by Sandy Keathley
An interesting thing is happening; the traditional concept of shooting guns as a "man's activity" (as in hunting) is being blown apart. The biggest demographic for first-time gun buyers, and for people signing up for both pistol instruction and concealed carry licensing, is now women. True, women have been involved in target shooting for years, both rifle and pistol, but many of these women came from families that embraced shooting sports already, so they did not have the built-in bias against guns that seems to be ever more pervasive in our society (at least the society the media portrays).
Now, more and more new women gun owners are those who have never touched a gun, and never knew anyone who shot guns. They are stepping into a world completely foreign to them.
Why? They are feeling the responsibility to take on the role of protector for themselves and their households, and leaving behind the feeling of helplessness that many people
have today. A young woman recently was asking my advice about buying a gun. She is a single mother, and lives in an apartment with her young daughter. Twice in the last two months, a stranger has tried to get her to open her door late at night, either because "her car lights were on", or some similar ploy.
The odds of a woman living alone, or in a female household, having a crises situation (like a burglary or home invasion) are very small, yet they happen to someone. People have fire insurance, but few people actually have a fire. A gun is just another type of insurance. As they say, a gun is like parachute: if you ever need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again.
I have a pistol class today, all female. In three weeks I have a CHL class, and so far, four out of seven are women. I think it is great! The more this continues, the potential crimes are stopped. BTW, in the majority of cases where a crime is stopped by an armed citizen, no shots are fired. Hmmm.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Friday, June 27, 2014
Mosin-Nagant Combat Rifles
by Sandy Keathley
Today I am going to shoot one of my Communist rifles. It's not very high-tech, but a lot of fun.
I am a Federally-licensed collector of "Curio & Relic" firearms, specializing in the Russian Mosin-Nagant rifles. These are bolt-action combat rifles, very powerful, and very durable. They were first built for the Army of the Czar in 1891, with some modifications in 1930 and 1944.After World War II, as the Russians moved to semi-automatic technology (the SKS, and then Kalashnikov rifles), they gave the machinery for build the bolt-action rifles to other members of the Communist bloc, so the last version of the Mosin rifles, the M44 Carbine, continued to be made in Poland, Romania, Hungary, and China until at least 1960. Even as late as the 1950s, the Soviets were anticipating another war in Europe, so they kept building these, at arsenals in Belorus and the Ukraine, and it is now estimated that there are upwards of 40,000,000 extant in the world. For that reason, the prices are quite moderate by collector standards, ranging from $100 for a standard 1943 91/30, up to $400 for a Finnish-captured 1916 "Peter the Great" WWI M91, or $600 for a sniper rifle with scope.
The magic allure of the Mosins is in the history and longevity of these rifles, easily the most ubiquitous battle rifle in history. They were simple, with few moving parts, almost all of which were interchangeable even across models, and could be fired and maintained even by illiterate peasant draftees. They were inexpensive to build, powerful (2700 fps), and reasonably accurate; it was not hard to kill an enemy soldier at 300 yards. Over the 7 decades+ they spread around the world, thanks in part to the Communist urge to help rebels overthrow governments. Stalin sent thousands to the rebels in the Spanish Civil War, some of which found their way to S. America; Mao made millions, and sent them to Manchuria, Korea, and Indo-China, where they helped defeat the French, and set up the coming war in Viet Nam. They were used in Viet Nam and Cambodia, and made their way to Indonesia. The Russians, meanwhile, left tens of thousands of them behind in Afghanistan when they pulled out.
While collectors think of them as obsolete, it is beyond dispute that some Mosins, retrofitted with modern scopes, are in use today by the Taliban in Afghanistan, and by the rebels in Syria. A Syrian rebel sniper was photographed by Time Magazine with his Mosin M44. The odds are extremely high that some Mosins are in use today in Iraq. Yes, they are low-tech, but reliable, and easy to obtain in large quantity. There are still millions in storage in Russia, slowly being sold off to the collector market, and a cache of Chinese Mosins was recently discovered in a warehouse in Albania.
