Gun Dude 1: Wow, we have a Norinco AND a Polytech in stock!

Gun Dude 2: You should buy both of them, add to your dream gun collection.

GD1: (Snort) I don’t want the original, much less Asian knockoffs.

GD2: Well, you could always build a semi-auto .45-70, take it bear hunting…  (chuckles)

GD1: If I go bear hunting, I want something more substantial than a .45-70.

GD2: Like a Tomahawk cruise missile?

GD1: Yeah.

(Conversation turns to a female customer who hunts grizzlies in Alaska with a .300 Win Mag.)

GD2: Yeah, I think a .300 Win Mag is about the bear minimum…

Dixie: (Groans, puts face in hands.)

GD2: Hey, I had to do it.

GD1: Man, my kids would’ve loved that one…

And yes, I did pick up a new holster.  Add in the new camera I just got in, and I’ll finally be able to complete the task I’ve been tagged to do since… 19 July.

It is unquestionably awesome that these two television shows exist [...] but of the gunblogs I keep track of, I seem to be the first mentioning this show… which means some PR weenie seriously screwed up.  — Linoge

It’s embarrassing because I had a draft post done about this and put it to the side.  I suck at that whole “fastest with the mostest” bit…  (cough)

So… erm… there are actually four shows– but it’s treated as one block– and if you watch the intro and exit bumpers for the segments, there are actually six different programs, but two are just short segments.  The four major shows are Practical Tactical, Because Lives Depend On It, What If, and Conceal & Carry School.  Each focuses on a different aspect of self-defense, with a bit of overlap.  For an example, Because Lives Depend On It covers tactics and skills, while What If covers a historical situation and walks the viewer through it, pointing out possible actions an armed citizen could take.

Conceal & Carry School is the interesting one, though.  Take a group of people with wildly varying skill levels, toss them in a classroom and training setting, and then watch them go through the course while covering their background.  It’s interesting watching the different personalities and skill levels mesh– one of the most brash individuals (a tattooed radio DJ) is also one of the slowest to catch up with a drill… which makes for interesting footage.  What’s great is that they have a decent variety of backgrounds, though– everything from the DJ to the Hispanic salon owner who’s been the victim of a hate crime.

But Linoge is right– these shows are promoted so poorly that it’s not funny.  Heck, I wouldn’t even know about The Don’t Be A Victim block if it wasn’t for the fact that I ran across it one Saturday morning.  The same goes for Outdoor Channel’s Wednesday Night At the Range or Sportsman’s Channel’s Lock and Load Thursdays.  Even worse is the fact that the listing for Lock And Load Thursdays no longer contains Modern Rifle Adventures… which was broken out from Guns & Ammo TV to give it more space.  Seriously, Dick Metcalf and J. Guthrie crossing the continent hunting with ARs… and it gets bumped?  Maybe if you had advertised the Allie Brock* episode, guys, this wouldn’t have to be so…

Which brings up the question of what makes a good show?  Most shooting shows have one or two of the things that bring in guys– guns and humor– but they need the third– women.   Some of the shows in these three blocks have great content, but they fall flat on the other two.  Some aren’t so great with regards to content, but they’ve learned that you have to lure the buck closer before you bag him.  Now, I’m not saying that a show would go so far as to have a smart, good looking young woman literally ride in on a horse to replace a co-host mid-season***, but you have to balance education with entertainment– think Bill Nye and Alton Brown.

Hey, better late than never, eh?

*Allie Brock was a guest on one of the episodes.  Elk hunting with ARs, teaching a young shooter… and did I mention she’s a 6′ tall blond?

** Yes, she literally rode in on a horse in her first episode.  In shorts.  Airgun sales probably went up 5% after that episode aired…  Heck, I haven’t fired an airgun in years and I still watch the show…

So, lets talk 380 ammo. [...] What do you carry? –Uncle

The words “what ammo for my Back-Up Gun (BUG)” usually start a flurry of comments, the volume of which is only surpassed by a good “Glock sucks/Glock rocks” or “AR-15 vs. AK vs. M-1″ discussion.  (By the way, Glock sucks and you can pry my AR from my cold, dead hands… but can you pass me an en bloc clip?)

