archives

gun culture

This category contains 181 posts

AH! The ‘Stuff’ Of The Internet…

I try to limit the flotsam and jetsam (i.e. Spam) in my primary email inboxes.  Not because I fear viruses (I do!) but because they are a waste of time.

But, spam filters being imperfect, sometimes ‘things’ get through!

Witness below:

(From a free DVD!)

Would You Like To Own A 100% Legal Glock 9mm That The Government Doesn’t Know Exists?…
Using Nothing But A Hacksaw, File, Drill And This Breakthrough FREE DVD You Can Literally Create A Fully Functional Undetectable Glock 9mm In Your Garage In Under An Hour, Just Like This…
P.S. This is currently 100% legal in all 50 states and I’d love to give it to you for free right now…
(Now, if memory serves, BATFE rules state you can ‘make’ your own firearm for personal use.  Whether or not this kind of ‘making’ is allowed under the rules I’m reluctant to test!  And the rules may have been changed w/o them notifying me!)
Not to mention, I’m mechanically challenged.  I can completely disassemble (and reassemble) a standard AR15, a S&W ‘old-school’ revolver and most Browning-designed semiautomatics.  I ‘accurized’ a 1911 by taking a raw barrel bushing and using only my hands, sanded the barrel contact surface until the barrel just made it through.  Took about 4 hours.
BUT, building a ghost gun from parts?!
Yeah, I don’t know…
Plus, what if you are carrying it and questioned by the local police.  Will they know it is technically legal?
And there’s that whole BATFE thing!
Not for me!
To the spam cave!
(If you are interested in such things, I’m certain the Internet will provide the link.  I won’t.)

 

HK HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS IN DEBT

(from TFB)

German Firm Heckler & Koch Reportedly €170 MILLION in the Red

Via a press release published earlier this month, German gunmaker Hecker & Koch announced it had reduced its financial debt to a mere €170 million (~$194 million US), thanks to an equity increase of €50 million via a capital shares increase. With this, the company will issue approximately 6.6 million new shares, backed up by a capital injection of €50 million, and assistance in refinancing its 9.5% Senior Secured Notes at significantly lower debt. According to the release:

These funds will be provided initially in the form of a shareholder loan to be converted into share capital during the share capital increase to meet the time line of the refinancing of the 2011 9.50% Senior Secured Notes. Minority shareholders of H&K will have the possibility to subscribe for new shares on a pro-rata-basis and on the same economic terms against payment in cash.

Being almost two hundred million dollars in debt does not necessarily mean the German firm is in dire trouble, however, as they have recently gained significant contracts that will help offset this burden. Chief among those is the French AIF contract, estimated to be worth over €300 million ($342 million US). The revenue from this contract alone could offset the debt of the company, which as of 2013 was pegged at slightly higher than the company’s net worth. How the company’s finances will shake out, though, isn’t easy to predict, especially given the outstanding $27 million lawsuit from Orbital ATK over the failure of H&K to deliver XM25 CDTE grenade launchers. Still, the company being in debt to the tune of the entirety of or higher than their net worth does raise cause for concern, if they cannot significantly offset or restructure that debt.

Now, I know there are those among you who will cry “GOOD!”, having suffered the slings-and-arrows of their notoriously poor customer service, especially in the civilian market.

Obviously, the civilians aren’t the only one’s who have suffered…

I have no skin in this game.  The closest I was to owning an H & K was a Century Arms H & K 91 knock-off, with original internals and furniture.  She worked and shot well (when properly lubed).  I liked her.

But, she went the way of the missing vault along with the rest of the collection.

I’m a capitalist.  If a company cannot provide proper delivery or customer service, they deserve to fail!

Perhaps, if there is another incarnation, they will have learned that?

A lesson from Colt?

Okay, So Mr. Suarez And I Disagree On Some Things

I’ll begin by saying I’ve admired Gabe Suarez and his works for many years.  Long-time blog readers of GiA will also know I am a disciple of Jeff Cooper.

Having said that, I am not inflexible.  Of course, I do not have the financial means to make changes to my armament and ammunition at a moments notice.