To make it even better, it is customary for armies and governments to stamp markings on the rifles to indicate their ownership, so these rifles may have obscure markings to indicate odd mixtures of czarist, Soviet, Finnish, Spanish, German (Nazi), or other possession. In 1916, several million were made on contract to the Czar by Remington and New England Westinghouse. Some of those were sold to Americans, and have never been to Russia, while others were used by US troops fighting in the Russian Civil War in 1918.
It's an odd and curious history, and a fascinating detective hobby.
Today I am going to shoot one of my Communist rifles. It's not very high-tech, but a lot of fun.
I am a Federally-licensed collector of "Curio & Relic" firearms, specializing in the Russian Mosin-Nagant rifles. These are bolt-action combat rifles, very powerful, and very durable. They were first built for the Army of the Czar in 1891, with some modifications in 1930 and 1944.After World War II, as the Russians moved to semi-automatic technology (the SKS, and then Kalashnikov rifles), they gave the machinery for build the bolt-action rifles to other members of the Communist bloc, so the last version of the Mosin rifles, the M44 Carbine, continued to be made in Poland, Romania, Hungary, and China until at least 1960. Even as late as the 1950s, the Soviets were anticipating another war in Europe, so they kept building these, at arsenals in Belorus and the Ukraine, and it is now estimated that there are upwards of 40,000,000 extant in the world. For that reason, the prices are quite moderate by collector standards, ranging from $100 for a standard 1943 91/30, up to $400 for a Finnish-captured 1916 "Peter the Great" WWI M91, or $600 for a sniper rifle with scope.
The magic allure of the Mosins is in the history and longevity of these rifles, easily the most ubiquitous battle rifle in history. They were simple, with few moving parts, almost all of which were interchangeable even across models, and could be fired and maintained even by illiterate peasant draftees. They were inexpensive to build, powerful (2700 fps), and reasonably accurate; it was not hard to kill an enemy soldier at 300 yards. Over the 7 decades+ they spread around the world, thanks in part to the Communist urge to help rebels overthrow governments. Stalin sent thousands to the rebels in the Spanish Civil War, some of which found their way to S. America; Mao made millions, and sent them to Manchuria, Korea, and Indo-China, where they helped defeat the French, and set up the coming war in Viet Nam. They were used in Viet Nam and Cambodia, and made their way to Indonesia. The Russians, meanwhile, left tens of thousands of them behind in Afghanistan when they pulled out.
While collectors think of them as obsolete, it is beyond dispute that some Mosins, retrofitted with modern scopes, are in use today by the Taliban in Afghanistan, and by the rebels in Syria. A Syrian rebel sniper was photographed by Time Magazine with his Mosin M44. The odds are extremely high that some Mosins are in use today in Iraq. Yes, they are low-tech, but reliable, and easy to obtain in large quantity. There are still millions in storage in Russia, slowly being sold off to the collector market, and a cache of Chinese Mosins was recently discovered in a warehouse in Albania.
To make it even better, it is customary for armies and governments to stamp markings on the rifles to indicate their ownership, so these rifles may have obscure markings to indicate odd mixtures of czarist, Soviet, Finnish, Spanish, German (Nazi), or other possession. In 1916, several million were made on contract to the Czar by Remington and New England Westinghouse. Some of those were sold to Americans, and have never been to Russia, while others were used by US troops fighting in the Russian Civil War in 1918.
It's an odd and curious history, and a fascinating detective hobby.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Firearms Safety Quiz
by Sandy Keathley
Quiz:
What's the first thing you do when someone hands you a gun?
3. Safety check.
What if a friend hands it to you?
Safety check.
Your wife/husband/significant other?
Safety check.
You just saw someone check it?
Safety check.
Really??
Safety check. This is not rocket science. Every time you lay your hands on a gun, check it. Trust no one, not even yourself. People make mistakes. If I am going to be hurt with a gun, or hurt someone else, I want it to be on me. How would you feel if you accidentally killed someone because you took someone's word that a gun was clear?
