In most states in the USA, the lawful concealed carry of firearms is allowed with a special permit bestowed upon him or her after certain conditions are met.  These conditions usually mean a class regarding firearm safety, written test, background check, evaluation of your abilities with a firearm or other such things.  All of those may be used and sometimes more or less depending on the area.  A fee is paid and a license is given to the person, lawfully allowing them to carry a concealed handgun on their person.  But some people may not know exactly what kind of gun to use to protect themselves.  That's why I'm making this entry.

To start off is caliber.  In pistols they range from the diminutive .17 caliber to the big mother--500 Magnum.  Although the 500 Magnum is not necessary (or adviseable or even feasable) the small calibers aren't recommended either.  The .22 Long Rifle, .25 ACP, .32 ACP, and .380 ACP are all small and used often in small pistols, but they are not effective man-stoppers when the point is to stop a violent assault on your person.  You just need bigger.

For semi-automatic handguns one shouldn't choose anything weaker than the popular 9mm Parabellum cartridge.  But .40 S&W and .45 ACP are more effective, there's nothing wrong with 9mm.  For revolvers, one shouldn't go lower than .38 Special.  But as with semi-autos, there are more powerful and proven calibers like the .357 Magnum, .44 Special, .44 Magnum, and .45 Long Colt.

As for specific bullet types, there are several.  Full Metal Jacket, Jacketed Soft Point, Jacketed Hollow Point, Wadcutter, Semi-wadcutter, etc.  Full Metal Jacket is a simple lead bullet covered in a tight jacket of copper to hold it together.  This enables it to penetrate mor easily, but it also makes the bullet not expend as much energy into the target.  And it risks the bullet going through and hitting innocent bystanders.  Bad.  They're fine for practice because they're cheaper, but they're not to be used for self defense.  In that role they're less effective and more dangerous.  The best to use would be the Semi-jacketed Hollow Point.

Unlike a Full Metal Jacket, the copper jacket on this bullet type only goes half-way up, showing lead at the top half.  The Hollow point refers to a hole-like recess in the end of the bullet.  This allows it to expand better inside what it hits, creating a larger wound channel, enable to do more damage to internal organs and possible break bones.  Sound morbid?  It is.  But when considering the protection of yourself and possibly your spouse or children you must use the most effective, and consequently lethal, round available.  You shouldn't even be drawing a pistol toward an attacker unless you're sure he is a very serious threat to your life or those around you.  When you pull the trigger you want as close to an immediate stop as you can, whether that means a fatal shot or one just disallows him to continue forward.  And when buying ammunition for self-defense, don't buy the cheap stuff.  It's just not as good.  Speer Gold Dot, Federal Premium Hydra Shock, and TAP Personal Defense Ammo are some of the big names and are proven effective.

As far as specific guns are concerned, I don't have enough room to discuss that here in enough depth.  So I'll just name a few good pieces and let you do the research.  Tomorrow I'll do an article on semi-autos and revolvers in a personal defense role.

Compact Semi-Automatic Handguns:
Glock 26 (9mm) 27 (.40 S&W) 28 (.380 ACP) and 29 (10mm)
Walther PPS
Beretta Cheetah
1911 Compact

Campact Revolvers:
Smith & Wesson Airweight series
Ruger SP-101
Taurus Ultra-Light
Colt Detective Special (used)

I figured since I did a revolver versus semi-automatic pistol entry I'd do a semi-automatic versus bolt-action sniper rifle entry out of sheer boredom.  Still waiting for suggestions and input by the way...

Semi-automatic Rifle Pros.

The mosty obvious is the ability to fire consecutive shots more quickly and the ability to, generally, hold more rounds per magazine and quick reloading.  A small amount of the recoil is also disspated because of the energy put into the action to chamber the next round.

Semi-automatic Rifle Cons.

The automatic ejection of a shell casing can draw more attention to the shooter than he would want.  With a bolt-action he can take out the shell casing by hand rather than letting it fly out on its own.  Semi-autos are also heavier and have more moving parts, meaning more things that can go wrong.

