Archive for the ‘guns’ Category

If the dude had bought a 1911…

July 6, 2011

this would not have happened. 😉

(I shouldn’t have been surprised at the all-too-short length of time it took certain commenters to make penis jokes. What is it with anti-gunners and their collective fixation on gun owners’ genitalia?)

Snipers use pistols?

June 4, 2011

That’s certainly a new one on me

Jurors, after a full day of deliberations, were unable to reach a verdict Friday in the murder trial of a San Antonio man accused of lashing out with anger — and with a .45-caliber pistol — after a co-worker rejected his romantic overtures….

Prosecutors accused Alexander Johnson, 20, of shooting Josue Barea-Torres, 19, four times with “sniper-like” accuracy in May 2010, hours after learning that a woman he wanted to date had instead decided to date Barea-Torres’ best friend.

So snipers are using, say, these now? Or these? That’s really weird, because, well

sniper [ˈsnaɪpə]

n

(Military / Firearms, Gunnery, Ordnance & Artillery) a rifleman who fires from a concealed place, esp a military marksman who fires from cover usually at long ranges at individual enemy soldiers.
Given that definition, and that the maximum effective range of the .45ACP is about 150 yards or so, to say that Mr. Johnson was shooting with “sniper-like” accuracy strikes me as more than a bit hyperbolic — inflammatory, even — on the part of the prosecution. 150 yards is barely past the beginner’s stage for any self-respecting rifle shooter. Don’t get me wrong, now — for what he did Alexander Johnson deserves a bullet to the back of the head and a shallow grave. But the term “sniper” has a very precise and clear definition and it should be noted and respected as opposed to twisted in a craven attempt to sway a jury.
And how about the fact that Mr. Johnson got that pistol despite the fact that he wasn’t old enough? Boy, those common-sense gun laws worked real well there, didn’t they?

Oh man, I’m dyin’ here…

May 4, 2011

Quote of the month, if not the whole damn year, right here:

“The Barrett seems to be the closest thing to providing a toggle effect. The recipient was missed or the recipient was hit. Alive or dead. Even the fate of Schrodinger’s cat would not be in question, since even the box would have been obliterated.”

Heh.

Still not down with the whole Harry Potter thing…

April 28, 2011

…but this missive, seen in various corners of Algore’s intertubes, was too good not to share:

Why Harry Potter should have carried an M1911

Ok, this has been driving me crazy for seven movies now, and I know you’re going to roll your eyes, but hear me out: Harry Potter should have carried a 1911.

Here’s why:

Think about how quickly the entire WWWIII (Wizarding-World War III) would have ended if all of the good guys had simply armed up with good ol’ American hot lead.

Basilisk? Let’s see how tough it is when you shoot it with a .470 Nitro Express. Worried about its Medusa-gaze? Wear night vision goggles. The image is light-amplified and re-transmitted to your eyes. You aren’t looking at it–you’re looking at a picture of it.

Imagine how epic the first movie would be if Harry had put a breeching charge on the bathroom wall, flash-banged the hole, and then went in wearing NVGs and a Kevlar-weave stab-vest, carrying a SPAS-12.

And have you noticed that only Europe seems to a problem with Deatheaters? Maybe it’s because Americans have spent the last 200 years shooting deer, playing GTA: Vice City, and keeping an eye out for black helicopters over their compounds. Meanwhile, Brits have been cutting their steaks with spoons. Remember: gun-control means that Voldemort wins. God made wizards and God made muggles, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

Now I know what you’re going to say: “But a wizard could just disarm someone with a gun!” Yeah, well they can also disarm someone with a wand (as they do many times throughout the books/movies). But which is faster: saying a spell or pulling a trigger?

Avada Kedavra, meet Avtomat Kalashnikova.

Imagine Harry out in the woods, wearing his invisibility cloak, carrying a .50BMG Barrett, turning Deatheaters into pink mist, scratching a lightning bolt into his rifle stock for each kill. I don’t think Madam Pomfrey has any spells that can scrape your brains off of the trees and put you back together after something like that. Voldemort’s wand may be 13.5 inches with a Phoenix-feather core, but Harry’s would be 0.50 inches with a tungsten core. Let’s see Voldy wave his at 3,000 feet per second. Better hope you have some Essence of Dittany for that sucking chest wound.

I can see it now…Voldemort roaring with evil laughter and boasting to Harry that he can’t be killed, since he is protected by seven Horcruxes, only to have Harry give a crooked grin, flick his cigarette butt away, and deliver what would easily be the best one-liner in the entire series:

“Well then I guess it’s a good thing my 1911 holds 7+1.”

And that is why Harry Potter should have carried a 1911.

Wow, someone in the gun media missed a HUGE scoop.

April 4, 2011

When did Glock start making revolvers? Or, more accurately, revolvers that at the very least look like semiautomatic pistols?

Oh, wait. You mean the Authorized Journalists didn’t rely on those layers and layers of fact-checkers…again? What the hell do they pay those people for if they don’t ever put their skills to use?

(h/t David Codrea)

Some people will never get it.

March 16, 2011

This topic has been discussed only God knows how many times, and you’d think there’d have been an agreed-upon formula by now — i.e., “Carry the largest-caliber gun you can carry and shoot comfortably.” it might well be a snub-nosed lightweight .38, or it might be a full-size 1911 with +P loads. It really should be common sense that the choices made vis-a-vis a firearm to carry are as individual as each human being. But no, certain cockroaches still have to crawl out from under the rug. “…they don’t know what they want.” Oh, no, nothing sexist in THAT context, is there?