I was on vacation recently, at my brother's house. He is a collector of Army Colt .45 revolvers, and he showed me those, and a few other things. As he pulled each gun out of the closet, he checked it, and handed it to me. I checked it again, although I had seen him check it just 8 seconds earlier. I saw him check it, but I didn't see what he saw. He didn't think I was being silly or paranoid; he is a gun guy, and he knows how it works. When it comes to guns that might be loaded, trust no one but yourself, ever.
As the politician said,
Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?
Quiz:
What's the first thing you do when someone hands you a gun?
- Pull the trigger.
- Aim it out the window at the kid across the street.
- Safety check.
3. Safety check.
What if a friend hands it to you?
Safety check.
Your wife/husband/significant other?
Safety check.
You just saw someone check it?
Safety check.
Really??
Safety check. This is not rocket science. Every time you lay your hands on a gun, check it. Trust no one, not even yourself. People make mistakes. If I am going to be hurt with a gun, or hurt someone else, I want it to be on me. How would you feel if you accidentally killed someone because you took someone's word that a gun was clear?
I was on vacation recently, at my brother's house. He is a collector of Army Colt .45 revolvers, and he showed me those, and a few other things. As he pulled each gun out of the closet, he checked it, and handed it to me. I checked it again, although I had seen him check it just 8 seconds earlier. I saw him check it, but I didn't see what he saw. He didn't think I was being silly or paranoid; he is a gun guy, and he knows how it works. When it comes to guns that might be loaded, trust no one but yourself, ever.
As the politician said,
Who are you going to believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Index that finger
by Sandy Keathley
This is a particular pet peeve of mine. Since I am right-handed, I'll describe it this way; you lefties can just reverse the mental image.
When I lay down a handgun, I always lay it on its left side, and always pick it up one-handed. That way, it is easy to get the right index finger into the proper position: straight out, along the frame of the gun, above the trigger guard, and below the slide (semi) or cylinder (revolver). This is the only proper and safe way to handle a pistol, and aids immeasurably in loading and racking a slide. It's also a good habit to get into at an outdoor range, as the RSO will usually expect pistols to be laid down on the left side with the action open.
I am reminded of this because I watch television a fair amount, especially action/spy/cop programs, and there is always one to three people clearing a room, or tracking someone down a hallway. And they always have their finger properly indexed, and using good form with the grip.
Indeed they should. TV and movie directors routinely hire firearms instructors to teach the cast how to look authentic when handling a gun, and they do a good job. I watch these actors carefully, looking for the evil finger-on-the-trigger syndrome, and seldom see it.
The one thing that is questionable is the stance; they almost always use the Weaver Stance. This is not to question the Weaver; it revolutionized law enforcement for decades, and is still in use by some people, but it is not taught today as often as the Isosceles. No, the reason they use the Weaver, is the directors have consistently said that they thought it looked more authentic.
Well, it does look good. It might not be as good for defensive shooting as the Isosceles, but, after all, it is Hollywood. We should be surprised they even make movies that have guns!
This is a particular pet peeve of mine. Since I am right-handed, I'll describe it this way; you lefties can just reverse the mental image.
When I lay down a handgun, I always lay it on its left side, and always pick it up one-handed. That way, it is easy to get the right index finger into the proper position: straight out, along the frame of the gun, above the trigger guard, and below the slide (semi) or cylinder (revolver). This is the only proper and safe way to handle a pistol, and aids immeasurably in loading and racking a slide. It's also a good habit to get into at an outdoor range, as the RSO will usually expect pistols to be laid down on the left side with the action open.
I am reminded of this because I watch television a fair amount, especially action/spy/cop programs, and there is always one to three people clearing a room, or tracking someone down a hallway. And they always have their finger properly indexed, and using good form with the grip.
Indeed they should. TV and movie directors routinely hire firearms instructors to teach the cast how to look authentic when handling a gun, and they do a good job. I watch these actors carefully, looking for the evil finger-on-the-trigger syndrome, and seldom see it.