Here is what Mr. Suarez had to say recently regarding how he differs from Col. Cooper’s teachings, and their history together  (from Facebook):

THE SUAREZ SYSTEM – HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Thursday, June 08, 2017

I was asked how the Suarez material differs from the Modern Technique invented/codified by Jeff Cooper. Here it is…a long read, but it sets down the historical context.

I attended Gunsite in 1990. Cooper was there as were a few of the current “stalwarts” for the modern technique, a couple of SEALs and an entire group of LAPD SWAT with 1911s. I was running my issued weapon, as crappy as it was, a Smith & Wesson 5906 that had been tuned up by Steve Deladio in Long Beach, CA. While I was open minded, I did have some ideas about what was what since I had been working around criminals, gang members and killers for five years.

I had not been in a gunfight yet, but I was around alot of guys who had. In the end, I got top score and won the shootoff, against all of those guys. Cooper and I became friends, and I attended Gunsite every year until 1995. So one could say I became well versed in the Modern Technique. In Cooper’s words in the Intro to Tactical Pistol he described me as, although I would never use them to describe myself, “a master pistolero”. I say that only to illustrate my understanding of the modern technique.

The Modern Technique was born in the competitive field, not the battlefield. I didn’t read this…Cooper told me. The exercise was a man versus man shootoff, involving a draw from the holster, at some ten yards. In that sense, the competition was in fact open. And for that problem, some trends began to emerge. Below eye level shooting, or any moving while drawing – while quite popular with men like Askins, and Bryce, and other accomplished killers for close up shooting – didn’t work so well in that interval.

And since the goal was to hit before the other man hit, there was no need to move or use cover. What won was standing at ease, bringing the pistol up to eye level with both hands, and using the sights. When one man won, others emulated his method and also won.That is the over riding problem with sporting events derived from martial pursuits.

And Cooper, ever the academic, studied and identified the trends, duplicating it in his works.

Now, I respect Cooper’s memory and was proud to call him my friend. And I will say that he was not as close minded as his followers are. I shared the gunfight where I discovered “getting off the X” with him and he said that under those circumstances, it was a brilliant move. I still have that letter somewhere, and I know he mentioned it in his newsletter.

Between my intro to the Modern Technique and the height of my teaching career, I had the good fortune to be in a few gunfights…as the primary shooter. I also investigated a great number of shootings between bad guys and a few with good guy versus bad guys. I began to see trends that the modern technique did not address. As well the gunfight I told Cooper about where the concept of moving off the target line while drawing and shooting was crystallized for me, revealed many shortcomings in the MT methods.

In those days there was no internet or Google. Knowledge was passed on either via scholarly articles in police journals (forget getting anything of value in the gun rags of the day) – or via word of mouth.

In that gunfight, my third I think it was, although alert, I was in a reactive state. I moved to avoid being shot and shot back without a perfect sight picture and killed my adversary. I noted all of this and sought answers. Eventually I came across the works of John Boyd and the OODA cycle which explained in detail why my tactic of movement had allowed me to prevail in a situation where we otherwise would have shot each other. The study continued and by the close of my police career I had used that same method several times with success.

There was no force on force back then. There was Simunitions which was extremely expensive and being a UK company, they despised the idea of lowly civilians using their equipment. Some guys basically stole the gear (I actually mean borrowed for a lengthy period) from their agencies to train, but that was rare…and still is.

As well the anal-retentive range practices precluded anything other than a stationary stand and deliver training system. Eventually however, we brought in Airsoft and worked the training, simulating gunfights over and over and over. We determined that the initiative (who had started things) would determine the successful tactics of each party. We determined that moving kept you safe, while standing, or ceasing movement lead to you getting shot. We also determined those weaver stances, isosceles stances, or any hold on the weapon that was “stance dependent” was untenable in a close range reactive gunfight.

In 2004 or 2005 we had a Force On Force class…the first one, in Las Vegas. I set guys up facing each other at five yards. Armed with airsoft pistol analogs to their real weapons, and suitably protected with face masks, I told them to “GO”. This simulated a true gunfight to a far greater degree than any range exercise these men had ever seen before.

We had extremely accomplished Modern Technique guys totally change their perspectives on gunfighting after that class. We had “Combat Masters” from Taylor’s and Front Sight get their asses handed to them by first time attendees, school teachers, doctors, and students who understood what we were teaching.