Bolt-action Rifle Pros.

There's a higher inherent accuracy because of the more solid design and lock-up of the action.  And shots are more consistent from bullet to bullet, which is what a sniper generally wants.

Bolt-action Rifle Cons.

Of course one must work the bolt back and forth between shots, meaning slower consecutive firing.

Which is better?  Well that really depends on the application and distance.  From a very long range the superior accuracy of the bolt-action would be better, but closer up if one needed faster consecutive shots a semi-automatic would be better.  But that's not to say one couldn't make a very long shot with a semi-auto or take several targets up close with a bolt-action, but they're specialized tools that each have their own niche.

~S

In response to Cavutto's comment on my last entry, guns are absolutely more fun to shoot than to blog about.  But here's another entry anyway about the "coil gun".

They're mostly science fiction for now, requiring too much energy too fast to be light and powerful enough for carrying by an infantryman.  For those that don't know what a coil gun is, it's a gun that relies on magnetism and electricity to move a bullet rather than the explosive force of a cartridge filled with gunpowder.

The barrel of the gun is as usual, but in several places along the barrel is a coil of metal that acts as an electromagnet, pulling the bullet toward it.  As the bullet gets close to the first coil that coil shuts off and the next one in line pulls it along further, continuing the velocity.  A diagram is here ( http://www.global-defence.com/1997/High-speed/CoilgunLG.jpg ).

It is possible to make these with things from a simple electronics store, but it would be relatively low-powered, not even as strong as a store-bought BB gun most likely, but probably a fun project.

As technology advances we may see the coil gun see more interest, but it's impractical for now as anything but a toy or in a laboratory.  But possible advantages are: it would be much quieter than a firearm and could, in theory, work well in outer space if for whatever reason someone had to shoot something in space.

The moon men will never know what hit them.

~S

I'm starting to run out of ideas for blog posts here.  I've gotten a decent amount of views, but few comments and no private messages.  Do any of you have firearm related questions I could answer?  Wanting to get into shooting but are unsure what to do?  Wondering what might suit you in a home defense situation?  Have any guns cause violence delusions I can clear up?  I need some input, people.  I don't know what else to post here.

~S

There are many people on both sides of the argument--each defending their preference for pistols, either self-loading guns or wheel guns.  And both have their distinct advantages and disadvantages in different situations.  And I figure I'll go through the pros and cons of each.


Revolver Pros.

Generally speaking, revolvers are more reliable.  They have less moving parts, meaning for a lower percent chance of something happening to one.  You can also shoot anything in them that fits.  In a .357 Magnum you can fire .357 Magnum bullets, .38 Special bullets, and 9mm bullets in moon clips.  In .45 Long Colt chambered revolvers you can use .45 LC, .410 shotgun shells, and .45 ACP bullets in moon clips.  This is because you manually cycle the chambers.  In a semi-automatic you need a certain amount of force in the casing to operate the slide and reliably chamber the next round.

Revolver are also generally more simple.  There's a hammer, a trigger, and a cylinder release button.  No grip safeties, no slide releases.  You can tell absolutely if it's unloaded--just release the cylinder and it becomes plainly obvious if there's a bullet in it or not.  And generally speaking you can make more powerful revolvers than semi-automatics at a cheaper cost.  For instance the Smith and Wesson 500 offers similar firepower to the Desert Eagle in .50 AE, but is cheaper.

Revolver Cons.

Revolvers carry fewer bullets than semi-automatics in most cases.  And they are slower to reload for most people.  Of course because of Jerry Miculek you can't call revolvers slow, but they are slower.

Semi-automatic Pros.

Semi-automatics are well known for being able to hold many bullets in magazines--anywhere from ten to seventeen or even more with longer magazines.  Their single-action trigger pulls are usually lighter than revolvers as well, sometimes meaning better accuracy, but not always.  Semi-automatics can be lighter than revolvers of the same size because of the use of hard plastic polymers in place of steel but are still very durable.  The Glock and Springfield XD have both gone through torture tests like being frozen in blocks of ice, run over, filled with sand, and then being cleaned and working without problem.  And although revolvers are more simple, semi-automatics are not at all difficult to operate.

