Bayou Renaissance Man

They are indeed.  I've seen them used as fighting weapons far too many times in the Third World, and the damage that results.

Click over to Gun Free Zone's post about that, and watch the video.  WARNING:  It's not for the squeamish or faint at heart.  You'll see a hand chopped right off, among other injuries.

Keep that in mind when you're next threatened by a machete, or a sharpened garden spade, or any improvised edged weapon (not to mention conventional knives).  If you get up close and personal in a knife fight, you almost certainly will get cut, if not much more severely injured.  It goes with the territory.

That's also why I tend towards larger, heavier calibers of handgun when in environments where that sort of danger may be a threat.  I want to stop anyone heading my way with such a weapon in their hands.  Smaller calibers and cartridges may work . . . but then again, they may not.

Peter

The BBC reports that Colombia's armed forces are missing a whole bunch of ammunition and weapons.

Colombia's military has lost millions of bullets, thousands of grenades and several missiles, the nation's president has said.

Gustavo Petro ... said the missing items came to light during surprise visits to two military bases - Tolemaida and La Guajira - on 12 February and 1 April, respectively.

At Tolemaida, there was a shortfall of more than 808,000 bullets and nearly 10,000 fewer grenades than the inventory listed on official records.

Meanwhile at La Guajira, the discrepancies included nearly 4.2 million bullets and more than 9,300 grenades. Mr Petro also said the base had lost two Spike missiles, 37 Nimrod missiles and 550 rocket-propelled grenades.

He told reporters that the military supplies would have been passed on to armed groups within Colombia, but could have been smuggled to Haiti or the international black market.

There's more at the link.

I'm sure the personnel at those military bases were delighted (NOT!) to have snap inspections of their facilities, giving them no warning and leaving them no time to cover up the missing items.  I'm sure many of them made a lot of money by diverting them to weapons smugglers.  I hope it'll be enough to compensate them for the years in prison that will likely be coming their way.

That sort of chicanery is a real problem in the drug wars.  Mexico's cartels are armed with full-auto military weapons that they've largely obtained from the Mexican armed forces and those in countries to the south.  When they have so much money at their disposal, it's not difficult to bribe those in charge of the weapons to turn a blind eye to wholesale theft.  Trouble is, those cartels then turn their weapons against their own authorities, and against the US as well in the form of ambushes directed against the Border Patrol, Customs officers and other law enforcement personnel.  Many such weapons have been found smuggled into this country, and in the possession of local cartel distributors.  The latest one I heard of amounted to more than 20 full-auto assault rifles, more than 100 magazines and over 5,000 rounds of ammunition, plus several hand-grenades and a rocket launcher.  That's enough to give any local police force conniption fits.  They're severely outgunned.

Of course, the gun-grabbers' answer is to blame private firearms owners for "allowing" their guns to be stolen, or selling them to the cartels.  That's largely not the case.  Private owners seldom own full-auto weapons, and almost never explosive devices.  Those are sourced from corrupt militaries more than anywhere else.  It's not a comfortable thought that law-abiding citizens like you and I might have to face up to criminals armed in that fashion.  I feel outgunned already.

Peter

I had to smile at this news report.  If you'd prefer to read it rather than watch the video, you'll find the article here.

Now that's a warm and fuzzy gun story for you!

Peter

It seems the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF for short) is bound and determined to put every single firearms transfer through a formal registration process, whether justifiable or not.

The ATF’s background check rule redefines the word “sale” so that private sellers who receive services or barter in exchange for a gun are required to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

. . .

... pages 26-27 of the rule equates “pecuniary gain” with “profit,” opening the door for the ATF to redefine the word “sale” so as to require a NICS check when a private seller is “bartering” over a gun.

Beginning with the last paragraph on Page 26 and reading into the first paragraph of page 27, the reader sees clearly that the ATF is defining the terms:  “Defining these terms to include any method of payment for a firearm would clarify that persons cannot avoid the licensing requirement by, for instance, bartering or providing or receiving services in exchange for firearms with the predominant intent to earn pecuniary gain even where no money is exchanged.”

Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb commented on the ATF rule, saying, “This is a continuation of the Biden war on guns. It is another attempt to get around Congress to make new laws without congressional approval.”

There's more at the link.

Never in previous American history has such registration been necessary.  I entirely agree with Mr. Gottlieb:  the ATF is trying to effectively make a new law, which is the prerogative of Congress alone, by arbitrarily redrafting its regulations under existing law to such an extent that they actually change that law.  This is unconstitutional, to say the least:  yet, under the Biden administration, such bureaucratic shenanigans have become routine.  One hopes the Supreme Court will eventually get around to striking down this latest example of ATF overreach.

Nevertheless, the bureaucrats can't close every door.  I note, for example, that to give someone a firearm one has already owned for some time as a gift (where no money or other compensation, in cash or in kind, changes hands) is still entirely legal, and does not require a background check.  I would imagine that if Joe Bloggs gives John Smith such a gun as a gift one month, and John Smith gives Joe Bloggs such a gun at a suitably later date (so that there's no obvious link between the gifts), that would still be arguably outside the new regulations.  Furthermore, if one does not receive any "pecuniary gain" for a firearm by selling it (in other words, for less than one paid for it), I would imagine that would be a suitable defense against any charge under these regulations (assuming, of course, that one did not do so regularly, thereby "conducting a business" in the trade in firearms according to the bureaucratic definition).  In the old days, that used to be more-or-less loosely defined as selling more than five firearms per year.  Now, who knows?  The regulations have not yet been tested in actual court cases.  I imagine that can't be far away.

There's also the question of "swap meets", which have been conducted for some time.  A group of friends might get together and swap firearms with each other, so that two people might swap identical models of (say) Glock pistols, each ending up with a gun that was not registered in their name.  Doing that once would still leave a traceable chain, in that a rigorous investigator might uncover links between the two individuals, and be able to follow them;  but if a gun has been swapped several times between different people on different occasions, it becomes very hard to trace everyone who's owned it since its original owner bought it.  I suspect that will be declared illegal under the new regulation, in that the ATF will probably argue that receiving an identical gun in exchange for one's own constitutes "pecuniary gain" (even if that can't be measured in dollars and cents, because no money or other "trade goods" has changed hands).

Older regulations are likely to cause some problems, and raise legal questions.  For example, it used to be entirely legal (according to the ATF's own official instructions interpreting the law, which many of us have saved in downloads and screen shots) to buy a firearm to give as a gift to someone else, and put oneself down on the ATF's Form 4473 as the actual owner or purchaser of that firearm.  Yes, they said that in black and white, and it was in effect for years.  That advice is no longer to be found on the ATF's Web page - but it has never been formally withdrawn.  I suspect it will be an interesting moment in court (if the agency chooses to pursue the issue) when the accused points out something like this:

"I did something that was entirely legal under a previous ATF interpretation of the law, but am now charged with a crime for doing exactly the same thing under a later ATF interpretation.  The underlying law has not changed - only the official interpretation and regulation.  It makes no sense for conduct under the same, unchanged law to be legal one day, and illegal the next.  That is nothing more or less than an arbitrary bureaucratic decision.  It is not a change in the law."

