

Assuming, of course, they knew them. The gun control forces have been really good about resisting education on basic firearm safety to those without such knowledge in order to prevent such "accidents". The very people who claim to want to protect children are the very ones fighting the means by which such accidents could be reduced. You know why? Because the NRA is the primary provider of the program (called Eddie Eagle). Who knew?!? The NRA promoting responsible gun safety education, their primary mission.

I think we need better laws and enforcement in order to reduce crime. We have not experimented enough with our laws to conclude that gun control does not work.

I agree with your first sentence. I am going to disagree with you on the second.

Any social policy enacted needs to be done so with clear objectives in mind, not the feeling that we haven't done enough and merely need to tweak or expand the laws to get the result we are after.

The problem with this idea is simple: What if the result you are after is unachievable?

It is a plea to utopian thinking. It has been tried and proposed. Many times. Some laws pass, many do not. The end result is the same: the laws don't seem to work the way their proponents intend. But what they do is add another headache, prohibition or set of controls on those who would obey them.

And these ineffective, "feel good" laws are never repealed, Timothy. They exist as the new standard by which other laws will seek to "improve upon them" without recognizing they are merely the latest in a long line of other laws touted to do the same thing.

All these laws do is move the bar and the forces that propose them are never satisfied. And all this does them is give them a new vantage point from which to launch further attacks on gun ownership. No gun control proponent, not one, has ever come out and said, "If we get this law, we will be satisfied and never push for any more controls". Not one. Ever. Like the Terminator, they never, ever stop.

Plus, Timothy, you don't "experiment" with Constitutional rights. They are what they are. If you want experiment with them, change the Constitution. We've had 73+ years of experimentation and what is the result? Criminals still get guns and still use them.

Until we address the base cause of gun crime, the criminal himself, we will not have the peace you are looking for. And even if we ramp up our enforcement and gun crime abates, it will always exist. It always will because guns will always exist. All we can hope for is to strike a balance, as you say.

But this balance must work against the criminal and not 99% of the law-abiding citizens out there. What does it say about our society that this criminal minority is the one serving to impose legal and legislative tyranny on the rest of us? This isn't the way it is supposed to be.

Law enforcement is the answer, not gun control. Improve that and we will improve everything.

Feel free to respond if you wish. I would be happy to discuss any such issues further with you.

A Bush Dictatorship or Coup

I've decided to try a new series of posts. These are ones I get concerned about merely for the fact of writing them since they do deal with the issue of tyranny. Given recent events this weekend in Pakistan, the timing is appropriate.

These posts will not be about a response to tyranny (such as insurrection). These posts will be what you would constitute "tyranny". We all have different definitions. I'm no expert or deep philosophical thinker on the subject but given my interests, it is only a natural topic to eventually address.

This post deals with a couple of beliefs I've encountered in certain left leaning circles.

The first came out of a work conversation when a co-worker announced we were living in a dictatorship.

Huh?!?

Given President Bush's questionable legality on certain programs (such as warrantless wiretapping on overseas phone calls), his shifting definition of torture, a needless war in Iraq and what they see as extra-legal and Unconstitutional acts as President of the United States, this co-worker felt we were living in a dictatorship.

Apparently this fellow had never lived under one. Neither have I. But like most folks, I think I could recognize a true dictatorship as a passive participant in it when I saw it.

Suffice it to say, I didn't let that one slide.

We are not living in a dictatorship, folks.

When the President of the United States suspends the Constitution, we might be living in a dictatorship.

When he orders the gassing of citizens with individualistic or rebellious tendencies with nerve agents and kill them by the tens of thousands, we might be living in a dictatorship.

When he has children or teens snatched from the streets of Washington DC to have his way with them and then either sent them home dishonored at best or floating down the Potomac River with their throats slit at worst, we might be living in a dictatorship.

When he orders the execution of Members of Congress and the Senate that don't agree with him, we might be living in a dictatorship.

When he orders citizens to be rounded up and sent off to political re-education camps, we might be living in a dictatorship.

When public executions of protesters take place on the National Mall of those foolish enough to public protest his policies or actions and he lets their corpses swing until their bones drop to the ground, we might be living in a dictatorship.

When your choice of justice is the question, "Left ear or right ear?" for the bullet for your execution for speaking out in any form against the Government and the cost of which will be billed to your family, we might be living in a dictatorship.

When the President declares himself President for Life under the guise of bringing justice and prosperity to the People, we might be living in a dictatorship.

And not until most if not all of these things happen at once will we even be close to living in a dictatorship.

Seriously, how deluded or angry must you be at the Government for you to truly believe this? Yes, I do feel that President Bush has crossed over the line on occasion but this is not unique to his Presidency. I think all administrations to various degrees have engaged in such behavior. The current Administration might be worse than others but such things tend to swing back into balance or at least a more moderate and acceptable equilibrium.