Semi-automatics are sometimes considered safer than revolvers, but that's a little unmeritted.  They simply have more things you have to do to make them fire.  Which could either be a good or bad thing depending on the situation.  They do give the user more of a margin of error, though.  Still, they operate on the principle that you shouldn't pull the trigger unless you want the gun to fire.

Semi-automatic Cons.

Semi-automatics are generally less powerful than revolvers.  Though the .40 S&W and .45 ACP are both reputable man-stoppers, the .357 Magnum,  .44 Magnum, and .45 Long Colt do better performance-wise.  And if you ever have a fail-to-fire (FTF) in a semi-automatic where the striker or hammer fails to fire a bullet, you have to cycle the dud out by hand.  With a revolver you simply pull the trigger again and line a new bullet up with the barrel.


Overall, though, they're about equal--each better than the other in different ways.  Which one is "better" overall really depends on who is holding it.  Still many people look down on the revolver because it's old and not as technologically advanced as more modern semi-automatic pistols.  But at the same time, snubnose revolvers are one of the most popular choices used as self-defense tools because they can be comfortable to have on you without sacrificing decent firepower and reliability is a common selling point.  People like not having a lot of controls on something--like a mouse you just point and click.

~S

I've come to believe that this person is a complete imbecile:

http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/anotherview/all-right_col-a.6384493apr30,0,6328408.story

The whole article proves how out of touch with reality he is, but this particular passage gets me:

"Now there are hundreds of ads for machine guns, large-capacity magazines, and ammunition on the Internet. These are weapons that should be reserved for elite police and military units."

I'm sorry, what?  Ads for machine guns on the internet?  Wow, he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and obviously doesn't know a thing about current firearm laws.  You can buy giuns from the internet, but you must have them shipped to a certified Federal Firearms License holder around you.  You then go to that place, have the background check, sign the papers, and pay the money.

But you can't get machine guns.  Machine guns are defined as...

"A machine gun is a fully-automatic mounted or portable firearm, usually designed to fire rifle cartridges in quick succession from an ammunition belt or large-capacity magazine, typically at a rate of several hundred bullets per minute."

Of course these guns have been illegal in the United States for a very long time, obtainable legally only if you hold a special position with several background checks, tax stamps, fingerprinting, extra taxes, and of course they cost thousands.

This man also says owning a gun is a privalege, not a right.

Funny, our Constitution says differently.

It's strange to note how both this idiot and myself want to preserve safety and help the common good but we both have opposite views on how to do that.  Of course he seems very in-the-dark about the whole situation, but such is the world we live in.

~S

Yesterday I mentioned the four rules that, when followed, offer a pretty much zero percent chance of gun accidents.  I thought I'd go through them for people that don't know what they are or why they work so well.

Rule 1 - Treat all guns as if they're loaded, even if they're not.  Check all guns before handling.

Simply put, most gun accidents happen right before people say, "I thought it wasn't loaded!"  If firearms are treated as if they're loaded all the time, people are much more careful.

Rule 2 - Do not point the gun at anything you wouldn't mind destroying--always keep the muzzle in a safe direction.

Basically, if you always point the gun in a direction where there are no people, animals, or expensive objects, it can't hurt anything but a wall or the floor, even if it somehow goes off.

Rule 3 - Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you're ready to shoot.

Guns go off when you pull the trigger.  If your finger isn't on it, that pretty much can't happen.

Rule 4 - Be absolutely sure of your target and what's behind it.

Be aware of what you're shooting at and what could be behind it.  Bullets can penetrate certain things and continue flying.  Only shoot if you know what you're shooting at will stop the bullet or there are empty fields or forest or a dirt pile behind it.

Simply put, if you follow these rules the gun won't go off accidentally.  And even if it did, which it wouldn't, the bullet, if there was one chambered, would only hit a wall or the floor.

