Not Much

The Washington Times reveals their list of the most exciting handguns of 2019.

So why am I not excited?

Okay, let me break the list down for you.  I see some “exotic” guns (e.g. Chiappa), a couple of line extensions (e.g. Glock 43/48. Springfield XDe), a “new” Colt .357 Mag revolver, a Ruger .357 that attempts to fix Ruger’s notoriously shitty revolver double-action trigger, firing the bullet through a skinny barrel which looks like it’ll droop like a wet noodle after a few dozen rounds — and don’t get me started on the little revolver that shoots two rounds of .22 WMR simultaneously.  (Has the world gone crazy?)

Then there are the two “pistols” which look like chopped AR-15 rifles — I mean, seriously:  does anyone outside Hollywood think these things are worth a damn?

And finally, a new Nighthawk 1911 which looks lovely, will work flawlessly and probably costs as much as a small Florida Keys beach cottage.

These guns don’t “excite” me.  To be quite frank, I wouldn’t accept a single one of them as a gift.  This gun, however, does  excite me: 

It’s a S&W Mod 35 in .22 LR, made sometime in the 1950s.  Sadly, because it’s somewhat rare, it sells for about the same price as a new Kimber 1911.  But it still excites me because a) it’ll shoot the eye out of a gnat and b) it’s nicer-looking than any of the 2019 guns.  And yes (hint to Son&Heir ), I would accept this gun as a gift for Father’s Day (even though I don’t observe Hallmark holidays).

Feel free to enlighten me, though, about the 2019 guns…


This in my email yesterday from one of the Usual Suspects:

Am I the only one who goes “WTF?” — and the price is only part of the issue.  Let me count the ways:

  • Fugly finish
  • Aluminum grips
  • That stupid extruded grip safety thing
  • A gun called “We The People” from a German  company.

Other than all that, it’s not bad (apart from the price).

A Better Sweepstakes

Received in the mail:  the NRA’s latest sweepstakes details — “Win 44 guns!” or something — which works as follows:

Out of a total of 44 guns, First Prize Winner must select 12 guns from Group A, 2nd Prize Winner 10 guns from Group B, 3rd Prize winner 8 guns from Group C, and so on.

Sounds good, but there’s a HUGE problem with the way it’s set up.  Here, for example, are the 18 guns from the 1st Prize selection, which I’ve grouped for easier comprehension:

Semi-Auto Rifles
Armalite M-15 Tactical Light Carbine (5.56mm/.223)
Bushmaster XM-10 Standard (7.62mm NATO)
Savage Arms MS Recon (.224 Valkyrie)
SIG M400 Elite TI (5.56mm)
Benelli R1 (.338 Win Mag)

Bolt-Action Rifles
Browning X-Bolt (6.5mm Creedmoor)
Remington 700 XCR (.308 Win)
Winchester 70 Extreme SS (.30-06)

Semi-Auto Pistols
Colt Delta Elite (10mm)
Desert Eagle (.44Mag)
Kimber 1911 Raptor II (.45 ACP)
S&W SW1911 Performance Center (9mm)

S&W 500 (.500 S&W Mag)
Colt King Cobra (.357 Mag)

Benelli Vinci (12ga)
Beretta A440 Extreme Plus (12ga)
Remington 870 (20ga)
Browning A5 Sweet Sixteen (16ga)

It’s a decent-enough selection of guns, I suppose — but the problem is that I would only want to own a few of them (4/18), namely:

  • Browning A5 Sweet Sixteen (16ga)
  • Remington 870 (20ga)
  • Kimber 1911 Raptor II (.45ACP)
  • Colt King Cobra (.357 Mag)

,,,and I’m kinda iffy about the short barrels on the last two anyway.  The rest of the guns are either in the wrong chambering (.224 Valkyrie?), duplicates of stuff I already own (.30x bolties), or a type of firearm I don’t care to own anyway (AR-15 variants) — even for free.  (If I were promiscuous when it came to guns, then I could take any of the eighteen, but I’m not That Guy.)

The same, by the way, is true of every other group of guns they’ve arranged for the prize winners:  3/10 in 2nd Prize, 5/8 in 3rd Prize, 3/6 in 4th Prize, and 1/4 in 5th Prize.  And of these prize guns, only a couple get me really  panting.

But here’s what’s interesting.  If you add up all my choices across the prize groups, you’d get 16 in total — and if pushed I could easily trim that to 8 or 10.

So why shouldn’t the NRA ask contestants to rank their top 10 favorites (out of the 44) on their entry forms, with a guarantee they’d get at least eight guns for 1st prize, six for 2nd, etc.  That way, contestants would get at least some  guns they actually want/need, instead of moaning that all the guns they wanted were in 4th Prize and they’d won 2nd instead, which contained only one favorite.

Yes, there might be a duplicate or two, but that’s not important.  And the NRA could share the “favorites” aggregate with the various gun manufacturers — and let me tell ya, that info is valuable.

Here’s the thing:  right now, I have little inclination to enter the sweepstakes, not only because I know it’s just a ploy for the NRA to get extra donations, but also because quite frankly, I don’t care for many of the guns they’re offering and even if I won a prize, it’s not worth my time to fill in the stupid form.