I had a snubby once upon a time, an all-steel Ruger SP101 with a 2.25″ barrel. It was painful with .357 Magnum loads, though I could shoot it fairly extended amounts of time with normal .38 Special loads. My normal shooting session with that gun usually consisted of about 50 rounds of .38 and 25 rounds of .357.  I’ve never shot those flyweight revolvers, but it only seems to be — wait for it! — common sense that even the .38 Special would have a harder recoil, especially considering that the scandium Smith & Wesson 340PD weighs less than half as much as the aforementioned Ruger SP101. Anyone with any knowledge of the laws of physics should know that said laws will dictate that the recoil with the S&W would be a little over twice as hard as the recoil with the Ruger. Again, gun choice is as unique as the individual, but it seems to me that anyone who would recommend any kind of lightweight revolver as any kind of first firearm for any shooter needs to have their gunnie card revoked.

More random gun musings: 1911 reliability and personal-defense suitability

January 13, 2011

Honestly, people, I really do not get all the bitching and moaning about the 1911. I wonder if it ever occurred to those who bash it that 1911s have gotten a rep for unreliability among some people because they weren’t built according to JMB’s exact specs. It served the military well for more than 70 years, and continues to be the sidearm of choice for at least a few military and LEO units. I don’t think that’d be the case if it was a piece of shit jamomatic right off the assembly line. But I guess I’m just a 1911 cultist that way, logic be damned.

Speaking of logic, I suppose there would be those who would say, “How was Paul Helmke making shit up when he claimed the Glock was not suited for personal protection? Isn’t that his personal opinion, which cannot be proven or disproven?”

Well, no, no it isn’t just his opinion. It is the closest thing to fact that Helmke and everyone else who says the Glock isn’t suited for personal protection is lying. It actually can be objectively proven using unbiased criteria that the Glock (and pretty much any other pistol) is very well suited for personal protection. I’m sure there are those who could think of more than this, but from what I can tell, it basically boils down to two questions:

A. Is the pistol easy to carry on your person using normal pistol-carry methods?

B. Is the pistol chambered in a cartridge that has a reasonable chance of stopping an assailant within, say, 25 yards?

And now that I think of it, perhaps a third question:

C. Does the pistol have enough round capacity for you to have a reasonable chance of stopping an assailant before having to reload?

And using those criteria, the Glock is indeed perfectly suited for personal protection; every single Glock pistol that has come off the line exceeds those criteria with flying colors. I’m sure some will say, “But what about those 30 round magazines?”

Well, Sparky, let’s put YOU in the middle of a home invasion or carjacking and see how undergunned you’d feel.

“Oh, NO FAIR! We’re talking about personal protection here!”

Really now. So you think after that carjacker throws you out of your car he’s gonna let you walk away? Yeah, me neither.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure you could do that.

November 29, 2010

…or, I Get Referrals, from Irvine, California, “deer hunting with a 338 lapua.”

Oh, I’m sure a .338 Lapua would make a FINE deer rifle, with that 200-grain bullet chugging along at 3340 fps or so and 4950 lb-ft. of energy at the muzzle. Compare that to, say, about 2620 lb-ft. for a 168-grain .308 round at about 2650 fps. If anything a .338 might be overkill, unless you’re making routine shots from 1,000 yards-plus. But hey, as the old saying goes, smoke ’em if you got ’em. I’d hunt with it if I could afford the feeding costs. 😉

What’s that? Hunting rifles can kill, too?

November 16, 2010

I wonder how long it’ll take for the gun controllers to latch on to this

Thursday night, (Pennsylvania game warden David) Grove caught a felon poaching deer with a spotlight near Gettysburg, pulled him over and was shot four times, police said. He was the first Pennsylvania game warden killed in the line of duty in 95 years, but the occupation remains hazardous by its very nature.

“Everybody we deal with has a firearm,” said Richard Cramer, the association’s vice president and a land management supervisor for the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Often, game wardens are “encountering folks out to intentionally break the law with firearms.”

Hunting rifle licensing and registration NOW, for teh game wardens! Seriously, how long do you think it would be from this to “do you really need to hunt when we have grocery stores and such” if they wanted to take it that far. Certain organizations such as the Violence Policy Center are already calling for tighter regulation of certain calibers of hunting rifles such as the .338 Lapua and .50 BMG, but I’d bet smaller, more common caliber rifles are the ones the poachers are carrying when they’re apprehended by the wardens. I’m sure the VPC will be all over the smaller rifles before long.

I thought soldiers were smarter…

October 21, 2010

…than this:

Army Spec. William Gilbert, a frequent customer at Guns Galore, testified that he was in the store when Hasan first visited. When he pressed Hasan on why he was interested in the lightweight, easy-to-shoot semiautomatic pistol, he didn’t get a straight answer.

“He said he wanted the most technologically advanced weapon on the market and the one with the highest magazine capacity,” Gilbert recalled.

Most technologically advanced weapon on the market. So he bought what is more or less a hot-rod .22. What a dumbass. Really, is the Glock 19 or Beretta M9 THAT much more “technologically advanced” than, say, a Remington-Rand 1911 from World War II? Don’t they all use exactly the same basic principles? Firing pin hitting primer that ignites gunpowder which produces hot gases that propel small lead-and-copper projectile down barrel at a high rate of speed?

But remember, guys: Only the police and military should have guns because they know so much more about them than us mere civilians!