I'm sure we'll see and hear a great deal more about this in future.  Meanwhile, if it's important to you to own a firearm or firearms that have not been officially linked to your name through a background check, you have only a very short time available (before the new regulations are implemented) in which to buy it/them from a private seller without going through the official background check process.

Peter

It's hard to feel much sympathy for the deceased in this faked crime.

Rasshauud Scott, 22, was seen on surveillance footage late Jan. 27 running up to a couple filling up their car at a Chevron gas station in Houston, Texas, according to court documents shared by Fox News Digital.

After seemingly robbing the pair of a purse and wallet, he turned and ran — before an alarmed witness pulled out a gun and shot him in the head, killing him, the affidavit notes.

However, a series of messages later showed that Scott wasn’t even really robbing the couple — with his widow, Sade Beverly, telling cops it “was a set up” as part of an ongoing crime ring, the docs said.

His alleged accomplice, William Winfrey, 30, told Scott the fatal robbery would be the “usual gas pump s–t,” telling him to “make all that s–t look real,” according to the affidavit.

In a police interview, one of the pretend victims “confirmed that the robbery was in fact a set-up, and the purpose of the scheme is to obtain a U-visa,” the affidavit said.

That refers to “U Nonimmigrant Status,” which is granted to victims of certain crimes who have suffered mental or physical abuse and are helpful to authorities investigating or prosecuting suspects.

Police then realized there was a “pattern” of similar reported robberies — and that the victims “had applied for, or been granted U-visas due to their status as victims of these crimes,” the affidavit said.

Winfrey was arrested Wednesday and charged with murder in connection with Scottt’s death. He was denied bond Monday.

There's more at the link.

I've learned to assume that at least one in five of the people I see around me every day in north Texas are armed.  It used to be less, but now that Texas is a constitutional carry state (i.e. not requiring a permit to carry a gun), it could well be more.  People are fed up with criminals trying to make an easy buck off locals;  and they're ready, willing and able to do something about it.  Texas grand juries, too, have frequently proved to be less than sympathetic to deceased criminals, often no-true-billing those who shot them even when strictly speaking, they didn't have sufficient legal grounds to do so.  (See this recent case, also in Houston, for an example.)

Congratulations and thanks to the bystander who shot the criminal.  He obviously feared getting into trouble for his actions, because he initially fled, but he later handed himself over to police and was exonerated of any offense.  Scott's partner in crime, however, now stands accused of murder, because he was part of a crime that resulted in a death.  That's entirely as it should be, IMHO.  The late Mr. Scott thought he could get away with the same fake crime, repeatedly.  He learned better - or, rather, his surviving family and friends learned better.  It's a pity he no longer has that opportunity, but that's his own fault.

Peter

My friend in meatspace and the blogosphere, Larry Correia, has been heard to say that he really wants to buy a tank.  Being a bestselling author, his income can probably stretch to it, too:  but being a very large gentleman, I think he'd have a problem fitting into anything small.  However, I think the solution may be at hand, in terms of both his size and his wallet.

Spain is selling off its remaining M60 tanks, of 1960's vintage.

If you've ever fancied owning a tank, or are in the market to add to your own private armor collection, now's your chance. As it turns out, Spain has put a number of its M60 tanks up for auction, with the base price for the lot starting at just over $50,000. The sale of the tanks, the condition of which remains very much unclear, has prompted speculation about potential buyers, and whether they could end up in Ukraine or the scrap yard.

The entire lot of tanks has a stated “base price” of €46,924.93 [US $50,721.73 at current exchange rates], according to the official notice, which also includes details on another auction of anchor chains.

There's more at the link.

That price is not per tank, by the way:  it's for all the surplus tanks.  It's only the opening bid price, of course.  I'm sure the final sale price will be higher.  Nevertheless, those tanks are basically being sold at scrap-metal prices, and I'm sure that doesn't include their cannons or ammunition.  I don't know how many are on auction now.  Spain bought about 300 M60's in total, but until recently had only 16 still operational, replacing the rest of its fleet with German-made Leopard 2's.  Nevertheless, even 16 would be a handy source of spare parts to keep them operational in the hands of a hobbyist owner.

Whoever wants them will have to move fast.  Bids are due by April 22.  Quick, get out your wallets and bank statements and start counting!

Peter

I've said several times before that if you're carrying a firearm in a pocket or purse, it needs to be in a holster to avoid things catching in or on the trigger, which might cause a tragedy.

Well, it just happened again.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WSMV) - Police said the mother of a teen daughter who was shot Saturday night reports the gun that killed her fired off accidentally ... The victim was taken to the hospital, where she died of a single gunshot wound.

Police said the teen’s mother told detectives her unholstered .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol was inside her purse and accidentally fired while she was attempting to grab her keys. Charges have not been placed.

There's more at the link.

Anti-gun activists will doubtless seek to portray this as yet another incident of "gun violence", and blame the gun - the instrument - for the girl's death.  They're entirely wrong.  The gun was not at fault.  Careless and negligent handling of the gun was at fault.

Tragically, that mother will have to remember for the rest of her life that her daughter is dead because she was careless and/or negligent.  This death was her fault, nobody else's.  I wonder how the rest of her family will handle that?

May we, at least, learn from her bad example, and not make the same mistake.

Peter

If you're in the market for a .22LR semi-auto rifle, CDNN Sports has a great deal for the next couple of days on the Winchester Wildcat.

I like the Wildcat as, basically, a cheaper clone of the very well-known Ruger 10/22.  It even accepts magazines for the latter rifle, including Ruger's 25-round BX.  It's not as customizable as the 10/22, but as a plinker and all-round useful .22LR rifle, it's more than adequate out of the box, without add-ons.  I've used them to introduce disabled students to rifle shooting, with considerable success.  If you'd like to learn more about them, Shooting Times' review is here, and Guns & Ammo's review is here.

CDNN is offering a discounted price, plus on top of that there's a $25 rebate from Winchester - but the latter is only valid until March 26th, so if you want it, you'll have to move fast.  They have three models available;  click each link to take a closer look.

Wildcat with olive drab green stock:  $174.99 after rebate

Wildcat with Truetimber Strata camo stock:  $174.99 after rebate

Wildcat with black stock and Reflex sight:  $199.99 after rebate

I'm not being compensated in any way by CDNN or Winchester for recommending this:  in fact, they don't know I'm doing so.  I just like to pass on to my readers good deals that I find.  I'm certainly going to take advantage of this one for myself, too.

Remember, you have to order by tomorrow to get the Winchester rebate.

Peter

My recent review of Primary Arms' 3-9x44 scope generated some correspondence with readers.  Among other things, it seems that too few people have heard about the use of a fishing reel attachment tool known as a "Coaster" to make an improvised scope magnification adjustment device.  I wrote about it three years ago.  Here's an excerpt from that earlier post.

 I'm sure many readers interested in the shooting sports are familiar with the "throw lever" sometimes integrated into the power ring (i.e. the adjustment ring to vary the magnification) of telescopic sights.  They look something like this example, sticking up from the power ring of a Swampfox Optics Arrowhead tactical scope.  (Click any image for a larger view.)