And we have been developing it more and more and more ever since. I will tell you and anyone on earth that the gunfighting system taught at the Suarez School is by far the best system to keep you alive in a gunfight, and to help you kill your enemy at the same time. That was the beginning of “our system”.

Now to differences –

Specifically the Modern Technique relies heavily of being alert. In the modern world that is not always possible, and we know that while we try to be thus, the distractions of modern life will impede our incessant “Yellow”. We differ in that we understand the natural inclination, as well as the fact that if one is alert, he will often avoid/evade most problems.

Gunfighting is for when you were taken by surprise and so, a strong reactive understanding is essential. So MT is proactive, which happened maybe half the time. We do not ignore it, but we do not fixate on it either. Our system begins at reactive since that is where most lone operators will be when they realize they need to kill the other man.

Secondly we have the Weaver stance. Perhaps men are stronger today than they were in those days, but we have found in proactive shooting there is no need for the dynamics of the weaver stance with a moderately developed upper body and hand strength. All one has to do is look at what the world’s champion shooters use and you will not find weaver stances there. Often times what is needed is simply getting the weapon out quickly and punching it forward, working the trigger as you do so. Watch a force on force event and you will not see any weaver or isosceles stances. You will see a great deal of one handed shooting.

Next is the matter of Flash Sight Picture. This is but one step in a long continuum of visual references with regard to the handgun. On one extreme you have the pistol just clearing the holster, and the operator relying on pure body index and proximity to the threat. Midway we have meat and metal…the meat of the bad guy surrounding the metal image of the slide. And eventually, arms at full extension, eyes fully on the front sight or red dot, and pure marksmanship at hand. So we do not ignore the “flash sight picture” but it is not a complete use of the sights, or the body indexes either.

The next MT component is Compressed Surprise Break. Again, like the issue of the sights, working the trigger is far more involved with respect to the dynamics of the fight than merely a compressed surprise break. There are times when mashing the trigger just as fast and as hard as you can is called for. Other times we work it like a sniper rifle. All of this, and the way we work the sights is based on distance interval, and the degree of initiative you have in the fight.

Finally, the Semi-automatic pistol in a large caliber. Cooper and his men were very fond of the 1911 in 45 ACP. I don’t carry one of those. I carry a Glock 9mm. I have seen men shot with modern 9mm anti-personnel ammo and have never seen the failures we hear about in the old articles. We have several ER doctors who report that there is virtually no difference between 9mm and the other calibers. So I feel well armed, as do those who know, with a modern 9mm pistol. As well we do not subscribe to the “controlled pairs” or “hammers”. We shoot them to the ground. We rely on bursts. A burst is three to five rounds. Our school solution is a burst to the chest and a burst to the face. And of course, in proactive events, we shot for the face and head exclusively.

That is it in a nutshell. As well, our working of the pistol is vastly different. We are goal driven and focus on the state of the operator in the gunfight. Having been in some, my staff and I realize that analytical academic based weapon manipulations will fail. We also know the physical state one will likely be in. Not one of terror-filled defecation, but certainly one of excitement and adrenaline driven actions.

For example, the malfunctions we have seen discussed here. Rather than the analytical method taught at traditional schools, we understand that if your pistol malfunctions you have just been interrupted in killing the man who was trying to kill you. At such times, and often in low light, you neither have the luxury of examining the weapon, nor often the light to do so.

So we follow a flow-chart process bereft of any decision on the operator’s part other than “did it fix it and can I keep shooting”. So given a stoppage of any sort, the first reaction is an immediate and thoughtless tap rack. If that fixed it, keep killing. That maneuver will fix a failure to fire, as well as a failure to eject (known to traditional students as a stovepipe). It will not fix a feed way stoppage (not really a double feed), or an empty gun. If the initial maneuver fails to remedy the problem, the operator manually rips the on board magazine out and discards it. That will in fact instantly remedy the feed way stoppage in most modern handguns. (We have alternatives for those who must use Beretta M9 or 1911). The operator then loads a fresh magazine on board and manually cycles the slide, fixing either of the last outcomes…feed way stoppage or empty gun. We have students solving malfunctions dynamically and on the move in less than an hour.

Well, there you have it. There may be other things I haven’t thought of. We also favor appendix carry and training from concealment exclusively. We prize hand to hand combat ability and train with knives as well. We like red dot sights on our handguns, and put a premium on physical strength and conditioning.