The one thing that is questionable is the stance; they almost always use the Weaver Stance. This is not to question the Weaver; it revolutionized law enforcement for decades, and is still in use by some people, but it is not taught today as often as the Isosceles. No, the reason they use the Weaver, is the directors have consistently said that they thought it looked more authentic.
Well, it does look good. It might not be as good for defensive shooting as the Isosceles, but, after all, it is Hollywood. We should be surprised they even make movies that have guns!
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
This gun is too heavy
by Sandy Keathley
This is a sticky issue, and sometimes controversial. Over the last couple of decades, there has been increasing use by gun manufacturers of polymer grips and frames, or aluminum frames with polymer grips, all with the intent of making guns lighter. This has been exacerbated by the increasing market share of concealed carry guns. Glock was one of the early forces behind this move, and others have followed suit.
Of course, the barrel and other high-stress components are still made of steel, so this should not be seen as a safety issue. However, some makers are using a process called Metal Injection Molding (MIM) (similar to metal filings mixed with epoxy) for firing pins and other small parts, and those have had, in my view, an unacceptable failure rate.
An added benefit is that it makes it cheaper to build guns this way, but from the consumer's standpoint, the lessened weight is a big plus, especially for police and security forces, who have to carry a gun for 8 hours a day.
But is it really a plus? The force required to send the bullet downrange hasn't changed. The weight of a gun has a dampening effect on recoil, so the downside of these lighter guns is considerably more muzzle flip, with an attending loss of accuracy.
So, a lighter gun is less accurate? No, but a lighter gun leads to more recoil, and the user's anticipation of that recoil can lead to less accuracy. That is less of an issue for an expert shooter, but most people are not experts.
Do a side-by-side comparison of two like-sized semi-autos, one polymer-framed, and one all steel, and see the difference. One is more fun to shoot, and one is more accurate. They are probably the same.
Not convinced? Shoot a S&W 686 revolver with at least a 4 inch barrel, alongside one of those plastic snub-nosed .38s that is the size of a smart phone. Just to make it interesting, use a +P round in both. The defense rests.
I like the feel of a heavier gun, but the real point here, is that when a gun is harder to control, or hurts to shoot, a person won't practice with it. They won't. So if you carry a tiny concealed handgun daily, but haven't shot it in 6 months because it is not fun to shoot, what happens if you ever have to use it? Hmmm?
This is a sticky issue, and sometimes controversial. Over the last couple of decades, there has been increasing use by gun manufacturers of polymer grips and frames, or aluminum frames with polymer grips, all with the intent of making guns lighter. This has been exacerbated by the increasing market share of concealed carry guns. Glock was one of the early forces behind this move, and others have followed suit.
Of course, the barrel and other high-stress components are still made of steel, so this should not be seen as a safety issue. However, some makers are using a process called Metal Injection Molding (MIM) (similar to metal filings mixed with epoxy) for firing pins and other small parts, and those have had, in my view, an unacceptable failure rate.
An added benefit is that it makes it cheaper to build guns this way, but from the consumer's standpoint, the lessened weight is a big plus, especially for police and security forces, who have to carry a gun for 8 hours a day.
But is it really a plus? The force required to send the bullet downrange hasn't changed. The weight of a gun has a dampening effect on recoil, so the downside of these lighter guns is considerably more muzzle flip, with an attending loss of accuracy.
So, a lighter gun is less accurate? No, but a lighter gun leads to more recoil, and the user's anticipation of that recoil can lead to less accuracy. That is less of an issue for an expert shooter, but most people are not experts.
Do a side-by-side comparison of two like-sized semi-autos, one polymer-framed, and one all steel, and see the difference. One is more fun to shoot, and one is more accurate. They are probably the same.
Not convinced? Shoot a S&W 686 revolver with at least a 4 inch barrel, alongside one of those plastic snub-nosed .38s that is the size of a smart phone. Just to make it interesting, use a +P round in both. The defense rests.
I like the feel of a heavier gun, but the real point here, is that when a gun is harder to control, or hurts to shoot, a person won't practice with it. They won't. So if you carry a tiny concealed handgun daily, but haven't shot it in 6 months because it is not fun to shoot, what happens if you ever have to use it? Hmmm?