Regular hunting- and target-style scopes don't usually have throw levers, but they've become very popular on tactical scopes.  They allow one to adjust the power very quickly with one hand, rather than fiddle with a power ring that doesn't offer easy purchase or a visual or tactile reference when the scope is being held to one's eye.  There are third-party, aftermarket throw levers available, but they can be expensive, and they only fit a limited range of sizes.

I recently came across a fishing accessory, originally designed to attach reels to rods.  It's called a "Coaster" ... They're made by Breakaway Tackle in England, and look like this.

The loop is placed around the fishing rod, over the mounting lugs of the reel:  then the arms are pulled tight through the vice block before the ring is screwed down on the block, its threads engaging the notches on the arms to tighten them further.  It's a bit like a double-ended cable tie.

Some bright spark figured out that the same tool could be used as a throw lever on rifle telescopic sights that lacked such a feature.  Intrigued, I tried it, and found it works like a charm.  Here's how the vendor illustrates it.

I modified that slightly, in that I cut off the arms a notch or so above the ring using cutting pliers, as low as I could manage, as illustrated above.  I then unscrewed the ring and took it off, cut the arms a notch or two shorter while holding the loop and vice block in place, and then reattached the ring and screwed it down moderately tightly (don't over-tighten it, as that will strip the threads).  That put the ends of the arms just beneath the surface of the ring, rather than above it, so they no longer scratched my fingers as I felt for the ring.  I found that a lot more comfortable, and it looked better, too.

There's more at the link, and in a follow-up post where a reader described having a problem fitting the "Coaster" to a very low-mounted scope.

Here's a video demonstrating how to install the Coaster on a scope.

This is a super-useful accessory to put on any scope with a variable power or focus ring.  The Coaster is also much lower cost than some of the made-for-purpose throw rings you'll find if you shop around (it's anywhere from a half to a tenth of their price), and it'll fit just about any scope, unlike some of the others that are restricted to scopes of a particular brand or size.  I've put them on my most-used scopes, and I'm in the process of installing them on the rest as well, for a uniform fit across all my long guns.  You'll find them on Amazon.

Highly recommended.

Peter

I refer to Seismic High Mass Ammunition, which offers very-heavy-for-caliber rounds in 12ga. shotgun slugs and 9mm. cartridges.  Their slogan appears to be "Heavier Hits Harder".

I've often been asked by readers and other acquaintances what I think of ammunition for which better-than-standard and/or super-high performance is claimed.  There's the Glaser Safety Slug, the infamous (and discredited) RBCD Performance Plus ammunition, the impressively named R.I.P. rounds from G2, and a host of others.  Seismic joins a long line of companies who've claimed that their ammunition is significantly better than the norm for one reason or another.

Unfortunately, all of its predecessors have failed a simple acid test.  There are people out there - not just police, who are often budget-constrained, but special forces units, private security firms contracting to governments, and so on - who literally depend for their lives upon the performance of their weapons and ammunition.  It's not just the organizations, either:  it's their individual members, most of whom earn enough to buy whatever extra gear they want, and who aren't about to waste their own money on something that's all hat and no cattle.  To the best of my knowledge, none of these units and their individual members carry any of these "specialty" rounds, because they don't perform better than standard defensive ammunition when push comes to shove.  If they did, such purchasers would be all over them.  The fact that they're not tells its own story.

Some of these ammo manufacturers have made vague claims about "As used by special forces", or something like that:  but if you press them, to pin down exactly which special forces they're talking about, they evade the issue by saying that they're contractually forbidden from identifying them.  Yeah, right.  You can rest assured that operators "on the ground" would be talking about it to their buddies if they found some hot new technology that really worked.  The almost complete absence of such chatter says it all.

If you want to take guesswork out of the equation, the solution is simple.  Buy ammunition that's been tested and approved, and is currently issued, by major law enforcement agencies and/or major security organizations.  They know what they're doing, and they trust the lives of their members to the ammunition they buy.  That's not a bad litmus test for the rest of us, and is why I carry rounds like Federal's HST or Hornady's Critical Duty in my defensive handguns.  If I have to go to court over a defensive shooting, no lawyer will be able to allege that I bought super-enhanced-lethality ammo because I wanted to "blow away" his client.  No, I'll have used rounds that any police agency might use.  That will be a perfectly adequate defense against such claims.

Peter

In the light of the influx of criminal migrants and the increased levels of urban crime (rapidly spreading to smaller towns and rural areas), I think it's worth reminding ourselves of the need to provide security for ourselves, our families and our loved ones.

To begin with, I'd like to refer you to several previous articles on the subject.  They're as relevant today as they were when I wrote them.  If you missed any of them, or can't remember them, please click on the links provided and read them before continuing here.

Updating and revising our approach to self-defense, Part 1

Updating and revising our approach to self-defense, Part 2

Updating and revising our approach to self-defense, Part 3

In two of those articles, I repeated the wisdom of John Farnam.  It bears repeating here, because it's absolutely fundamental to our personal security.  We ignore it at our literal peril.

The best way to handle any potentially injurious encounter is: Don’t be there. Arrange to be somewhere else. Don’t go to stupid places. Don’t associate with stupid people. Don’t do stupid things. This is the advice I give to all students of defensive firearms. Winning a gunfight, or any other potentially injurious encounter, is financially and emotionally burdensome. The aftermath will become your full-time job for weeks or months afterward, and you will quickly grow weary of writing checks to lawyer(s). It is, of course, better than being dead or suffering a permanently disfiguring or disabling injury, but the “penalty” for successfully fighting for your life is still formidable.

Crowds of any kind, particularly those with an agenda, such as political rallies, demonstrations, picket lines, etc are good examples of “stupid places.” Any crowd with a high collective energy level harbors potential catastrophe. To a lesser degree, bank buildings, hospital emergency rooms, airports, government buildings, and bars (particularly crowded ones) fall into the same category. All should be avoided. When they can’t be avoided, we should make it a practice to spend only the minimum time necessary there and then quickly get out.

“A superior gunman is best defined as one who uses his superior judgment in order to keep himself out of situations that would require the use of his superior skills.”

When I trained at Thunder Ranch (in its Texas location), one of the instructors told us that even if a defensive shooting was absolutely 100% legitimate, and no criminal charges were filed, we could still expect lawsuits from the person we shot and/or his survivors.  One phrase has stuck in my memory.  "Any defensive shooting, no matter how justified, may cost you a new Suburban in lawyer's fees."  That was scary enough back then.  At today's vehicle prices, it's a ghastly thought!

Nevertheless, there are times when only a kinetic response can ward off a criminal threat.  It's no good trying to plead with an attacker that you're really a good person and don't deserve this.  He isn't a good person, by definition, and doesn't care that you are (except for the fact that your timidity makes you easier prey for him).  Given that attackers often come in multiples, and are usually armed with weapons that can disable or kill you (even a rock can do that - I've seen it done, with my own eyes), you need weapons that can at least keep them off you and your loved ones, and stop any determined attack in its tracks.  That means a firearm.  There is simply no other adequate choice.