But we firmly acknowledge our roots.

Image may contain: 2 people, people standing and outdoor
I’ll be the first to say that I am not the experienced professional Mr. Suarez is.  I have received funds for my teaching, but I teach mostly The Modern Technique of the Pistol, as distilled by Col. Cooper.  Of course, I do teach one-hand shooting and Isosceles, as these items might be needed.
Taken point-by-point:
Alertness. 
I try to keep in condition YELLOW.  Yes, I am NOT an operator or an assault-team
member.  Alertness may not keep me from being attacked, but it couldn’t hurt?  My personal motto is ‘Pay Attention’.  I contend much of my Life might have ended differently, had I paid attention or perhaps MORE attention.
Weaver Stance, Flash Sight Picture  and Compressed Surprise Break.
I am old, infirmed and generally set-in-my ways.  Weaver has worked for me for 43 years.  And now I am weaker and have less muscle mass.  (Perhaps, if I were 20 years younger, and in better condition?)  I will continue to operate in these manners, unless the situation warrants otherwise.  I’m old fashioned and old-school.  Remember my use of Bruce Lee’s teachings.  Repetition (as with kata) can bring vertical death.  Or, in the case of gunfighting, horizontal death.  Drill, but vary your drills.  Don’t just punch holes in paper, endlessly.
The semiautomatic pistol in a large caliber.
Despite the Pentagon’s recent findings regarding 9mm hollowpoints, I prefer to rely on Physics rather than magic bullets.
And, of course, I always intone the great Jim Cirillo:  “Stopping power BEGINS st 12 gauge!”  Why do I carry a .45?  Because they don’t make a .46!
Red dot sights
Col. Cooper said optics are for rifles.  Mr. Suarez is selling pistol slides with red dot sights.  Perhaps, for the well-trained spec ops guy(?)  But, as an almost-elderly citizen, they are not for me.
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to train under Mr. Suarez, and again own 9mm pistols.
But. given my current circumstances, I don’t see that happening…

NRA Disallows 1911s As “Primary Handguns” From Its “Carry Guard” Classes

(from TFB – James Jarrett)

Released to quite a bit of controversy at the NRA show, the NRA’s Carry Guard program is again the focus of controversy. As listed on the NRA’s Carry Guard website, instructions for prospective students of their “Level 1” program are specifically asked not to bring revolvers or 1911s as “primary firearms” to the classes.  This instruction is added as a note to bringing a full-size or compact handgun:

*NOTE: NRA Carry Guard Level One is designed for training with a semi-automatic handgun (Glock 19/17, Sig P226/P228 or equivalent). We will not allow revolvers or 1911s as your primary firearm in this class.

I can understand the reasoning to NOT want revolvers in a semi-auto class, but the decision to specifically bar the 1911 is most peculiar and likely to draw some ire of the NRA membership and potential student base.

I mean, the instruction simply does not add up. The NRA specifically asks for a “semi-automatic handgun” but then disallows America’s favorite semi-auto? I can understand if the program wants a minimum capacity, but even that does not make sense as they mention bringing backup guns, etc which then has the 1911 allowed:

You should bring a secondary firearm that you carry concealed, as well as a holster for such. We will run the course with a primary carry weapon and then run a course of fire with a secondary or back-up gun to evaluate the differences. Please bring at least 40 rounds of ammo appropriate for your carry firearm for this portion of the class. Revolvers, 1911s and/or subcompacts can be used for this portion of the class. (emphasis added)

If anything, the NRA should have set a type of handgun and impartial requirements. Instead, they are managing to shoot themselves in the foot with Carry Guard yet again…

I wonder what compelled the NRA to make such as decision?  Many CCW/Constitutional Carry folks with whom I am personally acquainted often carry 1911s.

Including me.

Could it be this politically correct age is creeping over into firearms choices from politics and ‘popular’ culture?

The NRA did ban ‘other’ CCW schools/insurance from their last convention, undoubtedly to limit competition between them.

I’ll bet is Col. Cooper were still with us (as an NRA Board member) this wouldn’t be a thing.

 

Glock’s Fault, Or Yours?

