One Forward, Three Back

Sometimes I wonder why they bother.  In an article which reviews Ruger’s new mini-wonder pistol, the field-stripping process is described thus:

Field stripping is easily accomplished by following the directions in the instruction manual. That’s the usual gunwriter verbiage, but it isn’t quite what I experienced with the 57. Following the direction to ensure the pistol is unloaded, the slide is first locked to the rear.
Opposite the takedown lever is a pin that takes a bit of effort to depress. Ruger recommends using the base pad of one of the magazines; I ended up using a punch. Once the takedown lever is protruding from the frame, it can be rotated down. Next, rather than the conventional method of running the slide forward off the frame (I warned you to read the directions) the slide is moved forward about a quarter inch, then lifted straight up.
The recoil spring and barrel can then be removed from the slide in the usual manner. Ruger has designed this pistol to be taken apart without the need to press the trigger, a feature I heartily applaud.
Reassembly is quite easy if one follows the instructions, but entirely impossible if, somehow while messing around with it, the takedown lever is allowed to snap back into the frame. (Ask me how I know.) Anyway, it really is quite easy, but I enjoin you, make sure the takedown lever is still out (or in the disassembly position) should you wish to avoid a couple of frustrating hours mucking about.

OR: 

Ruger could just have made their new wunder-pistole come apart like their own Mk IV .22 pistol, namely:

  1. Remove all boolets (and the mag) from the gun.
  2. Cock the piece and click the safety catch up into SAFE.
  3. Press the little button under the slide tabs at the back.
  4. Lift the slide assembly off the frame.

And that’s it: no special tools, no screwdrivers, no coins, nothing. The firing pin assembly is loose in the slide, and just drops out into your hand for cleaning. Here’s a pic-by-pic:

And now for the best part: the reassembly.

  1. Slip the firing pin assembly back into the slide (it can only go one way).
  2. Place the slide’s hinge hook back into the front of the frame.
  3. Drop the slide back onto the frame, and push it closed until you hear the click.
  4. You’re ready to start shooting.

Best part:  I never had to consult the manual.

Did Ruger do that?  No.  Instead, they made the new 57’s field-stripping procedure more akin to the older Mk I/II/III pistols:  a study in frustration.

I don’t know the answer to this (but I’m willing to learn):  how difficult would it have been just to stretch out the Mk. IV’s frame and breech to accommodate the longer 5.7x28mm cartridge?  Or, for that matter, the .22 Win Mag?

Oh, wait, I forgot:  that wouldn’t engender the same increase in sales (and all the concomitant gun-magazine hype) that a new pistol  would.

Instead, Ruger seems to have made a “new” pistol which hearkens back to the past.

Not interested.

Now if I were seriously interested in the 5.7x28mm ratshooter cartridge (a BIG if), I’d be far more likely to look at the PS90 mini-carbine:

I shot Doc Russia’s daughter’s PS90 a couple weeks back, and it was a sweetheart (albeit as ugly as Rosie O’Donnell).  But that gun’s way too spendy (over a grand and a half), so:  no.

I just can’t get excited about a new cartridge which is simply a very hot .22 Win Mag and which would cost an arm and a leg to get into, what with all the new guns etc.

I have enough calibers in Ye Olde Gunne Sayfe, so:  no.

What I may look at, if ever the funds become available, is the Kel-Tec PMR-30 in .22 Win Mag (of which I may already have one or two rounds in Ye Olde Ammoe Locquer)…

…and it’s all Ruger’s fault.

Or am I missing something, and is the 5.7x28mm the absolute bee’s knees?  Chuck Hawks doesn’t seem to think so.

Gratuitous Gun Pic: High Standard Supermatic Citation (.22 LR)

Here’s a lovely old pistol:

I don’t know anyone who’s had much bad to say about High Standard Citation .22 LR pistols, other than the fact that replacement parts and magazines are ruinously expensive to come by — this, of course, because HS stopped making the line over forty years ago.  It remains the only U.S.-made pistol ever to have won an Olympic gold medal (Rome 1960), and still features in NRA competitions today.

In the 1960s you could have bought one of these beauties for about $40, and today they fetch close to a grand, depending on condition.

Mostly, HS pistols are known for their reliability — provided  that you clean them often (more so than modern pistols), that is, because their tolerances are so tight.  (I was once told by a gunsmith that 100% of the “malfunctioning” High Standards brought to him for “fixing” needed only a thorough cleaning before going back to their original flawless operation.  And we all know that .22 ammo, particularly the El Cheapo practice brands, can be filthy to shoot, right?)

Speaking for myself, the “rake” of the High Standard Citation model is a little too Luger, not enough 1911 for comfort — but that’s just me.  Others love the feel of it, and reckon its point is so natural as to almost compel good marksmanship.  And back before my eyes started to fail, I recall shooting a Reader’s Citation off a rest, and getting sub-1″ groups at 25 yards.

And, of course, he refused to sell it to me (the bastard).

Well, Shit

From National Treasure Joe Huffman:

Boomershoot 2020 is five weeks away and COVID-19 infections are still increasing across the country.  I’ve had several people tell me they are not coming this year.  Many states, including Idaho, have travel and social contact restriction.
I’m canceling Boomershoot 2020.

As the title says.  And as if I needed another reason to hate the ChiComs.

Apart from the disappointment of the thing, this also means that I’m faced with two choices:

  1. delay the raffle for the Hawkeye/Zeiss setup until after next year’s Boomershoot, or
  2. hold the raffle, send the rifle off, and have another raffle for Boomershoot 2021.

It’s going to be 2.

So I’m going to finish sighting in the Ruger (setting it up for a 200-yard zero rather than a 400-yard zero as originally planned), and making sure which ammo it “prefers”, before holding the raffle and sending it off (probably towards the end of May, in case the ranges haven’t opened before then — another reason to curse this fucking virus).  I’ll keep everyone informed, of course.

I’m still mad as hell / disappointed…

Value

Suppose somebody said, “Here’s $1,500 and a list of shotguns — and you can only buy from the list,” I know what I’d do:

Buy two  of these:

…rather than just one of these:

…and I suspect that 80% of my Readers would do exactly the same.  (The other 20% would buy one  of the 590A1s and a boatload of ammo with the change.)

A note to all the manufacturers of tacti-cool firearms:  there’s a price point for most people when it comes to any gun, and just calling it “tactical” doesn’t warrant a 70% jump in price for very little added utility.

We may be Ignorant Clingers from Flyover Country, but that just means we’re familiar with the smell of bullshit.


I’m not a huge fan of shotguns for the above purpose — I belong to the AK-47 School Of Home Defense — but the one I would  consider is the Mossberg 500 or 590 Mariner for under $600, because it’s weatherproof and pretty much unbreakable.

Scopes: Zeiss Conquest V4 6-24x50mm

A couple of people have written to me following my selection of the Zeiss Conquest V4 for the Boomershoot ULD project, asking for details about the thing.

I know Zeiss glass, of course, both the binoculars and scopes, but not this particular model.  So rather than waiting for for my poor efforts to zero the thing, here’s a decent video about setting it up to shoot.  Note the groupings (but that lil’ 6mmBR target boolet would just bounce off a boomer instead of detonating it — assuming the wind hadn’t already blown it over into the next county).

Just one last point:  I know  that there are better scopes out there, but they cost at least double what the Zeiss V4 does — and they can’t be twice  as good, because with any Zeiss scope we’re pretty far up the cost : quality curve already.  And I didn’t have the budget for (to name but some) Swarovski , Kahles or Nightforce glass.  I’ve used all those, or seen them used in the past with excellent results, but I’m pretty sure the V4 will not be disgraced.