Go read the articles above for a discussion about choosing a firearm and training with it.  I won't repeat them here.  However, a handgun may no longer be enough when dealing with mobs of urban youth running wild and terrorizing a neighborhood (particularly if you live in a state or city where magazine capacities are legally restricted).  You may well need something more powerful, with longer range, and able to accept sights that allow you to shoot more accurately at those longer ranges.  That means a defensive rifle.  (Yes, a shotgun is not a bad choice, but it has limited range and carries with it the disadvantage of very heavy recoil, comparatively speaking, making it harder to control in accurate, rapid fire;  and its ammunition is bulky, heavy, and relatively slow to reload except for an expert.  Most of us can't afford to train to that level of expertise;  therefore, I no longer recommend shotguns as a primary defensive weapon for those who are not well trained in their use.)

I wrote three articles a few years ago about the personal defense rifle.  Again, I refer you to those rather than trying to repeat all that information here.

The personal defense rifle, part 1: a few thoughts

The personal defense rifle, part 2: reader's questions

The personal defense rifle, part 3: choosing ammunition

Those articles focused on an AR-15-style firearm.  Sadly, due to misguided legislators in various states, you may live in an area where it's not legal to own one, or where its features are so restricted as to remove many of its advantages.  Not to worry:  there's another option that's well worth having - a lever-action rifle or carbine.  Those in pistol calibers (.357 Magnum, which can also fire .38 Special ammunition, or .44 Magnum, which can also shoot .44 Special cartridges) are particularly useful in urban situations, where you don't want a higher-powered rifle cartridge that might shoot through multiple walls or carry much further than you intend, possibly injuring an innocent person in the process.  The late, great Jeff Cooper referred to such firearms as "urban assault rifles", and I think that's not a bad description.  Sheriff Jim Wilson has written an article about using them for defensive purposes, and I recommend you read it for yourself.

My preferred lever-action defensive carbine is a Marlin 1894 chambered in .44 Magnum.  Its solid frame lets me mount a red-dot or low-power telescopic sight without difficulty, making aiming easier on my older eyes.  I load .44 Specials for short-range urban use, and full-patch .44 Magnums for longer ranges.  I've had the barrel shortened to 16", which makes it very easy to handle in confined spaces;  and I haven't heard anyone complain yet that a heavy .44 slug doesn't hit hard enough, if placed in the right spot.  If I travel to a place where an AR-15 is illegal, guess what I'm taking with me?

(There are those who would argue - quite legitimately - that a .357 Magnum carbine is just as good for defensive purposes, with less recoil.  I agree with them, if they expect to use it only in locations where hollow-point ammunition is legal for civilians.  There are jurisdictions - take a bow, New Jersey - where civilians are forbidden to own or use such rounds;  and I don't think anyone would argue that a 158-grain solid from a .38/.357 will hit as hard as a 240- to 250-grain solid from a .44.  That's why I've chosen the larger round.  My .44 Special load uses a 250gr. flat-nose lead bullet moving at over 1,000 feet per second out of a 16" carbine barrel.  That's enough to take a black bear at short to medium range if it has to - its performance is comparable to the .44-40 round of the Old West, and I don't recall anyone complaining about the .44-40's man-stopping ability.  If I want more oomph, I load Federal's 300gr. CastCore load in .44 Magnum, which will do even better.)

Finally, consider the possible need for multiple firearms.  You should ideally have access to one wherever you are, in case of need.  If you carry a handgun on your person, that takes care of that problem;  but some people can't do that for whatever reason.  In that case, I suggest stashing additional firearms in a secure manner in areas where they might be needed in a hurry.  (Obviously, if you have children around this is not a viable solution, because they'll almost certainly find them.)  I use revolvers for the purpose, since they can remain loaded indefinitely and are about as maintenance-free as any firearm is going to get.  I've concealed them in places where a casual thief is unlikely to find them, but where I can reach them in a hurry.  (If you can use an X-acto knife or something similar, try carving a concealed hiding place inside an old book, and position it on your bookshelf in a location you won't forget.  If you aren't that handy with a knife, you can buy a fake book that conceals a gun.  In emergency, take out the book, open the cover, and there you are.)

Depending on your needs, you might also consider stashing a defensive rifle in multiple locations, because it's a lot harder to carry a rifle inconspicuously on your person or in a vehicle.  That won't apply to most of my readers, I know, but in high-threat areas such as a farm or smallholding, where you might have to move between two or three buildings on a regular basis, it might be a handy solution to your security needs.  You'll have to make up your own mind about that.

Anyway, I hope these thoughts have helped readers who haven't given much thought to the subject.

Peter

If you have a rifle or two you'd like to equip with a telescopic sight, but can't justify several hundred dollars for most of the offerings currently out there, Primary Arms has a good deal at the moment.  It's for their Classic Series 3-9x44 Rifle Scope, currently priced at just $94.99.

It has a 30mm scope tube, which transmits more light, more efficiently than the typical 1-inch tube used on most lower-cost commercial scopes.  That means using 30mm. mounts and/or rings, of course, which are a bit more expensive, but not too much so.  You'll have the opportunity to buy discounted scope covers and mounts if purchased with the sight, which is useful.  It uses a standard duplex reticle, with no bullet drop compensation or range-finding ability, but for its target market that's probably not a problem.  I intend it for use at up to 300 yards, and out to that range I can compensate for bullet drop and windage by eye.  Any competent rifleman should be able to do so, if he knows his firearm and ammunition.

I've been trying one out, and I'm pretty impressed by it.  It works just fine for cartridges from rimfire to .308 Winchester, and I presume it'll probably suffice for more powerful ones too, despite their heavier recoil.  At its price point it's probably unbeatable value right now.  I own several Nikon ProStaff scopes, which were (sadly) discontinued a few years ago, and always found them to be very good value for money.  Well, this Primary Arms scope is at least as good as them in terms of optics, gathers more light, and costs a lot less than they did.  I don't know how Primary Arms managed to hold this price point, but I'm not complaining!  I just bought a couple more to put on rifles that don't yet have scopes, because with my eyes getting as old as the rest of my body, iron sights are really not an option for me any more.

(No, Primary Arms isn't compensating me in any way to boost their products - they don't even know I'm writing this article.  I just like what I bought, and I like to tell my readers and friends about good deals when I find them.)

Recommended.

Peter

The cleanup and repair process following our flooding incident in November has kept me too busy for many normal activities, including visiting a local gun shop where I'm friendly with the owner and his staff, and they sometimes have nice little things needing a home.  I dropped in there on Thursday to renew acquaintance, only to be confronted with this little beauty in a display case.  Click the image for a larger view (it doesn't show my gun, but another example thereof in the same pristine condition).

It's a Smith & Wesson Model 325 Night Guard.  You can read reviews of it (and the rest of the Night Guard series) here and here, if you're interested.  I always liked the look and feel of them, but by the time I could afford one, they'd been discontinued.  One seldom sees them on the used gun market, because those who have them tend to hold on to them, but this one had taken up temporary residence at our local dealer shortly before I arrived.  It was anything but cheap, thanks to its scarcity value, but that's what trade-ins are for.

