Monday, August 8, 2016

Birdshot is for the birds


This is a post I made on a gun discussion board, I have reposted it here. The question was whether birdshot was a good choice for self-defense. My answer has evolved from some years ago, when I  said that size T lead shot (.20 caliber; #4 buck is .24) could be ideal. I even said something positive about Federal Cartridge's attempt (since abandoned) to offer even smaller shot in a defense load. But I now conclude that #4 buck is the sensible lower limit of shot size for self-defense use, and it is a case where theory and practice bear one another out.

#4 buck is already on the ragged edge where performance is starting to falter occasionally, in circumstances where the distance is a little bit far or there are heavy clothes or light obstructions involved, and that lines up closely with what you would expect if the military estimate of wounding energy were true, or else close to the mark.

View Single Post
 Yesterday, 05:37 PM  #12
Member

Join Date: March 18, 2011
Posts: 845
It is an old military rule of thumb that projectiles need, at the least, 58 foot pounds of energy to produce a killing or disabling wound, reliably. That idea was cooked up in relation to designing and using old fashioned Shrapnel shells, later applied to artillery fragments and was most recently used in the design of the Claymore mine. It's not very exact, for people have been disabled or killed by far less energetic projectiles, but general rules are just that: they have exceptions.

Unless the calculator I used is way off, #4 buckshot launched at 1250 fps is down to 58 foot pounds just nine yards from the muzzle. (For comparison, #1 buckshot launched at the same speed has dropped to 58 foot pounds of energy when it has flown 76 yards and 00 buck gets out to a trifle more than 115 yards before its energy drops to that level.)

We know anecdotally that #4 buck works farther than nine yards, but we also know its reputation for poor performance as distance increases. We have read of police becoming disgruntled with the load and switching to 00, due to indecisive results when suspects were hit with #4 buck. At other times it has worked quite well, and its good pattern density is obviously an advantage in getting hits on the target.

We are flirting with the limits of ineffectiveness with #4 buck, and the results show it. That seems to bear out the military's 58 foot pounds estimate, and suggests to me that #4 buck is a sensible lower limit.

   
  

Monday, August 1, 2016

Sporterizing


I posted this today on a discussion forum:

I don't see why collectors are disturbed when an old gun is altered. When it happens, their pristine examples appreciate. They should like that; if they fully thought things through they would encourage sporterizing.

If collector value were never lost through modifications, or damage, or rust or fires, or losing the rifle overboard, collector value would not exist, for all-originals would be plentiful. The value of any old military rifle would remain just where it started: pick through the barrel for one you like and give the man $89, or see if you can dicker him down a bit or get him to throw in some ammo.


Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Trunk Guns

American Rifleman | 9 Field-Tested Trunk Guns:

9 Field-Tested Trunk Guns by B. Gil Horman

 - Tuesday, September 15, 2015



"Anyone who has spent much time wandering the online shooting forums or reading gun magazines has picked up on some of the less formal firearm categories folks like to talk about, such as BUGs (back-up guns), Kit Guns (small .22 handguns) and Perfect Packin' Pistols (for hiking). A Trunk Gun is a sturdy, reliable, and not-too-expensive firearm that can be kept tucked away in a car or boat for plinking, hunting and, in a pinch, self-defense. Here are a few of the guns I've worked with that make good passengers without breaking the bank. Don't forget to check regulations for legal methods of transporting firearms in your area." (Read more at the link.)


My remarks: This repeat from last year showed up in my email "American Rifleman Insider" today. The author rounded up the usual suspects, and I recommend the article. But there are a few very good trunk  guns that went unmentioned. The single-shot, break action shotgun will do more than most people think if you learn to run it efficiently. Surplus, bolt-action military rifles from the last century (or even a little farther back than that) are extremely durable. They were made to take a beating; use as a trunk gun is easy duty for them. One of the best trunk guns of all is a lever-action carbine in .30-30, for it is light and versatile, and the many examples with no collector value are economical to buy used. You can buy .30-30 ammo throughout the Americas, for it has proven to be a useful hunting and general purpose cartridge for more than a century.


Winchester Model 1894.jpg




Photo credit: By Antique Military Rifles - originally posted to Flickr as Winchester Model 1894, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6610240


Update: More trunk gun recommendations in a follow-up article from the same source: https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/8/2/9-more-field-tested-trunk-guns/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=insider&utm_campaign=0816

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Shotgun zones A, B and C.


The shotgun "zones," A, B and C,  describing the shotgun's behavior at varying ranges, are not much emphasized in my practice sessions anymore, because it was always a clumsy teaching. It is easier to tell people that the farther away you are from your target, the more likely you are to pelt the downrange danger zone instead of putting pellets into your target. That is really all the zones have to teach us, and you can demonstrate the same lesson in a few minutes at the range. Here is how the matter was taught, and my critique.

Zone A: Very short range. The pattern has hardly spread. All your pellets will hit the combat silhouette target, for they are hitting en masse.

(Bad assumption. All your pellets can miss the target too--same reason. But, if you are reasonably proficient, it is quite likely that all of the shot charge hits--and the wad as well.)

