Front Sight, Press

For all of you who have have agonized about muzzle velocity and barrel length, some guys have done some really systematic testing on this question:

Why "ballistics by the inch"?  Well, just about forever people have wondered what kind of trade-off one made in choosing a gun with a short barrel - how much power were you giving up for convenience/concealability?  There has been a lot of anecdotal information available - comparing this 2" .38 to that 6" .38, or a longslide .45 to an officer’s pistol with a shorter barrel - but there hasn’t been much in the way of consistent research made available to the average gun owner.  In the 1980s American Rifleman did some tests using a .44 mag revolver, cutting the barrel down from 18" to 1", and back in the 1930s someone did something similar with a 30-30.  But just try and find that data quickly.  And further, how does that data compare to your 9mm or .32?  Do they all lose power at the same rate?  Are some ammos better for your purpose than others?

We were curious just exactly what the drop-off in velocity was for a given caliber over a range of barrel lengths, and using a variety of available ammunition.  So, we decided to do some actual testing.  And, we wanted to make this information freely available as a service to gun owners everywhere.  This website is the result.

The web site is here.

h/t to Learn About Guns

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty today announced that the Department of the Interior has finalized updated regulations governing the possession of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The final rule, which updates existing regulations, would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located. The update has been submitted to the Federal Register for publication and is available to the public on www.doi.gov.

Existing regulations regarding the carrying of firearms remain otherwise unchanged, particularly limitations on poaching and target practice and prohibitions on carrying firearms in federal buildings.

“America was founded on the idea that the federal and state governments work together to serve the public and preserve our natural resources,” Laverty said.  “The Department’s final regulation respects this tradition by allowing individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal park units and refuges to the extent that they could lawfully do so under state law.  This is the same basic approach adopted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS), both of which allow visitors to carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws.”

On February 22, 2008, Interior Secretary Kempthorne responded to letters from 51 Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, as well as from the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, urging him to update existing regulations that prohibit the carrying of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. In his response, the Secretary directed Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty “to develop and propose for public comment by April 30 Federal regulations that will update firearms policies on these lands to reflect existing Federal laws (such as those prohibiting weapons in Federal buildings) and the laws by which the host states govern transporting and carrying of firearms on their analogous public lands.”

Changes in the final regulations from those originally proposed in April were developed as the result of public comments.  In particular, comments expressed concern about the feasibility of implementing regulations which directly linked the carrying of concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges to the ability of an individual to carry a concealed firearm on analogous state lands.  The final regulations remove that potential logistical hurdle.

The existing regulations, as currently in effect, were adopted in 1981 for national wildlife refuges and in 1983 for national parks. Since that time many states have enacted new firearms policies. Currently, 48 states have passed legislation allowing for the lawful possession of concealed weapons.

“The Department believes that in managing parks and refuges we should, as appropriate, make every effort to give the greatest respect to the democratic judgments of State legislatures with respect to concealed firearms,” said Laverty.  “Federal agencies have a responsibility to recognize the expertise of the States in this area, and federal regulations should be developed and implemented in a manner that respects state prerogatives and authority.”

Source: U.S. Department of the Interior

Plaxico Burress not alone in ignoring gun laws 

New York Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress accidentally shot himself with his own gun while nightclubbing in Manhattan. For his troubles, he received not just the medical treatment he needed and the public shaming he deserved (for lousy gun handling), but a fine and suspension from his team and the possibility of spending 15 years behind bars because the gun isn’t licensed in New York City. Quietly, I suspect lots of New Yorkers sympathize with the unfortunate football player.

In carrying an unlicensed handgun, Burress is in good company. New York City politicians, protected by phalanxes of taxpayer-funded guards and politically awarded permits to carry weapons, impose some of the toughest gun laws in the country on the people over whom they rule. Even long guns require permits and registration, and the handgun permitting process is an ordeal that takes months and money and requires applicants to submit to a fair share of abuse from officials on the off chance they’ll be approved. Even then, the city has been known to arbitrarily yank already issued handgun permits just to reduce the numbers on the streets.

Not surprisingly, many New Yorkers have chosen to acquire the means for self defense outside of official channels…

Read the whole thing at Disloyal Opposition

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (I don’t link there) is the nation’s largest, liberal, well-funded organization leading a fight to prevent gun violence through making it tougher for law-abiding citizens to own firearms. President Clinton signed the original Brady bill into law fifteen years ago on November 30, 1993.

Yesterday I offered a summary of the massacre in India. Then I discovered how what the Brady Bunch wants to do in the US would facilitate the same carnage that happened in India.

Read the whole thing at Common Folk Using Common Sense.