These four rules ensure safety when handling firearms if followed, not to mention there are an additional six sub-rules:

Be sure the gun is safe to operate, that there are no barrel obstructions, etc.
Use only the ammunition type specified on the gun with it.
Wear eye and ear protection while shooting.
Never use alcohol or perscription drugs before or during shooting.
Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
Make sure the gun is properly cleaned and maintained.


Shooting is just like every sport.  There are precautions that must be taken to stay safe.  And when they're followed, the user minimizes risk of injury.  Firearm shooting can actually be much safer than most sports if the rules are followed.

So stay safe, have fun shooting, and share your sport.

~S

http://www.bnd.com/285/story/324116.html 

No.

Because there's no such thing as effective gun control.  It's all just the same registration, the same government lists.  The same control.  It doesn't reduce crime and it never will.  It just treats everyone like criminals that don't have the intelligence to operate a firearm without killing someone wether on purpose or accidentally.

People don't need training to operate guns without accidents happening.  The average gun has maybe four controls.  And there are four rules of gun handling that, when followed, offer a roughly 0.0009% chance of accident.  Automobiles and computers have several times more controls, but they're operated every day.  Of course people are killed by cars all the time (much more than by guns, might I add), but you only have to be sixteen to get a license for one of those.  And there's no background check every time you want to buy one, either.

And automobiles aren't protected by the Constitution, while guns are.

So why the hell do people like me still have to argue for them?

This is rediculous.

~S

Firstly, there's a protest in California against an ammunition registration bill, AB 2026.  People will be meeting on West Steps of the Capitol of Sacremento on May 6, 2008 at 9:00 AM.  If you're a hunter, firearm enthusiast, sportsman, etc. and are around that area, please go and protest for your rights as an American citizen.  I would surely attend if I were able to.  You can find more information here: http://www.crpa.org/showpages.aspx?pid=1410 

Also, the Supreme Court is supposed to have a ruling on the definition of the Second Amendment.  Personally, I thought that was already done a few times and that it was decided that (obviously) the right to bear arms is an individual right.  ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" sounds pretty self-explanatory to me.)

Anyway the guy writing this article ( http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/04/28/2008-04-28_public_safety_in_supreme_danger.html ) is a usual ignorant, anti-gun moron.  I particularly think this part is humorous:

"Strict judicial scrutiny [on current gun laws] would mean the end to a wide range of common, legitimate gun safety laws that Americans nationwide rely on to preserve public safety and protect children. These include bans on carrying concealed firearms; bans on assault rifles; trigger lock requirements; bans on guns in government buildings and schools; bans on possession by felons; and perhaps even basic licensing laws."

To address his remarks point by point:

1 - Criminals don't obey laws against carrying concealed weapons anyway.

2 - Assault rifles account for a very small percentage of weapons-based crime.

3 - Trigger-locks are as good at preventing accidents as simple knowledge.

4 - Criminals intending to hurt people don't care about a sign telling them "no guns".

5 - Okay, a real point.  A don't believe felons that have been convicted of violent crime should have guns.They might get them anyway illegally, but there should be restrictions on them to at least make it a little more difficult.

6 - People should not need licenses to enact the freedom of defending themselves with a firearm.

I also noticed the writer of this article's use of "to preserve public safety and protect children."  That's usual anti-gun schpeel trying to get women to think emotionally rather than logically to vote for gun control because they think it will protect their children.  And this works frighteningly well despite how absurd it is.

Remember, trigger locks may keep children from firing guns, but they also keep their owner from firing them in time of emergency.  There are better ways of keeping children safe like A) teaching them to respect guns and know they're not toys or B) keep them out of reach.  Statistics show that more children die of poisoning or drowning in buckets of water than gun accidents anyway.  At least guns have safeties.

Let's stop the nonsense.