Monday, June 23, 2014
Top Shot competitor Chris Cheng
by Sandy Keathley
I read a sad commentary yesterday, on our current culture. There is a TV program on the History channel called "Top Shot". It involves a competition among marksmen, similar to those Top Chef type of cooking shows. The competitors use a variety of pistols and rifles, and are put through a number of different tests and scenarios. After several weeks, a top winner is announced; that person wins a large cash prize, a contract with the Bass Pro shops, endorsement deals, etc.
The recent winner for Season 4 was Chris Cheng, a young man who worked as a programmer for Google. In fact, he is self-taught in marksmanship, and learned by study, practice, more study, and more practice. As the season progressed, and he stayed in contention, he started having Q&A sessions at Google, so employees could talk to him about his experiences as a shooter, and as a contestant. A few were also curious about him, as, during the course of filming of the show, he had made the decision to come out as gay.
For people outside the world of shooting, it may be that there is a perception of shooting guns as a "manly" sport (despite the very large number of women competitive shooters), and Chris himself had some trepidation about his announcement. Instead, he found out that no one in that world treated him any differently. Competitive shooters' only concern was shooting, not PC nonsense. To paraphrase an old drag-racing phrase, "when the hammer drops, the bullshit stops".
A visitor at one of his Q&A sessions, knowing this backdrop, commented to him:
"I have worked in Silicon Valley for over 20 years, and have always been accepted as a gay man, but I have been a closet gun owner for decades."
Chris responded: "There is more than one type of closet."
Indeed. Our culture now, in some areas, and especially at the corporate level, will ostracize someone for being a gun owner, in the same way that they used to ostracize people for being black, or gay, or female.
This will not end by itself. I encourage you to take a stand. Be a proud gun owner. Let people know about it. Join the NRA.
I read a sad commentary yesterday, on our current culture. There is a TV program on the History channel called "Top Shot". It involves a competition among marksmen, similar to those Top Chef type of cooking shows. The competitors use a variety of pistols and rifles, and are put through a number of different tests and scenarios. After several weeks, a top winner is announced; that person wins a large cash prize, a contract with the Bass Pro shops, endorsement deals, etc.
The recent winner for Season 4 was Chris Cheng, a young man who worked as a programmer for Google. In fact, he is self-taught in marksmanship, and learned by study, practice, more study, and more practice. As the season progressed, and he stayed in contention, he started having Q&A sessions at Google, so employees could talk to him about his experiences as a shooter, and as a contestant. A few were also curious about him, as, during the course of filming of the show, he had made the decision to come out as gay.
For people outside the world of shooting, it may be that there is a perception of shooting guns as a "manly" sport (despite the very large number of women competitive shooters), and Chris himself had some trepidation about his announcement. Instead, he found out that no one in that world treated him any differently. Competitive shooters' only concern was shooting, not PC nonsense. To paraphrase an old drag-racing phrase, "when the hammer drops, the bullshit stops".
A visitor at one of his Q&A sessions, knowing this backdrop, commented to him:
"I have worked in Silicon Valley for over 20 years, and have always been accepted as a gay man, but I have been a closet gun owner for decades."
Chris responded: "There is more than one type of closet."
Indeed. Our culture now, in some areas, and especially at the corporate level, will ostracize someone for being a gun owner, in the same way that they used to ostracize people for being black, or gay, or female.
This will not end by itself. I encourage you to take a stand. Be a proud gun owner. Let people know about it. Join the NRA.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Zoom into the sight
by Sandy Keathley
Sight alignment is not the fundamental most ignored by shooters (I'll come back to that on another post), but it is close. Many shooters, even reasonably good ones, treat sight-alignment as if it were a suggestion instead of a precision requirement. A basketball, for example, doesn't have to go through a hoop of the exact same diameter as the ball; there is a margin for error of a few inches either way. Otherwise, we would not see any scores like 103. Suppose you had to hit a tiny hoop like that, not from the free-throw line, but from mid-court? Now you would begin to get it.