Why is it that I always hear these kinds of things about Glocks?

…the athlete’s accidental shooting of himself with a .40 Cal. Glock semi-automatic pistol, ABC News has learned from two separate sources involved in the investigation…

…According to police officials, Burress’ trouble began at about 1:50 a.m. Saturday morning at a New York nightclub when the star receiver attempted to balance a drink in his left hand while catching his Glock with his right before the gun slipped from the waistband of his trousers. In the process, the gun discharged sending a powerful .40 caliber round in and out of the Super Bowl hero’s thigh…

Source: ABC News

Ouch. In the interest of full disclosure, I dislike Glocks; I have always disliked Glocks; I will always dislike Glocks. Don’t waste your time trying to convince me to change my mind. I think they’re ugly and dangerous. You never, or almost never, hear these kinds of stories about Beretta 92F’s, SIG 229’s, the evil-looking 1911 or even snubby wheel guns. Yet, you hear these stories constantly about the Glocks. Anymore, when I hear an accidental discharge story, I assume it’s a Glock until I hear otherwise: “Police Chief [name withheld] shot himself in the leg while reaching for his car keys… Swat operator [name withheld] shot himself in the leg while cleaning his pistol… Competitor [name withheld] shot herself in the butt while adjusting her holster…” Glocks all.

[Yeah, I know I’m going to get some hate mail on this one.]

To be fair to the Glocken, I never juggle drinks with one hand and fiddle with my pistol with the other. I use proper holsters, and I feel confident that I could carry a Glock successfully without blowing off an appendage. Nevertheless, I hear way too many “accidental discharge” stories about Glocks, many more than with other types of pistols. Is there something inherently dangerous about the Glock design, or are careless people drawn to Glocks? If as many people carried SIG 229’s as carry Glocks, would we hear the same number of accidents with them? I don’t know, and I know of no way to test the theory. All I do know is that I hear of a whole lot of leg shooting with the Glocken. Would Plaxico be in trouble today had he been carrying a 92F, a 1911 or even a Springfield XD having a grip safety? Given the quality of judgment he has displayed, I would have to say yes, he would be in some kind of trouble, but maybe it wouldn’t be for the bullet hole in his own dumb leg.

There’s nothing wrong with the Glock that John Moses Browning couldn’t fix.

[Did I mention that I don’t like Glocks?]

Mumbai and the Horror of Gun Control
by Jacob G. Hornberger

In the wake of the terrorist attack in Mumbai, I can already hear the U.S. gun-control crowd calling for new gun-control measures here in the United States. There will be several big problems with their pleas.

One, as an article in the International Herald Tribune points out, India has strict gun-control laws. Those laws did not prevent the terrorist attack at the Oberoi and Taj Mahal Palace and Tower hotel. As libertarians have long been pointing out, terrorists and murderers have no reservations about disobeying gun-control laws. The long-held assumption among the gun-control crowd that murderers and terrorists will respect and obey gun-control laws, even while having no reservations about violating laws against murder and terrorism, is ridiculous, as the Mumbai killings once again demonstrate.

Two, another long-held assumption of the gun-controllers is that gun control will keep guns out of the hands of murderers and terrorists. Not so in Mumbai. The attackers simply brought their weapons with them when they landed on shore.

Third, gun-control laws are successful in disarming peaceful and law-abiding people, preventing them from defending themselves from murderers and terrorists, as the Mumbai killing once again demonstrate. There is no indication that any of the hotel guests fired back at their attackers. The reason had to be that the guests were complying with India’s gun-control laws by not having a gun in their possession.

Without gun control laws, everyone is safer, even those who don’t carry a gun. The reason is demonstrated by what happened in Mumbai. Let’s say that 5 percent of the hotel guests carried a weapon. There were 10 attackers. The guests who were carrying guns could have done some major damage because the attackers would not have known who was carrying guns and who wasn’t. When the attackers are certain that no one is carrying guns, they can move about with ease, shooting everyone they encounter, much as the shooter at Virginia Tech did.

Moreover, the likelihood that at least some people in a building are armed serves as a deterrent to murderers and terrorists. For example, how often do you hear about robberies, murders, and terrorist attacks taking place at U.S. gun shows?

Fourth, the gun-control crowd says that disarmed people can nonetheless rely on the police to protect them from murderers and terrorists. Not so in Mumbai, however, where some 200 innocent people have been killed. One reason was provided by Sebastian D’Souza, a photographer at the scene, who told the Belfast Telegraph: “There were armed policemen hiding all around the station and none of them did anything. At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, ‘Shoot them, they’re sitting ducks!’ but they just didn’t shoot back.”