It's in minty condition, with a heavy-ish but very smooth action.  The XS Sights fitted to it make rapid sighting easier, and work better with my aging eyes that can no longer focus on a front sight with the clarity they once did.  I'm looking forward to taking it out to the range soon, to see how it shoots.  It'll make a very handy winter carry piece for a heavy coat, which might restrict access to a holstered gun at the waist.  This one's short and light enough (thanks to its Scandium alloy frame) that I can carry it in an outer pocket, ready to hand if and when needed.  (I wish someone made a hammer shroud for N-frame revolvers, but even without one, if one keeps a thumb on the hammer while drawing the gun, it won't catch on the pocket material.)  The recoil won't be a problem;  I've fired .45 ACP out of pistols lighter than this gun and found it controllable.

I'll install a set of Crimson Trace laser grips to help with sighting and recoil control, and probably drop in an Apex Tactical hammer to lighten the trigger pull and convert the gun to double-action only (something I prefer for fighting - as opposed to sport - revolvers).

(By the way, if anyone knows of another example of this revolver - or one like it - for sale, in very good to excellent condition and chambered for .45 ACP, please contact me;  my e-mail address is in the sidebar.  Having seen mine, a buddy wants one too, and - if it's out of state - is quite happy to pay for it to be shipped to a local dealer to comply with transfer regulations.)

Peter

The late Brian Garfield wrote some excellent thrillers and a few longer novels, several of which were made into films or TV specials.  They include the one we'll look at today, a Western he titled "Wild Times".

The blurb reads, in part:

An aged Western showman reflects over his long and colorful career

Few bother to separate the myth of Colonel Hugh Cardiff from his real life. The nation knows him as a sharpshooter, buffalo hunter, moving pictures pioneer, and one-time proprietor of the greatest Wild West show the nation has ever seen. Some of the stories are true, some exaggerated, and some rank among the wildest of tall tales. But for a man who has lived like Colonel Cardiff, the facts trump the myth. In the spring of 1868, Denver is the richest, wildest city west of the Mississippi. When an overweight Easterner named Dr. Bogardus rolls into town to announce a shooting contest with a $1,000 prize, ears prick up.

I've read the novel many times since I first encountered it several decades ago, and continue to enjoy it.  For today's Snippet, I've chosen the shooting match referred to in the blurb, which opens the book when Hugh Cardiff was a young man.

I went into the line fourth position from the left and that was satisfactory. My line judge was a little tiny fellow in a bulky beaver-pelt coat. I shook hands with him and introduced myself. “How’d Bogardus do?”

“Ninety-six out of a hundred.”

“Then he can still be beat.”

“Yes sir,” the little fellow drawled, not giving anything away, but I could see he was amused. “That a Kentucky Hawken?”

“It is.”

“Pretty old one, ain’t it?”

“Pretty near as old as I am.” I stepped forward to take up my position and looked over my shoulder at the boy. “How’s your arm holding out?”

“Fine, sir. We’ve been taking turns.”

“All right. I shoot about five a minute with this old muzzle-loader. Give you a chance to breathe between throws.”

“Yes sir. Thank you, sir.” Boys in those days were polite.

“You ready?”

“Yes sir.”

“Let’s go, then.”

I put my back to him and lifted the Hawken, snugged it into my shoulder and tested my footing.

“Throw.”

•    •    •

I saw the ball soar overhead, sun winking along it, and I had time to remind myself the sun glare would be on the left side of the ball now because it was nearly three o’clock in the afternoon. I aimed a fraction to the right of the point of light. When the ball reached its apex against the sky I squeezed the shot and lowered the rifle to reload without bothering to watch the target. I knew I’d hit it.

Paper cartridge, ramrod, percussion cap. Lift the rifle. “Throw.”

•    •    •

I shot the first twenty without a miss. Behind me a crowd began to gather.

I turned to the throw-boy. “Let’s let the rifle cool down a minute. No penalty for that, is there?”

“No sir. You take all the time you want.” That was the line judge; he was watching me with friendly admiration now.

The rifle was hot in my hands. I saw Caleb Rice in the crowd alongside the barker Cletus Hatch. I walked over to the fence and crooked my finger at Hatch.

“Anybody besides me bet money on me today?”

“Nope. Nobody ever heard of you.”

“I may have given you a fast shuffle,” I said. “You might have heard of me under the name Hugh Smith.”

“I’ve heard that name, yes.”

“What odds would you put on Hugh Smith?”

“About half what I gave you. Except on beating Bogardus. Those odds are the same for everybody.”

“Then change the odds on my five-dollar bet, will you? I’ll feel better.”

“I’m obliged for your honesty.”

I saw Caleb watching me with a speculative and dubious eye.

Then the crowd parted obediently as Doc Bogardus marched forward. He planted his bulk before me, the fence separating us, and looked at me from under his dark hatbrim. He was tugging his thick U. S. Grant beard. I couldn’t be sure if there was a smile behind the beard but in any case I smiled at him. Not cocky or anything. I was just being friendly. All sorts of stories have come down across the years about that first time we met face to face. Now I’m going to write down how it really went.

Bogardus just looked at me for a moment, maybe smiling, maybe not, and I heard someone say, “We got four ninety-sixes so far and we got better than two dozen shooters still to go. Powerful marksmen here today.”

“You watch this big youngster here. Way he’s going he’s like to beat ninety-six. He ain’t missed a ball yet.”

“With an old Kentucky muzzle-load, no less.”

I swabbed out the bore with a cool oiled patch. Loaded her up and glanced at Bogardus. I guess I was waiting for him to say or do something but he didn’t; he just watched me. I didn’t feel any threat coming off him. He didn’t rattle me, nor, I think, did he intend to.

I went back to the line and spoke over my shoulder to the boy. “You ready?”

“Yes sir.”

“Throw.”

•    •    •

There was a corner of my mind, separate from the rest, that kept track of the numbers. Twenty-three was my first miss and I heard a gush of sound from the crowd. I was annoyed because I shouldn’t have missed that one; I’d thought it was a hit, I wasn’t looking at it—I was reloading by the time it hit the ground but I heard it burst on impact and I heard the crowd.

Then I remembered what Caleb had told me. I wet my finger on my tongue and moistened my left ear.

The breeze fluttered cold. Batting the glass balls around, giving them lift. The wind must be freshening.

Now I took more time with each shot, testing the air before I called for the throw.

Down the line the steady racket of gunfire continued. Another expert over to the right somewhere drew some of the crowd off but when I looked back after my thirty-first shot Bogardus was still there, standing like a great black rock, watching with his big dark eyes, and I still couldn’t discern the expression behind the beard.

I shot without missing again until the fifty-third ball. I don’t know what happened with that one. It seemed to jink to the side just as I squeezed the shot. Maybe the wind, but I didn’t feel it on my ear.

By then the crowd had massed again and there was no more talk around me. They watched me in silence. After the sixtieth shot I waved the throw-boy back; the rifle was so hot I could hardly hold it.

Doc Bogardus spoke for the first time in my hearing. His voice was as deep as a cave echo. “Someone bring the lad a bucket of water.”

•    •    •

My eyes burned from the smoke. My arms were beginning to ache. I propped the rifle upright against the fence and revolved my arms in their sockets to loosen them up.

Bogardus said, “Take your time now.”

“Yes sir. Thanks.”