No offense, but if you believe we are living in a dictatorship, I recommend you study such regimes in the real world to see what we're missing. It's a lot, trust me.

I might believe it when I see a person carrying a "Bush is an Idiot" sign on his or her back wisked away for arrest and any who attempt it afterwards suffer the same fate. We have a long way to go before we get there.

Which leads to the even more outlandish idea from these same circles. This one boggles my mind.

There are people in this country who sincerely believe that President Bush will suspend elections prior to the 2008 elections or better yet, prevent the new President-Elect from taking the Oath of Office in 2009 and try to keep himself in office illegally by any means necessary. Up to and including suspending the Constitution and refusing to allow Congress to come to session.

All I have to ask of those who believe this: Are you fucking crazy?!?

People honestly believe this?!?

Do you not see the ridiculousness of this idea? Do you not see how many improbable things would have to occur in order for this to happen? Not to mention the fact that such an act by a US President will be without precedent in the entire history of the Republic.

If you think people would accept this, I want some of the drugs you're on.

Look at the things that would need to take place in order for President Bush to even get close to this dream of absolute power.

To start, he'd have to somehow keep the Secret Service in line. Don't you think the moment he did this, they wouldn't be on the phone to the FBI (the agency who would be responsible for formally arresting him for this).

He'd have to control or eliminate the Supreme Court from ruling on the inevitable legal challenge that would result from the President-Elect on his Unconstitutional attempt to stay in power. The Court may be split on a lot of things but a 9-0 ruling against him would be assured.

He'd have to order the military to defend him from the likewise inevitable arrival to folks to remove him from power (assuming his own Service detail doesn't do it first). And he would expect the military to actually obey these illegal orders?

How on Earth would he manage to stay in power after this? HOW?!?

Any officer of the United States military who followed his orders from that point forward would be a traitor. Every member of the Armed Forces swears their Oath to the Constitution and any orders issued by such an usurper would be illegal and they would be duty-bound to tell him to go to Hell.

How could there be any debate about a living Constitutional interpretation here? And even if there wasn't, it would be clear to the entire country that he was acting illegally, without the military to follow his orders, the siege of the White House can go on while the Chief Justice swears in the new President. Who would then order the Marines to remove this criminal from their Oval Office and off to a jail cell to await some truly fantastic charges. I'd want a front row seat in the courtroom to hear that list of charges and specifications read.

People seriously believe this is going to happen?!?

Seriously?!?

Get a grip on reality, folks. President Bush is many things but this diabolical, patient and conniving I don't think he is. To pull off something like this would require creativity worthy of a Hollywood fiction writer on acid. I just don't see it happening.

And if he really did, how long do you think the People themselves would stand for it if the rest of the Government stood by and did nothing? I could easily see a hundred thousand descend on Washington DC to deal with the problem by any means necessary. Entire Governments elsewhere in the world have been toppled for less.

If you think this is the outcome for next year, I recommend therapy.

And if it does come to pass, I will offer my humble apologies on one hand and a free rifle with the other. It will probably be needed.

If you honestly believe either of these notions have or will come to pass, please provide proof. Preferably with classified stamps on the documents to bolster the claims.

Bush the Tyrant has a nice ring to it though. Sheesh.

New York to Enable Illegals to Get Guns!

Came across this article in the New York Daily News over the issue of allowing illegal aliens in New York to acquire driver's licenses. They've taken in an interesting direction on this issue that by giving illegals driver's licenses you're giving them the means to buy guns.

Once they got driver's licenses under Gov. Spitzer's plan, illegal immigrants could arm themselves to the teeth simply by lying about their status, gun experts said Thursday.

"They could definitely get shotguns and rifles," said Thomas King, executive director of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association.

King said illegal immigrants could simply go to gun shops, use the licenses as ID, pick out the long guns of their choice and attest on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives forms that they are citizens or legal residents.

I never thought of this. I don't simply because it wouldn't occur to me as a law-abiding resident. We all see the world in terms of our morality and often the obvious skips right by us because to break the law in such a fashion doesn't even occur to us.

But as I think of it a little more, this is a bit of overreaction. However, it is not outside the realm of possibility. But it is nowhere as cut-and-dried as Mr. King makes it out to be.

As long as a computer check showed the customer had no criminal record or outstanding arrest warrants, the gun dealer would likely complete the sale - because there are no other records that would flag illegal immigrants.

This is technically correct. But there are a couple of catches here. Yes, with a state-issued ID, it is possible an illegal alien could use it to buy a gun. But a driver's license alone is not sufficient. They also need supporting ID.

They also need a valid social security number for a US citizen.

In addition, they need utility bills, vehicle registration or some other secondary item that shows their current US address that would match the records NICS will pull up. Yes, with a valid US citizen social security number, they will not get flagged as an illegal. But what I think the article fails to take into account is the possibility of an address or name disconnect.