As the Mumbia horror once again reminds us, gun-control laws are a disaster. They have no effect on murderers and terrorists. They do not prevent murderers and terrorists from acquiring weapons. They succeed in disarming innocent people, thereby preventing them from defending themselves from murderers and terrorists. And by the time the police get around to ending the threat, lots of innocent people have already died.

Hornberger’s Blog Archives

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.

Source: Future of Freedom Foundation

ST. LOUIS — Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe’s neighborhood has seen nine homicides in 10 months this year, more than all but one other section of the city.

With gunplay wreaking havoc on his ward, Troupe thinks he has found an answer: citizens arming themselves.

The alderman is pleading with constituents to get guns of their own — and learn how to use them. Troupe, who represents a swatch of north St. Louis, is encouraging residents to apply for concealed weapons permits so they can start carrying a firearm.

The city’s new police chief, among others, worries that introducing even more guns into high-crime areas is a recipe for greater turmoil, not less.

Troupe, however, says he has lost faith in the Police Department and is urging residents to take it upon themselves to protect their homes and property.

"These are God-fearing people. These are law-abiding citizens," Troupe, 72, says. "They have a right to own a gun, and they have a right to carry a gun."…

…Troupe, a former state representative, says he supported concealed weapons legislation while in Jefferson City, and supports it now.

He declined to say whether he carries a gun. He is encouraging others to do so because, he says, some parts of St. Louis are just too dangerous…

…Troupe is hoping to recruit residents from his 1st Ward and around the area to take a firearms safety course, a requirement to qualify for a concealed weapons permit. He has even made his pitch at City Hall — and he says several aldermen have expressed interest in obtaining a permit.

For now, he says he has a list of around 40 residents who have indicated they would like to take the weapons safety course. About 30 of them, he said, are women….

…One north St. Louis woman who already has her concealed weapons permit — and a 9 mm handgun to go with it — is Vivian Jones, who knows Troupe and supports his gun push.

She has been robbed at gunpoint in her daughter’s home in Troupe’s ward. Just recently, she witnessed a gunfire exchange outside her business, a dry cleaners, in the city’s Baden neighborhood, where she lives now.

For her 53rd birthday in June, Jones bought a handgun and began target practicing regularly — and she has the bull’s-eyes to prove it.
"I pray to God that I never have to use this," Jones said, pointing to her waist holster. "But if I do, I’ll have it."…

Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch (MO)

So far we will be voting on the following entries.  I have made no effort to edit out any entries for being too graphic, given that unlawfully shooting someone through a door isn’t exactly a civilized act.  Even worse is evading prosecution.

What you see is what was submitted, so if there’s something not there that you have, let me know.  I will leave this up until morning, then I’ll switch on voting in the morning.  By the end of the day, we’ll take the results and declare a winner:

Go here to see the entries.

Grizzly stuff, perhaps, but it needs to be done. Whether you care about gun rights or not doesn’t matter. No civilized nation should allow a rouge police unit to do what the FBI did at Ruby Ridge. No company that chooses to capitalize on this horror should receive a dime from any thinking American.

It is the photograph that has dominated the world’s front pages, casting an astonishing light on the fresh-faced killers who brought terror to the heart of India’s most vibrant city. Now it can be revealed how the astonishing picture came to be taken by a newspaper photographer who hid inside a train carriage as gunfire erupted all around him.

Sebastian D’Souza, a picture editor at the Mumbai Mirror, whose offices are just opposite the city’s Chhatrapati Shivaji station, heard the gunfire erupt and ran towards the terminus. "I ran into the first carriage of one of the trains on the platform to try and get a shot but couldn’t get a good angle, so I moved to the second carriage and waited for the gunmen to walk by," he said..

…"Towards the station entrance, there are a number of bookshops and one of the bookstore owners was trying to close his shop," he recalled. "The gunmen opened fire and the shopkeeper fell down."

But what angered Mr D’Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, ‘Shoot them, they’re sitting ducks!’ but they just didn’t shoot back."

As the gunmen fired at policemen taking cover across the street, Mr D’Souza realised a train was pulling into the station unaware of the horror within. "I couldn’t believe it. We rushed to the platform and told everyone to head towards the back of the station. Those who were older and couldn’t run, we told them to stay put."

The militants returned inside the station and headed towards a rear exit towards Chowpatty Beach. Mr D’Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

Source: The Belfast Telegraph

Topics: Concealed Carry and Terrorist Threats, Remembering Ruby Ridge, Grizzly Bears and the .357 Magnum, Remington 185g +p .45 ACP ammunition, Ambidextrous Gun fighting.

Click on the little arrow to listen in your browser or go here to subscribe with Itunes