“Mighty heavy work with a long rifle like that. Started my own career with the same weapon. Hawken Brothers. That was back before the war.”

A youth came up lugging a wooden water bucket; Bogardus waved him forward. “Make way, gentlemen, please. Set it down here, boy, that’s good.” Bogardus leaned against the fence and extended a hand toward me. “Mind handing me that rifle?”

I was uncertain but even then I knew the only way you could find out whether you could trust a man was to trust him and see what happened. I lifted the rifle through the fence. I felt a twinge in my left arm: a warning.

Bogardus took it from me, upended it and unceremoniously plunged the muzzle into the water as deep as it would go.

I was shocked.

Steam sizzled loudly and made a cloud above the bucket before the wind took it away.

Anger lanced through me. I put both hands on the rail ready to vault it.

Bogardus held the rifle upright, muzzle-down in the water. He spoke calmly. “No harm to the rifle, son. My word on it.”

I hesitated.

Bogardus said, “Hawken steel can take it. The damage occurs if you heat it up too much, not the other way round. Understand me?”

I suppose I was gawking; I don’t remember replying. Bogardus tested the breech plate with his finger. “Cool enough now.” He lifted it back through the fence. “Run a dry patch through her, then a light coating of oil. Good as new. She starts to heat up again, put her back in the water.”

There was a buzzing murmur back through the crowd. “Never seen the like.” And: “Man must be crazy, hot steel in cold water—bend that rifle like a lariat.” And: “Canny enough from a dude that sees he’s gettin’ beat.”

Bogardus swung around quickly. “I’m betting one hundred dollars the boy makes his first shot. Come on, have I got any bettors?”

The crowd swayed back away from him. Bogardus wheeled again and I saw the contempt in it; now he faced me. “Go ahead, son. Pleasure to watch you work.”

I dried the bore and oiled it, loaded and lifted, and tried to ignore the twinge in my left arm. “Throw.”

A hit.

I looked back and saw the hard smile in Bogardus’ eyes; now I knew what his smile looked like. I rammed a load home and capped the rifle. “Thank you.”

“My pleasure.”

“Throw!”

•    •    •

Number seventy-four was my third miss. I had to attribute it to a faulty bullet: possibly a bubble in the metal that threw it off plumb. Three down. I had to make twenty-six straight hits to beat the leaders.

Eighty, eighty-one, eighty-two. Shooting slow, shooting steady. Wait for the wind to settle. Eighty-three. The rifle heating up again; I plunged it without hesitation into the bucket.

Bogardus was still at the fence. The last competitors were moving into the line. Rattle of gunfire; acrid stink of powder smoke; no talk at all in the crowd now. My eyes were gritty and raw. My left shoulder was causing real pain by now and I knew it was the old break where Vern Tyree had shot me with the exploding gun. Nothing I could do about it except ignore it.

I pulled the rifle out of the bucket, dried it, oiled it, rammed a fresh load down, capped the lock, settled the butt plate into my shoulder socket.

“Throw.”

Eighty-seven.

Ninety-one.

Ninety-three.

Take it easy now, just take it slow, there’s no time limit, forget the numbers, take each shot as you find it, one at a time and no thought to anything else, forget the damned pain.

“Throw.”

Ninety-four. Ninety-five.

The crowd behind me seemed to vibrate with silence. A steady shrill whistle piped in my ears despite the cotton wadding; it always gets like that after the first half hour or so. I let the rifle hang down at arm’s length and tried to gather strength; moistened my ear and dragged the Hawken to my shoulder.

“Throw.”

Ninety-six.

“Come on over here, Elizabeth, watch this boy. Four to go. He’s hit all but three.”

“Throw.”

Ninety-seven.

“Throw.”

The glass sphere floated up. Sunlight, getting a bit lower now, rippling off the smooth surface. Red raw grit in my eyes. Throb and twang in the shoulder; it was bad now. Watch the ball. Sudden cold lash of air against my moistened ear. Watch for the jink to the right—feel that gust? Wait for the pause at the top.

Squeeze.

Ninety-eight.

Paper cartridge. Ramrod. Cap. Tongue, ear. Lift the rifle. Forget the pain. Easy now.

I didn’t call for the throw. I lowered the rifle and dragged my sleeve across my eyes to wipe away the wash of tears—part of it was pain, part of it was the eyes trying to clean out sulfur irritation. Was that metal getting too hot again? No; not yet. Just take it easy now. Two to go, that’s all. You can do it easy. Eyes dry now, all right. Lift the rifle. Settle down. Good.

“Throw.”

I watched that one break. Ninety-nine.

A muted explosion of vocalized emotion from the crowd; and then a hush—in fairness I have to call it a hush. I could hear it distinctly, even through the ringing in my ears, when someone back in the crowd sucked air through his teeth.

Gentle now. The last shot.

I lifted the rifle.

“Throw.”

The sphere floated into the sky. The sights lifted to meet it. No wind this time; an easy shot. Curving a bit off to the left there, lead it steady. Turn.

The twinge in the shoulder made me gasp. It passed; but now the ball was falling and I felt the gust against my ear as I squeezed the shot off.

The groan ran through the crowd.

I’d missed.

•    •    •

We had six finalists tied at ninety-six. We drew lots for the sun-side advantage and Fitz Bragg won the shortest straw. Far-left position. Then a Texican, Caleb Rice, me, a Denver sporting man and at the right-hand end Doc Bogardus.

It didn’t seem to alarm him. He came down the line to speak briefly with each shooter. When he came to me he smiled through the beard. “What’s wrong with the arm?”

“Broke it once. Shoulder acts up now and then.”

“Have that seen to when you get a chance. And buy yourself a lightweight repeater rifle for these competitions if you mean to stay in the shooting game. Even as big as you are, you’ll do better if your arms don’t get tired.”

“Thank you.”

“Good luck to us all, then.” Bogardus went on down the line. Over the years the “feud” between us filled a lot of newspaper space but the fact is that off the shooting line I always liked and admired Doc. He was a gentleman.

I looked to my left. Caleb stood with his eyes on the ground at his feet, a Navy revolver in his hand, waiting for the signal to start. Uneasy, unnerved; it was evident in his stance. I spoke softly: “Hey, Caleb.”

It brought his face around. His eyes came up. I winked broadly at him.

The slow mournful smile pushed the shadows back from his face; he straightened up, breathing deep.

Down at the end of the line Fitz Bragg spat a brown stream of tobacco juice into the ruined grass.

C. S. Roe climbed up on the gazebo. “Your attention please, gentlemen. This is the elimination round. Shooters will fire ten throws each. You know the rules. All right, it appears all contestants are ready? Fire at will.”

“Throw.”

•    •    •

My shoulder gave me trouble and I was late on two of the ten but I managed to hit them before they reached the ground. One of them was so low when I hit it that the bullet ricocheted off the pasture.

That round knocked off the Denver sporting man and the Texican and Fitz Bragg; they each came in with nine out of ten but it wasn’t good enough because they were up against Bogardus and Caleb Rice and me, and each of us made every ball.