~S

Another good article I found today.  My favorite part might be this:

"One problem I have with the gun-control people is that I believe most of them know these facts about who's committed a majority of the gun crimes. But they don't want to deal with it. It's too hot a potato, too politically incorrect. So, as a smoke screen, they rant and rail about guns as if all these tools are possessed by demons that cause the guns to hop off the shelves and force people to use them."

You can read the whole article here: http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080423/OPINION/804230342/1015/opinion 

It seems that more people are starting to get that gun control only applies to those willing to obey the law.  And that criminals, by definition, break said laws and get guns anyway.  Like I've said before, bans on guns work on only those willing to follow the law and not kill people with those guns in the first place.

As for those that still think guns are only for killing, I guess all the people into target shooting, various pistol, rifle, and shotgun shooting competitions, and Olympic sport shooting are using theirs wrong.

~S

Found this story and thought it was funny.  Well not ha-ha funny, but ironic funny.  A woman returns to her home to find when she walks in that robbers had just left.  Now she claims that anyone else breaking into her home isn't leaving without holes in his body that weren't there before.  That she has a right to protect herself and she's going to use it.  More power to her!

You can read the whole, fairly short article here: http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=177791&src=

Lots of people believe gun control is a good thing, but when they're put in the situation where a gun could save their life, they're often inclined to change their perspective.

~S

I'm so sorry to bring up so much unfortunate, depressing news time after time, but I swear it will stop soon.  This is just a formal notice to everyone to start picking up so called "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines while you can.

In 1994 the Assault Weapon Ban came about, restricting the sale of so called "assault weapons" or rifles with more than two "evil" features including:

A pistol grip.

A flash supressor.

A folding stock.

A bayonet lug.

The bill also banned the manufacture of magazines that held more than ten bullets.

Of course the bill has since sunsetted, thank the Lord, but you can bet the farm that Clinton or Obama would try to bring it back with a vengeance.  Maybe even McCain.

Now those of you ignorant of the facts may think this is a good thing.  Reducing violent crime is surely a good thing.  Sadly statistics have shown that the AWB didn't actually work to do that.  Impossible, right?  No.  Statistics show that the majority of firearms used in violent crime are actually cheap, small, easily-concealable pistols that carry less than ten rounds.  These guns weren't even covered by the AWB.

And of course real assault weapons are heavily, heavily restricted in America and have been for years.  Assault weapons fire fully-automatic or three-round bursts.  (A three-round burst is when the gun automatically fires three shots in quick succession with a single pull of the trigger.)  These guns are very expensive, require FBI background checks, long waiting periods, huge taxes, special licenses, fingerprinting, and other such things.  You have to jump through a million bureaucratic hoops to get one.

But the "assault weapons" being banned are basically just anything appearing military-like.  I'll give you a test.  Pick the real assault weapon from the fake one.

http://www.themartialist.com/images/tac2207.jpg

http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/imgs/steyr_aug.jpg

Give up?  Okay, the second one is the assault weapon--a Steyr AUG.  The first gun is functionally exactly the same as this:

http://www.ruger-firearms.com/Firearms/images/Products/13L.jpg

It's a Ruger 10/22, a small-caliber rifle with a limited range suitable only for killing large rodents and paper targets.  But all the fancy parts on the first picture make it look evil, even though it's not.  This is enough to have it restricted.

The above should have convinced you or at least helped to make you understand that bans on "assault weapons" are not about saving lives, but about enciting control.  I hate sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but governments don't like people to have power and firearms give them that.

In short, pick up an AR-15 or a semi-auto AK-47 clone while you can.  Hoard high-capacity magazines.  Who knows, the people might be smart enough to shoot down further gun control bills, but with recent crimes committed by people with guns, the ignorant and obvious choice is to say, "Don't let people have them."  Smart people know this doesn't work and only makes things worse, but smart people are a rare commodity.

For more information on why the old Assault Weapon Ban was filled with ill-thought-out concepts that didn't even help reduce crime, see this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfKADcfE90U 

Also, this PDF file backs all its claims of gun control not working with statistics made by several government agencies:  http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.2/GunFacts4-2-Screen.pdf 

Please, people, let's not make that mistake again.  Get educated.  People that understand guns don't fear them.