With a .380, you’re going to have to make a choice: utter reliability or a chance at expansion.  In the far distant past (say, the late 1980s), the wisdom was that no .380 ammo would go fast enough to expand… so just use FMJ, it’ll feed better anyway.  In the modern era, there’s a bit of choice in .380 ammo… and the hollowpoints expand now!

The problem is that all guns vary.  Just because your buddy uses Magtech 180 grain .40 S&W in his XD, it doesn’t mean you can, too– you must check for compatibility.  Also, that brand new Lightning-bolt Super-Penetration Hyper-velocity  ammo that just came out might not work for you– check it out first.

Case in point, in the comments from above linked post.  Here’s my contribution:

90 grain Speer Gold Dots.

I love ‘em.  I have a supplier who keeps some in stock always (he’s the Speer distributor in my area), they are pretty zippy, and my LCP loves them.  But just a few comments later, Diomed comments:

Since my LCP chokes on Gold Dots, I stick with ball.

Okay, two guys with Ruger LCPs… one LCP works perfectly with a certain round, the other chokes on it.  Now imagine that Diomed was a buddy of mine who didn’t check his gun/ammo pairing, and found out that the two didn’t play nice with each other at a bad time… like in the middle of a self defense situation.  Is ammo expensive now?  Yep.  Is .380 had to find?  Oh yeah.  Was it worth it to put a box of Gold Dots through my LCP to make sure it liked them?  Oh, yes.  (My LCP will feed Gold Dots reliably, but you cannot use the slide lock to put the first round in– you have to slingshot it.  But since I load the same way every time…)

As to why one guns likes X and the other doesn’t… (shrug)  I have no idea.  Maybe Diomed’s LCP has microscopic burrs on the feed ramp.  Maybe the guy who worked on the feed ramp on my LCP made of more pass and polished it a bit.  Maybe the person who took the barrel out of the machine was the first son of the first son of a first son who was born during a solar eclipse.

Oh, and that Magtech ammo I used as an example?  My XD loves to eat it.  So much that the slide unlocks a split second before the pressure fully drops, which causes some wonderful flashes in low light…

No, that’s not an error– one thousand rounds.  To put this in perspective, I currently have 595 rounds of .380 ACP in my ammo bunker.  (And it’s a mix– Sellier & Bellot, Winchester, Aguila, Speer, RWS, Fiocchi and even some of the old Santa Barbara Toledo Spanish mil-surp stuff.)  1,000 rounds means I could stop hunting ammo… I’ll never go boom-less again…

So, instead of modifying the fire control to fire a two-round burst, (wait a second… the M-16A2 had a three-round burst setting) Colt made a rifle that fired two projectiles (of different weights) with reduced accuracy (two weights, two points of impact) from a specialized cartridge (reduced powder charge, logistics nightmares, non-standard).  Anybody care to guess why the ACR contest went nowhere?

So… thoughts?

Via a comment on another website, I found Lance Truscott Morrison– a Deputy Sheriff who does music.  Pretty good stuff.

Massad Ayoob has links to a group of podcasts and interviews (including John Stossel’s show from this week) concerning the case.

Joe Huffman quotes justice Scalia from the Heller decision.  To paraphrase:

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves [them] a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns… [...] But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. [...] it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Maybe we can take one more step towards true freedom today.

9 April 2010

Justice John Paul Stevens announces he will retire at the end of the 2010 summer session. Elena Kagan is named as a possible replacement at this time. [A]

5 May 2010

Evidence surfaces that Kagan (then the Dean of Harvard Law School) covered for professors when they plagiarized. [B]

7 May 2010

CNS News begins speculating who might be named to replace Stevens, and what their selection might mean for the balance of the Court.

10 May 2010

Obama officially announces Kagan is his nominee to replace Stevens.

CNS News runs a story about Kagan, noting that she is pro-abortion, dodged questions during her nomination for Solicitor General, and has worked in an advisory role for Goldman Sachs.

Kagan’s competence comes into question at this time, as transcripts of her arguing before the Supreme Court show that she lacked a fundamental understanding of the issue she was arguing. [C]

David Hardy posts on Kagan, noting she has little experience, and has rarely been published in law reviews.

11 May 2010

David Codrea posts an article questioning Kagan’s stance on guns.  In short– not great, but not awful, either.