As I understand it, NICS checks do compare the address and SSN provided by the potential gun buyer with that information stored in its databases. If a valid US SSN is provided, it is possible that the address and/or the name tied to that record will not match the information provided by the buyer. At which point, NICS is going to delay the transaction so they can dig deeper. The odds are decent that the investigation will reveal something is out of whack and they will deny the transfer.

I know it is possible to buy a gun without using your social security number. However, if you don't, your name, date of birth and address are the primary drivers and the odds are extremely high that your name will not exist at the place you say you live and when you were born. Resulting yet again in a denial.

However, it is possible, although unlikely, that the information trolled by NICS will match up and the illegal alien will slip through and manage to legally buy a gun by lying on ATF Form 4473 plus any state forms.

Now imagine the firestorm that would occur if said illegal alien is caught at a later time with a legally purchased gun in their possession. Bear in mind, they've committed numerous felonies in the process of doing so including lying on ATF 4473 (a 10 year prison sentence), illegal possession of a firearm by a non-citizen and identity theft.

Such an incident would be fuel for many groups, gun control and illegal immigration included.

Still, the liability aspeects of such a scenario are unpleasant. I could easily see the dealer being blamed or such an incident being used as fodder by gun controllers to "strengthen" the background check system, demand licensing, etc. They would, of course, decry such a situation as a "loophole".

There is the usual media PSH is all of this:

Amato said he feared members of terrorist sleeper cells will exploit Spitzer's license program to get rifles because penalties for fraud would not be enough to discourage lying.

Why on earth would terrorist sleeper cells attempt to obtain firearms through legal channels by deception and open themselves up for exposure? If potential terrorists want to be that dumb, go ahead. It makes catching them easier.

Trust me, any terrorist worth his salt will attempt to obtain arms outside of legal means to avoid getting on the FBI's radar. And why pay retail when the black market probably offers a better selection at a better price?

You're telling me some overseas terrorist sleeper cell sympathizers wouldn't find a way to smuggle a case of illegal full-auto AK-47s over to them to carry out their plot? That is far more likely.

In the end, why not just drop this whole idea and not give driver's licenses to illegals and the whole issue becomes moot? It is what you should be doing instead of pandering to known criminals.

Most Powerful, Deadly Rifle in Civilian Hands

From Arms and the Law comes this bit of PSH fro the (anti) Gun Guys. The Gun Guys, despite the supportive title, are in fact a virulent anti-gun group funded by the Joyce Foundation.

You know what I enjoy about reading stuff like this? The fact that they make such glorious fools of themselves. It is textbook reliance on spin and the belief that the reader will accept what they are being told at face value. The funniest thing in this case is they actually provide the reader with the ability to see right though their hysterics for the click of a link.

This is one of the Gun Guys favorite topics. The evil, deadly, plane downing, terrifying weapon of war: the .50 caliber sniper rifle.

This is the best part...

It's terrifying to think what might have happened if an officer was shot with such a devastating weapon. It's ours, and certainly every officer's worst nightmare. A weapon designed to shoot down civilian aircraft during takeoff and landing would devastate and rip apart a person's body if shot by one of these powerful weapons.

So the question is why are these weapons of war available on the civilian market? Secondly, why is an "ex-con fighting demons in his life" in possession of the most powerful sniper rifle available on the civilian market?

Another law abiding gun owner? Of course the gun lobby says that no crimes are committed with .50 caliber sniper rifles.

Drum roll please, now for the truth from the very link they provided...

Jessica says they told police Casey had no black powder for the muzzle loader, but police say they can't take that chance.

That's right, folks, a muzzle loader.

A .50 caliber muzzle loader.

That is the deadly, high-powered sniper rifle the Gun Guys are spinning into orbit over in a desperate attempt to make this incident fit their agenda. These are "weapons of war" all right. Weapons of war from the 18th century up until the Civil War.

Most powerful sniper rifle on the market?!? I have smallbore rifles meaner than this!

Hey idiots, I don't need to be terrified to think what might have happened if he'd fired it assuming it had actually been, you know, loaded with powder. A little research turns up actual information:

State police trooper Amanda Reif has felt the power of the black powder rifle when she was shot by one last summer while responding to a domestic call.

"This one hit my vest and it mushroomed, it was the first shot. The second shot just hit a little higher," she said.

The first shot hit her vest and was halted in its tracks. So much for the plane downing power of this 18th and 19th century weapon. Lead balls moving at velocities around that of a pistol round are easily stopped by standard issue police body armor.

The second shot missed her vest and struck her. She survived.

So where's the ripping apart of bodies here, Gun Guys?

I just have to shake my head and smile when they do this. They actually provide the truth to counter their own lies and deceptions. In a way, I'm glad they do this. It makes them useful. We always need a court jester or buffoon to stick in the corner to point at and laugh. With stuff such as this, you are almost wiping away the tears. The cluelessness and desperation is almost too funny for words.

Now where did I place my powder horn and ramrod?