(from TFB, in part)

Glock

I recently had the opportunity to re-certify my Glock Armorer Certification as it had expired. I highly recommend that anyone who can attend a Glock Armorer course to do so. Those people include:

  • Employee of Glock Dealer/Distributor
  • Glock Shooting Sports Foundation (GSSF) Member
  • Active/Retired Military/Law Enforcement

All the instructors I have encountered or been taught by are thorough, challenge you, and you genuinely leave feeling more confident in your proficiency at manipulating the weapon and all of its 34 individual pieces.

Classroom book learning aside, what I found to be the most interesting conversation of the day was shooting the breeze with our instructor over lunch. Somehow, the topic of customer service issues came up. We talked about macho guys who limp-wrist a G27, and shade-tree gunsmiths who use their Dremel tool too much and ruin guns. The instructor eventually spit out some numbers that might surprise you.

Glock Customer Service Issues

  • 90% – Shooter/User Error
  • 9.9% – Ammunition
  • 0.05% – Maintenance (Or Lack Thereof)
  • 0.05% – Mechanical

***To be fair to Glock corporate, my instructor, and to cover my own behind, these numbers are not written in stone.

Our instructor was simply stating what he observed over many years of serving and working for the company and continually interacting with the customer service department.

It really begs the question though… If your Glock is failing you, can you look in the mirror and objectively ask, what am I doing wrong? Should I maybe not shoot the world’s cheapest, cruddiest ammo?…

Would love to hear your anecdotal evidence in the comments below. Not saying those numbers listed above are perfect, but 99.9% user error and ammo… oofta! That is incredibly reliable and I will feel like an idiot in front of my friends if have an issue with a Glock because it is probably my fault!

I found this of great interest!  In part because I’ve owned and shot (and carried) a number of Glocks (26, 30, 17) and found them to be universally functional and without ‘problems’.  Of course, unlike one of my Blogmothers™ (Tamara), this was done in strings of 50, or 100 rounds in range conditions, with cleaned firearms.

No stress tests for Guffaw’s Glocks!

And, I still prefer walnut and blued (or stainless) steel to polymer.

So much in the firearms world is the result of human error (think negligent discharge!)  Certain, what you feed them, technique and other human factors could be of more importance than mechanical defects?

I expect to hear from those who love Glocks, as well as those who hate them.

Get the party started…

Brink’s Adopts The FN 509

(from TFB, in part)

Brink’s Adopts The FN 509 | The First FN 509 Contract Awarded

As much as people want to shun the FN 509 for being yet another polymer framed striker gun that is easy to overlook the hidden greatness, Brink’s saw the benefit in the new plastic wonder gun. The adoption of the FN 509 by Brink’s marks the first major purchase of the 509 since it was announced on April 17, 2017.

There is no word on how many pistols Brink’s has purchased and what the details of the sale were other than a Dallas, Texas based FN Law Enforcement Dealer called TK Tactical brokered the deal between Brink’s and FN’s law enforcement sales team.

We have previously covered the FN 509 on TFB TV and found the pistol to be a hidden gem that many will no doubt overlook when they are in the gunstore. If large contracts like the Brink’s one continue to be awarded to the FN pistol I expect we will see a ton more of the pistols in civilian hands.

The press release can be found HERE, but I have pasted it below.

(McLean, VA – April 25, 2017) FN America, LLC, the manufacturer of the world’s most battle-proven firearms, announces the award of a long-term firearms contract by Brink’s, Incorporated, a premier provider of secure logistics and security solutions throughout the United States. After extensive testing of all major pistol manufacturers over the course of nine months, Brink’s has selected the all-new FN 509™ striker-fired 9mm pistol and will issue the new sidearm to its armed security guards.

FN’s law enforcement sales team worked with TK Tactical, an FN Law Enforcement Distributor based in Dallas, Texas, to develop the lead, and then directly with Brink’s to provide a firearms solution that met and exceeded the needs of its armed personnel. The first order of pistols will begin shipping in early June. Brink’s Incorporated, is the first major private security company to adopt the FN 509 since its official release in April 2017.

“We are proud to announce the contract with Brink’s, Incorporated,” said Mark Cherpes, President and CEO for FN America, LLC. “Like FN, Brink’s has a long and honored history. Brink’s is one of the most iconic private security firms in the world. The decision to purchase the FN 509 is an important achievement for our organization. It is validation of the hard work that our team put into designing, producing and supporting this pistol.”