It was a surprise to the crowd when Fitz Bragg missed his tenth shot; apparently something went wrong with his needle gun but the old man took it in good spirit and I saw him nodding happily when he headed off to collect his bet winnings from Cletus Hatch. Well-wishers clustered, clapping him on the back; he was a popular man everywhere in the West.

“Second round, three shooters, ready on the line please, gentlemen. From the left: Mr. Caleb Rice of Beaumont, Texas, shooting the Colt’s Patent Navy model revolver, caliber point-thirty-six. Mr. Hugh Cardiff of Mill Springs, Kentucky, sometimes known as Hugh Smith, shooting the Hawken long rifle, muzzle-load, caliber point-forty-six. Dr. George Bogardus of Danville, Virginia, shooting the Henry rimfire repeating cartridge rifle, caliber point-forty-four. At your will, gentlemen, commence firing.”

•    •    •

On his third shot Bogardus missed.

A shout went up from the crowd but then Caleb missed his fifth shot and it left the prize open to me.

But pain kept jabbing my shoulder and I fluffed my next-to-last shot and it tied the three of us up again; yet another round to go and I doubted my shoulder could take it.

Caleb said, “You had us for a minute there.”

I cooled the Hawken in the water bucket and walked around in small circles swinging my arms in great circles, trying to squeeze the smoke out of my eyes, fighting the dizziness of fatigue and the painful whistling in my ears. It was no help realizing the other two had most of the same difficulties.

Bogardus walked over and stood between Caleb and me. “Gents, I salute both of you. Whoever wins this round, I believe in my heart there are three champions of this meet.”

Someone in the crowd said, “You boys can beat the fat dude. Don’t let him soften you up.”

I glared at them but couldn’t single him out. Bogardus, for his part, made a point of ignoring it. He turned away toward his position and I said, “It’s an honor shooting with you, sir.”

“And for me the same, Mr. Cardiff.” I saw the twitch of the smile behind the beard before he went by.

I dragged the Hawken out of the bucket and swabbed it out.

It was past four o’clock and the sun was well down in the sky, the breezes more fitful than ever. The light was changing; tricky conditions for shooting. Skill really wasn’t the issue any longer; it was a matter of endurance.

The Hawken seemed to weigh a ton. “Throw.”

A hit.

I was still in this thing; I wasn’t beaten yet.

Load, lift. “Throw.” A hit again and I settled back into the rhythm of it. Load, lift. “Throw.”

I heard an outburst of emotion from the crowd but I didn’t break my rhythm to investigate it; possibly one of the others had missed a shot. I broke my third ball, then the fourth, the fifth. “Throw.” The sixth.

A murmur rumbling through the crowd. Never mind; not my concern. “Throw.” The seventh—a hit. Tears of pain from the arm; I could hardly move it. Moisten the ear. Lift—lift. Aim. “Throw.”

The eighth: off-center but still a hit; I watched that one, watched the fragments of glass twinkle earthward and paused with two shots left to wipe my eyes and swing my arm back and forth before I loaded for the ninth shot.

I was lifting the rifle when a shout burst from the crowd, a great explosive groan—one of my opponents had missed a shot, that was for sure, but I continued the steady rise of the rifle to my shoulder. “Throw.”

Arc of glittering glass, wind on my ear, the shoulder now grinding with steady throbs of pain that weren’t nearly as distracting as the earlier stabs. Squeeze. Take the recoil tight and easy.

A hit.

Load, lift.

“Throw.”

Aim, follow its rise, wait for the peak. Sunlight on glass—I could actually see the silhouettes of the Rockies reflected in the glass before it burst into tiny bits and rained across the grass and I heard the earsplitting great roar of the crowd as I turned and plunged the hot rifle into the water bucket and realized, when I looked up at the faces beyond the fence, that I’d won.

A highly enjoyable Western, rather different from the run-of-the-mill novels in that genre.  Recommended.

Peter

Found on social media:

True dat.

Peter

We've spoken before in these pages about the advisability (or otherwise) of downloading higher-capacity magazines by a round or two to increase firearm reliability and keep magazines in good condition.  I'm a fan.  I was taught in the South African military to download by plus-or-minus 10% for routine carry.  Thus, 10% of a 35-round R4 magazine would be 3.5 rounds:  therefore, it would be loaded with 32 rounds for routine everyday carry.  The older R1 rifle (a license-built version of the FN FAL) had a 20-round magazine, which I usually carried with 18 rounds in it.  In a combat area, where a fight was more likely, we'd download by only 5%, and some would load right up to capacity (although I never did, preferring to reduce the strain on the magazine spring and ease the cycling of the bolt).  I've continued the practice in civilian life, downloading most higher-capacity magazines by 5-10% on a routine basis.

(Another common practice in some military units was to load tracer for the last 2 or 3 rounds in the magazine, to provide a visual warning to the shooter that it was almost empty and he needed to reload.  I didn't do so, as the line showing the passage of a tracer bullet points right back to the shooter, and I didn't want to make myself an even more visible target, particularly at night.  Also, in bush warfare in Africa, tracer bullets had the upsetting habit of setting fire to dry grass and leaves - not a good idea if the prevailing wind blew the resulting bushfire in your direction!  In one incident, a fire started by a patrol during a firefight didn't bother them, but gained strength over the following day and intercepted their resupply truck that evening, destroying it and its cargo and forcing a premature end to their excursion.  There was a certain amount of consternation and monkeyhouse over that, particularly from the infuriated truck crew . . . )

In answer to a reader's question about functioning problems with fully loaded 17-round SIG handgun magazines, a recent article discusses the downloading question more fully.

The top round in a loaded magazine contacts the bottom of the slide when the slide is forward and the magazine is fully inserted into the magazine well of a semi-automatic pistol. Although there is normally friction on the bottom of the slide from contact with the top cartridge in the magazine, it has minimal effect on the movement of the slide if the ammunition stack can compress slightly back into the magazine body against the magazine spring. If there is no room for the ammunition stack to compress, the friction resistance of the top cartridge in the seated magazine is too great to allow the slide to cycle properly, which causes the phenomenon that you are experiencing with the slide failing to fully cycle.

I would first suggest that you load your magazines to their capacity of 17 rounds, and then apply pressure to the top cartridge with your thumb. The cartridge should move against the magazine spring until it is visibly clear of all contact with the feed lips at the top of the magazine. This small space is necessary for the magazine to seat properly in the magazine well, and also for the gun to cycle properly and shoot reliably.

If you download your magazines to 16 rounds, I suspect your gun will exhibit the reliability you expect from it.

This phenomenon is not only limited to pistols, but should also be considered when loading and topping off any firearm utilizing a spring-loaded, box-type magazine. For example, it is a somewhat common practice to download an AR-15-style rifle magazine (particularly military-surplus magazines) from 30 rounds to 28 rounds to enhance reliability by ensuring the magazine will seat properly in the magazine well and the top rounds in the magazine will flow through the gun without causing any restriction or stoppage.

There's more at the link.

I believe the practice also extends your magazine's life, in that the spring is not kept in a fully compressed condition for long periods.  I know many assert that modern magazine springs won't "take a set", as it used to be called, and be weakened by this;  but I've had some older magazines that did, even from original equipment manufacturers.  Third-party magazines. and some of Third World manufacture, may exhibit the problem more often.  For example, I can't comment on their more recent production, but in my experience some older magazines from ProMag and KKK appeared to suffer from that issue.  (YMMV, of course.)