And because this wouldn’t be a Kim post without at least some kind of “favorites” list, here are my Top 10 Guns from all prize offerings in the NRA’s Stupid Sweepstakes, in order of “want”:

  1. Auto-Ordnance M1 Carbine (3rd Prize)
  2. Remington 870 in 20ga (1st Prize)
  3. Savage 110 in .300 Win Mag (3rd Prize)
  4. Remington 1911 R1 in .45 ACP (4th Prize)
  5. Browning A5 Sweet Sixteen 16ga (1stPrize)
  6. Marlin 1895 in .45-70 Govt (4th Prize)
  7. Henry Golden Boy lever rifle in .22 LR (2nd Prize)
  8. Ruger SP101 in .38 Spec (5th Prize)
  9. CZ 557 in .243 Win (2nd Prize)
  10. Winchester 94 carbine in .30-30 (4th Prize)

Feel free to add your own thoughts in Comments.

Can’t See The Point

On some list of new carry handguns, I see this entry:

Now, I will admit to being Old & Slow-Witted, but as I see it, the only reason to choose the .380 Weenie is to have lotsa boolets to pump into someone — e.g. using a magazine holding 12+ rounds, or at least two 6-round magazines so that he gets the point, so to speak.

Shooting a marginal self-defense cartridge in a slow-to-reload six-shot revolver seems… well, silly.

And I like Charter Arms revolvers, by the way:  I carried a .44 Spec Bulldog (loaded with Winchester Silvertips) for years.  But this makes no sense to me at all.

Slight Disagreement

Over at Shooter’s Log, Bob Campbell has some good things to say about CZ’s little model 527:

One of the neatest and classiest rifles of all time is ignored by many shooters. When I fire the CZ 527, I am not concerned with getting off the X or engaging the target in enfilade fire, but rather in hitting what I am aiming at, and getting a clean kill and meat. Not that the rifle would not serve in many situations, but this European stalker is a purebred stalking rifle with many good features. The rifle is a product of CZ and available from CZ USA. They were once marked BRNO. The CZ 527 is a light, neat looking, and effective rifle that will not strain the back with weight or the shoulder with recoil. The price is right as well.

Then he goes on to give his reasons.

The only quibble I have with the article is the title (“CZ’s Best Rifle”) because it isn’t CZ/Brno’s best rifle, by a long chalk — not when put up against the 550/557 or the peerless “Safari” (Brno 602), anyway.

That said:  I love the 527 carbine, and have said so in the past.  For its purpose, it is horrendously over-engineered (that CZ set trigger ooooh ), surprisingly inexpensive thereby and frankly, about as handy as a rifle could be.

In fact, given that it’s chambered for the 7.62x39mm Commie cartridge (of which I may have a box or two lying around), I see little need to own a lever-action rifle for the “carbine hunting” purpose.  New, it’s quite a bit pricier (at ~$650) than, say, a Marlin 336 .30-30 lever rifle (~$450), but then again, I wouldn’t have to spend (at least) $1,400 more to get the requisite thousand rounds of .30-30 (of which I own not a single cartridge) into Ye Olde Ammoe Locquer.  All I need is a few boxes of serious 7.62×39 hollowpoints (e.g. Hornady SST or Federal Fusion), and I’d be good to go.

I think I need to reinstate the old BANG* Fund on this website… about which I have an idea, but that’s for another post later this week.

*BANG:  “Buy (Kim) A New Gun”



But Don’t Take My Word For It…

As any fule (and Longtime Readers. no overlap) will attest, I am not a fan of either of the NATO cartridges, be it the 9mm Europellet or the 5.56mm poodleshooter.  I have been assailed for such beliefs, e.g. “The military  uses them, dude!” (as if the armed forces of any nation always make the best decisions when it comes to arming their soldiers).  The only good thing about that situation is that it makes the ammo cheaper.

But hey, what do I know?  So as the title suggests, try this guy’s opinion (he’s a former combat medic) instead of mine.  It contains such gems as:

In just about every country I have been in, our host nation counterparts — army and police — used the 9X19 NATO round. Because so much of what I did was house-to-house police searches, I’ve seen a lot of pistol shootings, much more than US police would ever see, and much more than experienced by most medics deploying solely with US personnel. And yet, I have zero, not one single experience, where a single gunshot wound from a 9X19 NATO round killed someone prior to them being able to return fire or flee. This includes people shot in the chest, back, back of the head (one hit behind the left ear) the neck and the face. None.

That’s the Europellet. Now for the poodleshooter:

Unfortunately, the same goes for the 5.56 NATO round. I have yet to witness a single shot quick kill with this round. I even recorded a patient shot from less than three feet away, square in the back of the head, who lived. The round did not exit his body. Yes, he was immediately rendered unconscious and required (might I say exceptional) medical treatment. He was comatose for at least six months after that, but he lived.
But more importantly, in every experience, at ranges from zero (negligent discharges) to 35 yards (my closest, and worst-placed, shot on a person) to 400 yards (our average initial engagement distance in Afghanistan) individuals shot with a single 5.56 NATO round had time to fire, maneuver, or both. Did I see single shots that killed eventually? Yes. Does that matter in combat? Not one damn bit if you are the one they are still shooting at.

I’ve said many times before that I’m not in the market for an AR-15 because poodleshooter.  (I know, “Get an AR-10 in 7.62 NATO, Kim!” — I already have an AK-47, thankee.)

As the man says:

“Shoot the heaviest rifle round…shoot at what (you) can hit, and then shoot it again”

Ditto for my handgun loads.

I acknowledge that of late I’ve been flirting with the idea of carrying my 9mm High Power instead of the .45 ACP 1911 as my primary self-defense handgun.  After reading the above… let’s just say that I’m just going to get more of those .45 ACP 185-grain zingers. And shoot a lot more than I’m currently doing (which means I’m going to have to get that “backup” 1911 soon).

And now, if you’ll excuse me… it’s Range Time.