The FN 509 was born out of the company’s effort to produce a contender for the U.S. Army’s Modular Handgun System (MHS) competition and has been further enhanced to meet the needs of U.S. law enforcement and commercial customers. Built on the proven architecture of the FNS™ Compact, FN made changes internally and externally to meet the rigorous performance standards of the MHS requirements and further developed the platform into the FN 509 with help from industry experts. Over the course of development, the platform has been tested extensively for reliability, ammunition compatibility and durability – totaling more than 1 million rounds.

Check out FN America online for more information about the FN 509.

Times have changed.  Traditionally, private security has followed the coattails of the military and police, many times with mixed results.  It took years for the civilian police to follow the military from revolvers to semiautomatics and even more for private security to get on board.

Perhaps because most private security has less stringent training than the police, and pays less to support it.

I recall working for another national security company, in the late 70’s.  The post-issued weapon was a Colt Official Police revolver, of early manufacture, complete with five green rounds of .38 Special in the six-round cylinder.  Issued in a right-handed Hunter holster (I’m left handed.)  No reloads were supplied, and no training/qualification offered.

AND, the barrel was LOOSE!  I never pulled on it, for fear it would separate from the frame!

(Fortunately, my Captain permitted me to carry my Ruger Security Six, on long-term loan from Dave-the-mechanic (thanks. again, Dave!), a gun I had shot competitively with (and now own – thanks yet again, Dave!)

It nice to see Brink’s stepping up to obtain quality firearms for it’s troops.  Hopefully, they will be issued to all, not just the elite of the service.

And, properly trained-for and maintained…

This Just In! 

My favorite blogging minister – and friend! (and hopefully yours) REV. PAUL (of Way Up North) has been disconnected by those wonderful folks at Google. (ptui!)

He so informs me he may continue to be reached (and will hopefully continue to blog) @

 mooseintheyard.blogspot.com

(His former blog address.)

Mysterious are the ways of the liberalocracies!  (He’s been posting much Biblical content of late, I wonder…?)

Rifleman Babylon?

When I was growing up, there were numerous Westerns on television.  Being raised by TV, I was familiar with most.  One of them was The Rifleman (1958-1963).

The Rifleman, aka Lucas McCain, was played to his macho hilt by Chuck Connors, a 6’5″ athlete (from Wikipedia, in part):

Kevin Joseph Aloysius “Chuck” Connors (April 10, 1921 – November 10, 1992) was an American actor, writer and professional basketball and baseball player. He is one of only 12 athletes in the history of American professional sports to have played both Major League Baseball and in the National Basketball Association. With a 40-year film and television career, he is best known for his five-year role as Lucas McCain in the highly rated ABC series The Rifleman (1958–63).[1]

There was a book, first published in 1965, entitled Hollywood Babylon.  There have been two subsequent printings.  The book went out of it’s way to defame the famous in Hollywood, mentioning the scandals, the rumors, the crime, the ‘dirt’ for which the public was so hungry.  Sal Mineo, Sharon Tate, Jayne Mansfield et al.

I don’t believe Chuck was mentioned in any of them.

The theme of the TV show was almost always (TV violence aside), a lesson which Lucas (a widower) would impart to his young son, Mark.  I remember one particular episode wherein the lecture was (at the end of the show after much gunfighting) regarding people who are differentAnd just because they are different, doesn’t automatically make them BAD.  And how we, as honest human beings should strive to be accepting of such folk.

Of course, I was a kid, so this message went over my head.  When I saw the show again years later, some additional context was added.

An acquaintance, who has been a professional gun writer for many years, happened to see Chuck Connors at a large California gun show.  IN FULL DRAG! – complete with a wig and makeup!  This was a short time before he passed away.

This is not to defame Mr. Connors, but to suggest perhaps he and the TV show writers had a meeting-of-the-minds (?)

There are further rumors regarding Mr. Connors behavior all over the Internet.  As there are with pretty much anyone regarded as ‘famous’.

Just because it says so on the Internet doesn’t make it true! – Abraham Lincoln

I remember sharing this tale with a collections manager @ TMCCC* (my last workplace).  He ran away from me, covering his ears as though he were five years old!  Obviously, I had been messing with a macho hero of his!