13 May 2010

John Lott posts an article showing that Kagan used the phrase “not sympathetic” in reference to a court case regarding unlicensed concealed carry.

16 May 2010

Senator Sessions (R-AL) notes that Kagan (as Dean) made the job of recruiters at Harvard Law harder, calling it “no little-bitty matter.”

Newt Gingrich calls this “an act so unbecoming an American that she should be disqualified, from the very beginning.”

The same day, Chuck Schumer calls Kagan “brilliant” and “practical.”

17 May 2010

It comes to light that Kagan helped craft Bill Clinton’s strategy that kept partial-birth abortion legal.

The White House asks the Clinton Library to release papers relating to Kagan (including her emails).

Quotes from GOP members show that a filibuster of Kagan is unlikely.

A friend of Kagan says that she “is largely a progressive in the mold of Obama himself.”

18 May 2010

Since she helped craft the Obama administration’s defense of health care “reform,” Kagan might have to recuse herself from any Supreme Court health care case.

It comes to light that Kagan advocated campaign finance reform during the Clinton administration.  Ironically, this is the subject she showed little grasp of before the Supreme Court.

19 May 2010

During the period of time that Kagan tried to keep military recruiters off the Harvard Law campus, she was allowing Saudi recruiters for what is called Sharia-Compliant Finance onto campus.

In two law review articles, Kagan attacks the Supreme Court for denying pro-abortion groups federal money.

20 May 2010

The director of the Clinton library admits that she probably will not be able to meet the deadline to get all Kagan-related materials to Congress. [D]

18 June 2010

Documentation shows that while in the Clinton White House, Kagan made comparisons between the KKK and NRA. [E]

23 June 2010

The percentage of Americans opposing Kagan drops… to 42%. [F]

Sunlight Labs (part of the Sunlight Foundation) releases Elena’s Inbox, all of Kagan’s email from her time in the Clinton White House. [F]

Summary

In short, I’m with Newbius: “I think it is time to oppose her with every fiber of my being and urge my Senators to do the same.”  Obama has shown an utter unwillingness to choose a decent judge for any position– Goodwin Liu is the perfect example of this (reference: here, here, and here)– and I’d rather not see another Sotomayor on the Court.

Note: the title of this post comes from Robb.

References:

[A] Sebastian, 9 April 2010.
[B] John Lott, 10 May 2010.
[C} John Lott, 11 May 2010.
[D] John Lott, 20 May 2010.
[E] John Lott, 18 June 2010.
[F] Instapundit, 23 June 2010.

“Peasant, we’s heard you’s liked playing airsoft, so we’s gonna ban the crap outta that so’s ya’s can’t plays it no mo’.  Jus’ ‘member, we’s from the gub-mint, and we’s here to help ya’s.”

Just to re-cap, from the post where I first heard about this:

Basically, if the ATF claims these airsoft guns can be easily converted into real guns, they should just demonstrate the conversion, and put a couple of magazines through it.

So, did the ATF test the gun like this?  From the third page of the ATF’s letter:

To determine if the submitted sample (as modified) is capable of expelling a projectile … [t]he test fire was conducted a total of three times…

Wait, wait, wait… how was the gun modified?  Well, the lower was Dremeled into shape, an M16 hammer, hammer pin, hammer spring, buffer and buffer spring were put in, and then an AR-15 upper was put on and held in place with a drift punch in place of the front retention pin.  In other words, As long as you have access to a whole bunch of parts off M-16s, you can assemble an Ar-15.  With a crappy airsoft lower.  Or, to quote a commenter over at Uncle’s:

My water glass can be converted into a machine gun.

You take the glass and replace it with a machine gun, take the water and replace it with ammo.

Voila, machine gun.

There’s “massaging the evidence,” and then there’s “we took it to the massage parlor down on Riverside and got it a happy ending.”  This is the latter.  To recap: if you have access to parts from an M-16,  an AR-15 upper, drift punches and a Dremel tool, you can create a machine gun.  Kinda.  Sorta.  Maybe.

Oh, and they have re-defined transfers, too.  Now, your favorite gun writer will have to fill out a 4473 to get an evaluation gun.  It’s almost like they’re trying to clamp down on us gun owners, isn’t it?