Food for thought for those among us who rely on magazines to feed our firearms.

Peter

My favorite ammo vendor, SGAmmo of Oklahoma, has just published their latest newsletter.  They warn:

News from Shotshow 2024: I just got home from 4 days in Las Vegas at the shotshow, where I met with the people from the factories we work with, factory sales people, factory directors and owners, importers, etc. The big point of discussion seemed to be shortness in supply for nitrocellulose, which is the raw material used to make gunpowder and other propellants and explosives. Based on these conversations, the issue seems to be based on 2 factors, decreased availability in the supply chain and increased demand for the manufacturing of military ordnance.

Getting into the details and a little more, a huge percentage of the nitrocellulose used to make gunpowder historically came from China and Russia, however according to my conversations with industry partners, the Chinese manufacturers who historically were the biggest suppliers at over 30% of the market share are no longer willing to ship raw nitrocellulose to the USA or NATO member countries in attempt to reduce the USA & NATO's ability to supply Ukrainian forces with artillery shells, and of course Russia who historically was the 2nd biggest supplier is out of the supply chain as well. This decrease in supply in raw material has gunpowder manufacturers in the USA raising prices dramatically and cutting off many of the smaller ammo manufacturers.

The 2nd part of this issue is the demand for military ordnance, like 155mm artillery shells that use huge quantities gunpowder propellants, and the gunpowder manufacturers switching production to this type of gunpowder with what supply of nitrocellulose they do get. The first reason is that they always put the US government's needs before those of the commercial market, and the second reason is that it is simply much more profitable to manufacturer military ordnance than it is small caliber ammunition, so they get a much more profitable price manufacturing powder for artillery shells.

In conclusion, while most of  the factories seem to have gunpowder stockpiled today, this issue is expected to catch up to them no later than the summer of 2024 and possibly within a few months, and when it does it will mean the factories will be capable of producing much less small caliber ammunition to sell to the US commercial market. If demand for ammo is low to moderate, you may not see a big change, but if demand were to go way up as it does periodically, the factories will not be able to ramp up capacity to fill that demand. In my opinion, a lot could go wrong in the commercial ammo supply chain in 2024 and it would be wise to stock up sooner than later as 2024 price increases have just started to set in on just a handful of select items so far, and availability is still good which has held prices down temporarily.

This makes sense to me.  For example, a single 155mm. artillery round can consume up to 25 pounds of propellant, whereas that same weight of propellant could make many thousands of rounds of rifle or handgun ammunition.  Military demand has been off the charts, thanks to sending tens of thousands of artillery and tank ammunition to Ukraine and Israel, and having to replenish our own depleted stocks (not to mention those of several NATO countries).

It's worth thinking about the availability of ammunition if a shooting war should erupt that involves the USA.  I know that during World War II, civilian ammunition supplies were almost completely curtailed.  Manufacturers simply didn't produce most civilian cartridges and calibers, and everything that was produced went straight to the military.  Civilian hunters and shooters who loaded their own ammunition and cast their own bullets were able to continue, but many others hung up their firearms for the duration - they had no choice.  Back then the internal security situation was a lot more stable than it is these days, so that didn't pose too much of a problem.  Now?  I'd be very, very skittish at the thought that I might not be able to defend my family and home.

(There's also the factor that an anti-gun government might use the opportunity to simply ban all civilian sales of ammo and firearms, and even turn to confiscation to get its hands on the millions of rounds in private hands.  One can't predict that with any certainty, but I'd regard it as not unlikely.)

Friends, if you use firearms in common military calibers (e.g. 5.56x45mm NATO, 7.62x51mm NATO, 9mm Parabellum, etc.) I'd very strongly suggest that you stockpile enough ammo in those cartridges to see you through a few years of shooting.  I also encourage you to stockpile enough .22LR ammo to use for training purposes (either using conversion kits to fit your existing firearms, or dedicated .22LR weapons), because that'll be a whole lot cheaper (and better for your supplies) than using full-patch ammo.  However many rounds you store for each of your "service" weapons, I think three to four times as many rounds of .22LR would be a useful accompaniment - and that's for each weapon.  YMMV, of course.

Each of us will have to make hard choices as to what we consider essential.  I've made mine.  I can only suggest that you make your own, quickly, and take steps to implement them while ammo supplies are still relatively freely available, at relatively low cost.  That could change almost overnight.  It has, in the past.  Also . . . it's an election year.  Who knows what might come down the pike aimed at gun owners?

Peter

I entirely approve of resistance by firearms owners in Illinois to new legislation requiring them to register certain types of weapons or surrender them.  Nevertheless, the response by left-wing politicians in that state was predictable.  I don't know why some people are surprised by it.

On Wednesday, State Senator Julie Morrison, the Majority Caucus Whip, introduced legislation that could result in Illinois gun owners’ losing their driver’s licenses without due process, less than two weeks after 2 million Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card holders rebelled and chose not to register their firearms in protest of Gov. Pritzker’s assault weapons ban that he signed into law last January.

In a video statement released on Thursday evening, Illinois State Rifle Association president Doug Mayhall said, “Now the anti-gun legislators are coming after your Driver’s License!”

Mayhall went on to explain Senate Bill 2720, which “proposes that when a FOID card is revoked – and the FOID card holder does not comply with Section 9.5 of the FOID Act by surrendering their FOID card to authorities – the gun owner may not be issued a driver’s license; renew a driver’s license; retain a drivers license; or be issued a permit to drive under the Illinois Vehicle Code.”

The legislation also requires the Illinois State Police to notify the Secretary of State’s office and report anyone that fails to comply with Section 9.5.

But the issue is more troublesome than simply having your FOID card revoked according to Mayhall.

“Under the Red Flag Law – there can be an ex parte case filed against you. In other words, someone can say you are a problem and go before a judge without you present. You then can lose your FOID card and not get a hearing for at least two weeks.

So what’s the bottom line here? A person under this bill can be falsely accused and lose their right to drive without a single hearing.”

There's more at the link.

When are people going to realize that our politicians - right-wing as much as left-wing, conservative as much as liberals or progressives - don't care what we think?  They care about power.  They care about us doing what they tell us.  As far as they're concerned, "freedom" is a nice drum to beat at election time when they need our votes, but something to be put far back on the shelf and forgotten at other times.

In New York and Connecticut, when locals ignored or defied assault weapons legislation during the first decade of this century, the authorities didn't push too hard.  They knew they would meet resistance, and were worried about it.  However, since then, we've had COVID and the whole brouhaha about the extent to which the State can order us around, take charge of our lives, and make us do as the authorities dictate (whether or not we want to).  That's now become the mantra of most left-wing and progressive politicians.  "If you won't do what we tell you, we'll force you to do so - or else!"

It's long gone time we realized that there's a price to be paid for defying illegitimate, dictatorial, unconstitutional authority.  Our Founding Fathers knew that, and paid the price gladly.  Do we have the same courage they displayed? - because we're going to need it.  We ain't seen nothing yet.

Peter