From 10 feet away, you can recognize the difference between a 5x8 photograph and an 8x10, but can you tell the difference between 1/4 inch and 3/8? When aligning the sights, it is relatively easy to get the top of the post level with the rear notch, but getting the white-space on either side of the post to be exactly equal is another thing. Yet, a discrepancy of 1/16 inch translates to 6 inches or more off the mark at 10 yards. And that doesn't include muzzle drift caused by other factors. And it certainly doesn't allow for the effects of aging eyes or progressive lenses. Yikes!
The greater the distance, the more precise that alignment has to be. Hitting a B-27 target at 3 yards doesn't require the ultra-precise alignment of hitting a 3 inch circle at 15 yards; it's all relative.
Nevertheless, becoming ultra-accurate at 7 yards requires concentration on small shot groups at 15 yards (or 25). As they say, "aim small, miss small". I think working with small targets at increasing distances leads to greater success. When you have a gun with a laser on it, I have also found great benefit in trying to hold the laser on a spot the size of a dime while squeezing the trigger all the way to break. It is often frustrating, but tends to increase mental focus.
Most shooters know that you should focus on the front sight, and not the target or rear sight, yet I think many people underestimate the meaning of that word "focus" in this context. It doesn't mean "look hard" at the front site, but rather to actually change the focal point of your vision, as if you no longer care about anything else. I think of it like a camera with a zoom feature. Focus on the front sight, but then try to zoom in on it. The goal is to make that sight crystal clear, to the exclusion of all else. No, that is not especially intuitive, and yes, it does make horizontal alignment more difficult, since the rear sight is now even less clear, but with practice you will learn which part of the fuzzy rear sight you need to align with. That just reinforces the value of working at shorter distances.
Zoom into the sight, and see how well you can pin-point your shots!
Sight alignment is not the fundamental most ignored by shooters (I'll come back to that on another post), but it is close. Many shooters, even reasonably good ones, treat sight-alignment as if it were a suggestion instead of a precision requirement. A basketball, for example, doesn't have to go through a hoop of the exact same diameter as the ball; there is a margin for error of a few inches either way. Otherwise, we would not see any scores like 103. Suppose you had to hit a tiny hoop like that, not from the free-throw line, but from mid-court? Now you would begin to get it.
From 10 feet away, you can recognize the difference between a 5x8 photograph and an 8x10, but can you tell the difference between 1/4 inch and 3/8? When aligning the sights, it is relatively easy to get the top of the post level with the rear notch, but getting the white-space on either side of the post to be exactly equal is another thing. Yet, a discrepancy of 1/16 inch translates to 6 inches or more off the mark at 10 yards. And that doesn't include muzzle drift caused by other factors. And it certainly doesn't allow for the effects of aging eyes or progressive lenses. Yikes!
The greater the distance, the more precise that alignment has to be. Hitting a B-27 target at 3 yards doesn't require the ultra-precise alignment of hitting a 3 inch circle at 15 yards; it's all relative.
Nevertheless, becoming ultra-accurate at 7 yards requires concentration on small shot groups at 15 yards (or 25). As they say, "aim small, miss small". I think working with small targets at increasing distances leads to greater success. When you have a gun with a laser on it, I have also found great benefit in trying to hold the laser on a spot the size of a dime while squeezing the trigger all the way to break. It is often frustrating, but tends to increase mental focus.
Most shooters know that you should focus on the front sight, and not the target or rear sight, yet I think many people underestimate the meaning of that word "focus" in this context. It doesn't mean "look hard" at the front site, but rather to actually change the focal point of your vision, as if you no longer care about anything else. I think of it like a camera with a zoom feature. Focus on the front sight, but then try to zoom in on it. The goal is to make that sight crystal clear, to the exclusion of all else. No, that is not especially intuitive, and yes, it does make horizontal alignment more difficult, since the rear sight is now even less clear, but with practice you will learn which part of the fuzzy rear sight you need to align with. That just reinforces the value of working at shorter distances.
Zoom into the sight, and see how well you can pin-point your shots!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)