Zone B The pattern has spread out, but not so widely that you can't still put all your pellets on the target.

(But imperfect aim will mean you hit with some and miss with some. A clearer way of saying it is that you cannot be sure they'll all hit but there's a pretty good chance.)

Zone C: Some pellets are certain to miss because the pattern is now larger than the target.

(You need to be very aware of the downrange danger zone. That is also a splendid idea when firing at the closer  ranges. )

There should have been a Zone D: You are so far away that only by a sheer fluke will you hit your target.

(Buckshot will work for merely suppressive fire at 100 yards or more, but that is because people have a superstitious dread of "the one with your name on it." The odds of connecting are slight.)

Summation of critique: You should ALWAYS scan the downrange area. Be aware that the danger area is wider for a shotgun than for a rifle. But it is not much wider than for a pistol, because people shoot pistols so badly, especially when they are under stress. The shotgun zones were never more than a laborious elaboration of Rule Four.

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Papa Shaw


The PPSh-41 was produced (all sources including postwar China) in about twelve million copies. It is a cheap basic tube gun, like many others originating in the WWII period. Per Wikipedia:

The PPSh-41 fires the standard Soviet pistol and submachine gun cartridge, the 7.62×25mm (Tokarev). Weighing approximately 12 pounds (5.45 kg) with a loaded 71-round drum and 9.5 pounds (4.32 kg) with a loaded 35-round box magazine, the PPSh is capable of a rate of about 1000 rounds per minute, a very high rate of fire in comparison to most other military submachine guns of World War II. It is a durable, low-maintenance weapon made of low-cost, easily obtained components, primarily stamped sheet metal and wood.

PPSh-41 from soviet.jpg

Its job is to throw lots of lead downrange, the bullets arriving approximately where directed. The rate of fire is more than twice as fast as the USA's M3 "Grease Gun." I do not think the high rate of fire was particularly advantageous, but it was an understandable design choice in an era when the Germans' fast-firing GPMG's were thought to be superior weapons. It was a conscious design decision to make the Russian buzzgun run so fast, for all you have to do to slow down a blowback gun is add a little more weight to the bolt.

The PPSh-41 deserves better regard than to just tag it as another cheap old fashioned burp gun. It was produced in vaster numbers than the rest. The reason for the big production numbers is that the thing served well and usefully in combat. Its cartridge, though not the best pistol cartridge of the era, may have been the best submachine gun cartridge, driving its small bullet fast and flat, with good penetration at the terminal end of the journey. The gun worked even in appalling conditions afield. It gave Russian units extra firepower when attempts to produce a really good semi-automatic battle rifle were fruitless

It was a peasant's weapon, but so were the longbows of Agincourt. A well-motivated Rooskie armed with this thing could crawl close and then let them have it, a plan that worked all the way to Berlin.

Friday, May 27, 2016

Korth Sky Marshal snubnose


As regular readers know, keeping a snubnose revolver ready to hand is an essential element in my self-protection plans. This gun from Korth costs a lot for a snubnose, nearly a thousand list price. It has some interesting features including Picatinny rail, is chambered in 9mmP and works without moon clips. It might be of great interest to someone who uses the 9mm in an auto pistol and wants a backup gun of the revolver sort. Heck, it might interest anyone who likes cool guns that are a bit unusual.


Friday, May 6, 2016

Summing up on the shotgun





My regular readers know that I regularly say that the shotgun is the best personal defense arm. Nearly all personal defense is short range business, and the shotgun is the best weapon at short range.

After years of saying that--and demonstrating the details--from every angle, I think I am done now. No use harrowing that ground again. You may not agree, but I trust that my reasoning is at least clear to all. Better hit probability than other guns possess, proven track record of stopping fights, and the option to shoot at and hit the chinks in the armor, should body armor be a factor: All this adds up to a persuasive case, to me.

To move on: Which shotgun to use is still an interesting question. I will continue to write about new developments in shotguns. The classic pump guns set a good baseline for comparisons to anything newer. Innovations in ammunition are also interesting.  Buckshot is the baseline in ammunition. My question moving forward is whether anyone is doing anything notably better than loading a pump gun with buckshot, if the purpose is real-world self defense.

Two things prompted this. I lately started yet another shotgun article on my old pattern of explaining the pros and cons of the weapon. I stopped short of finishing it. I see no use in repeating myself on the shotgun's general excellence as a personal weapon, for people either agree or they don't. The second thing was an observation I made during a recent visit to a big store that sells lots of guns and accessories. Presumably, this company is in tune with what customers want. I considered what was prominently on display and what was sort of shoved to the back. I concluded that a whole lot more people are interested in AR and AK rifles than in fighting shotguns. I like both of those rifles, can shoot both and would feel well armed with a good example of either one. I would not, though, feel optimally armed; I'd want one of the shotguns from the back of the showcase. I get the feeling that when I extol the shotgun's virtues I am preaching to a smallish choir that agrees with me, and they have heard it before.