Be judicious with whom you share this tale.

*That Major Credit Card Company

POTD: Watch Your Hands When You Unload And Show Clear

(from TFB)

POTD: Watch Your Hands When You Unload And Show Clear

A shooter was unloading his handgun when this happened. From what Scott relayed to me, was that the shooter cups the ejection port to catch the round to save time from picking it up off the floor. Now to clarify, this was not a malfunction. It was not a FTF and the primer was never struck. What happened was that during the unloading process the shooter’s hand covers the ejection port. The round most likely ejected into the hand but since the hand was so close to the ejection port it got caught between the slide and barrel.

Take a look at the picture below. You can see the primer lacks any hammer mark. However there is a clear crease from the edge of the slide cutting into the headstamp of the casing. If you look at the photo at the very top, you can see the bullet has a vertical line cut into it as well.

By cupping the round as it ejected out and it getting caught on the slide as the slide tried to close, the round went off in the shooter’s hand.

Here is what Scott relayed to me:

The following is a story relayed to me. I do not have first hand knowledge of this, but I do trust the source.

The pictures are of a recovered case and projectile after a shooter attempted to eject a live round during an unloading evolution. The shooter covered the ejection port with his hand and attempted to capture the live round rather than letting it eject freely from the ejection port. The round was trapped, under pressure of the recoil spring, in-between the edge of the ejection port along the edge of the breach face and the front of the ejection port on the right side of the slide.

There is a noticeable linear denting on the nose of the projectile and an obvious strike point on the rear of the case and the primer. The projectile could not escape and the resulting effect was for the case to burst. The pressure from the burning propellent was absorbed by the shooter’s hand. He will not be able to make this mistake again.

It is a sobering lesson for many shooters. No one ever really believes that this could happen to them.

I have seen some people use this technique in USPSA. I have seen people eject the round and catch it in the air as well. Be careful and pay attention. The scenario above could be considered a sheer accident. However if the shooter did not use that ejection method then there is less likely of a chance such an event would have occurred.

h/t Scott B.

I have used this technique on occasion.  Usually not (thankfully).  When it comes to safety, I think being safe is preferable to looking cool.

Interestingly, there is no picture of the shooter’s hand…

BREAKING: YouTube Gun Channels In Danger Of Disappearing Forever

(from TFB)

 

In an unannounced move, it appears that YouTube has pulled all ads from gun related videos. You might be thinking that is is a good thing and are happy about the decision, but you would be wrong. Thanks to the removal of any revenue that creators use to cover costs and even make a living, YouTube gun channels are in danger of disappearing forever.

Even our own channel, TFB TV, is in grave danger if the new change sticks.

While some gun channels will be able to sustain themselves through services like Patreon, channels like ours that have a small Patreon support base will suffer greatly. This means content could be reduced quite a lot, creators will move on and no longer devote the time to making videos for you to enjoy, and the big YouTube gun guys that rely on it for a living will either have to find another way to create the income to pay their bills or even cover the costs associated with filming.

What can we do about it? Nothing really. Sadly Google makes their decisions and sticks to it. What you can do is support your favorite content creators through whatever donation site they are a member of.

You can find the TFB TV Patreon page here: http://www.patreon.com/tfbtv

Please consider visiting our Patreon page and pitching in a buck or two a month so that James, myself, and the rest of the TFB TV crew can keep the videos coming like you have become accustomed to regardless of what Youtube decides.

You Tube was founded by three guys who had started PayPal (an anti-gun entity).  Personally, I’ve no funds lying around to contribute to Patreon or anyone else.  A while back You Tube was purchased bu GOOGLE, also infamous for it’s anti-gun politics.

See a trend here?

They have their own political agenda, and enforce the same.  Hell, it’s their company!  Many folks have voted with their virtual feet away from Pay Pal.  I presume they will do the same away from You Tube. 

As for Guffaw in AZ, I’ve a Pay Pal link, because I need funding.  And I’ve a You Tube link, because I like movies and videos.  I also post pictures of many ‘famous’ female celebrities, some of whom are openly anti-civil rights folks.  But, they are there, because they are pretty.  (that infamous traitorous bitch is not among my collection of photos, and never will be!  I have some standards.)

😛

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…