The Gunner's Blog

You have 18 months, so do it now so you don't forget. What you get is a free trigger replacement if your rifle has the old style Remington 700 ("Walker") trigger or a certain version of the X Mark Pro trigger. To have Remington fix your gun for free, go here and follow the prompts to file online: http://remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com/ The guns covered are Remington Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722, and 725. The problem is some examples of these guns firing when the trigger is not pulled. Surely you do not want that to happen. Quit using your Remmies. Send them in for the free overhaul. Background on this story:  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/24/remington-rifle-settlement-is-official.html More: http://www.captainsjournal.com/2018/10/24/the-remington-rifle-settlement-is-final/ I gave this story some coverage in the past, saying that I would send in my rifle, but also pointing out that media...

Sometimes I feel surprised at how old I have become. I am not sure when I aged. I was too busy to notice it happening, but here I am. Waiters and clerks ask me if I get the senior discount. I do: But at least they are asking not assuming. One of the things to astonish me is that the "Modern Technique of the Pistol" is now antiquated, at least in the eyes of marksmen priding themselves as au courant.  When I learned the technique, Col. Cooper and his methods were state of the art, and very influential upon police and military training programs. I feel a bit old fashioned when I put one foot forward, raise the pistol in a two-handed push-pull grip and catch view of the front sight as the gun rises.  Here is the thing, though. It still works. Because I am habituated to the process, it is probably what I will do if I need my pistol in earnest. About the only thing I do that is not Antiquated Modern Technique is that I now prefer guns without external safety cat...

"As you raise your pistol, you shift your focus back to pick up the front sight..." Many have tried this and pronounced it useless foolishness, but there is a detail they miss. "As you raise your pistol" is an important part of the instructions. Before the gun makes it up to eye level, the front sight is visible above the rear sight. If you pick it up then, you have no trouble finding it, and no trouble keeping track of it as the gun rises. You lock your gaze onto the front sight while there is no interference from the rear sight to doing so. I have on another page suggested "shark sights" for fast shooting at short range. That is much the same idea, but when using that method you intentionally hold the gun slightly low so the front sight is always clearly visible, standing proud of the rear notch. The sight picture resembles an inverted letter "T." In the flash sight picture technique, that inverted "T" is what you see for a ...

There is in the Greek chorus of Internet gun didacts a claim that revolvers are not reliable; usually this buttresses with too much enthusiasm, not enough fact, the idea that automatics are plenty reliable: why, they're really more reliable than revolvers! Hmmm. Big hmmm. If you know how to do a preflight inspection on a revolver, and if you keep a small wire brush handy to deal with a few known problem areas where revolvers need to be kept fairly clean to work, the things are as reliable as doorknobs. Yes, sometimes doorknobs fail to work, but for reasons that are obvious matters of wear, parts breakage, or accumulated detritus (crud). A revolver combines two simple mechanical principles, those of the ratchet and the trip hammer, and works via the mechanical energy supplied by the hand of the user, not the firing of the cartridge, so you can spot arising difficulties by inspection. With an automatic, you sometimes need to shoot the gun to see what is wrong. The p...

It was a close-run thing, but the outcome was as I predicted. Yet, there is something further to look at here. In the process of trying to sabotage Kavanaugh,  Democrats gave us a chilling insight into what the party has become. In the end, the case against Kavanaugh came down to thought crime. We the people were supposed to infer that this judge was, at heart, a beast. Several women said so--did that not prove his inward misogyny? The Democrats' failure here may signal the end of #MeToo eruptions, which have been so fashionable of late. Here was a notable failure of accusation to equal guilt. All's well that ends well. The constitutional originalists get another player in their dugout and the other side got caught pitching spitballs. Play ball.