P.S. There is no reason bayonet lugs should be restricted.  When's the last time you heard of a gang-banger in a bayonet attack?  Never!  Because it doesn't happen!

~S

The military is preparing to possibly spend millions of dollars on rifles for the troops.  But Colt says the M4 carbine is perfectly okay.  And that soldiers' reports on it jamming frequently and getting filled with the fine desert sand are minor problems.  You can read the article here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080420/ap_on_re_us/the_gun_wars 

I've personally read the thoughts on a few serving military personell.  And most have said the M4 jams way too often and puts too many lives at stake.  These men are over there putting their lives on the line for us and we can't so much as come up with a rifle that doesn't jam?  There are similar problems with other weapons.  The M16 models A1, A2, A3, and A4 all have the same problems but have a longer effective range due to longer barrel length.  And the M249 squad automatic weapon (or SAW) is regarded as fragile and tempermental.

Quite frankly: our troops deserve better.  There are many that disapprove of the war, but I'm sure we can all agree that as long as the troops are in that sandy hellhole they should at least have a well-built, durable, effective rifle.  The Fabrique Nationale FN SCAR (pictured here: http://www.ultimate-gear.be/shop/images/vfcscarposter2.jpg ) and Heckler and Koch HK416 (pictured here: http://world.guns.ru/assault/hk416-1.jpg ) are possible replacements.  Both have proven to be excellent weapons as well.

The people at Colt, obviously, say there's nothing wrong with their rifles.  Which is expected because they're receiving millions to produce them for the army and don't want that to stop.  In my opinion, they need to realize that their product is not as perfect as they think and either fix it or get out of the way and allow someone who really cares about the men they're arming to come forward.

~S

Hello, hello and might I add: welcome, welcome.  I am a seventeen-year-old firearm enthusiast or "gun nut".  And thanks to people like Cho and those two idiots behind the Columbine shootings, you may already think I'm mentally disturbed.  Which is so, so unfortunate.  But it's a common misconception in today's world that anyone with a like for firearms, especially those of a certain age, is inherintly violent or is just waiting to snap and go postal.

I am not, however.

And that's why I'm begining this blog--because there are people, and lots of them, from the ages of thirteen to thirty to eighty-three that enjoy learning about, cleaning, taking care of, and yes firing guns.  They are of several various races, genders, religions, incomes, locations, and walks of life.  And they are not crazy, violent, or unusual.  Just like there are car guys and sports guys there are gun guys (and girls, however few).

But still there are people that think guns are magical objects that can make tragedies happen around them without cause. 

Gun sititng on a table?  Watch out!  It might go off by itself and kill someone!

Rediculous.

Oh no, someone holding a gun!  He must want to shoot me or he wouldn't have that gun!

Foolish.

Guns are tools.  If a person holds a hammer, do you call him evil because of the destructive abilities of such an item?  Or do you commend him for being a builder of homes?

Guns are not evil--they are pieces of metal--they cannot think.  No matter how pretty a chromed revolver may look or how crude an AK-47 might seem, they are not capable of choosing how they're used.  The person holding the gun, not the gun, is responsible for what happens with it.

And still there are people, with varying degrees of intelligence, that want to ban these from individual use.  "Constitution be dammed," they say, or just try to worm around it in order to "protect" the people.  If less people have guns, less bad people will have guns, right?  Yes!  And only bad people will have them!  Because bad people are the ones that will break the laws and get guns anyway, bans or restrictions nonwithstanding.  And good people will be absolutely defenseless against them because their oh-so-protective politicians made them "safe".

Because if I were married and my wife were used as some sick despot's plaything, I'd be pretty pissed that my government told her she didn't need a gun and that it would protect her in stead--that she didn't need a gun.

And you would be, too.

But depressive thoughts aside, welcome to my blog.  I will be discussing various firearm news, politics, new guns, (legal) modifications, and other such things in the coming hours/days/months/years/whatever.

~S