That Ammo Thing – Part 3

It has always pained me to sell a gun.  There are a couple of exceptions to this, of course:  when you can’t shoot the thing for toffee, when it beats your hand or shoulder up too much, when its ammo is too costly, and so on.

Then there’s the most common reason to sell a gun:  financial necessity.  But if that necessity forces one into selling a gun, then all sorts of reasons come into play when deciding which gun or guns to sell.

The first reason is sentiment.  There are guns that I love to shoot, love to own, and I shouldn’t have to explain this to anyone here.  Everyone has possessions that they continue to keep, beyond all reason — overflowing basements, attics and storage facilities all bear witness to this phenomenon — and guns are no different.  As an example, let me take the gun which I probably love the most, my Springfield 1911:  I keep it despite its ammo being expensive (relative to other calibers), despite the fact that it beats my hand up every time I fire off more than a box of ammo, and despite the fact that every time I holster the damn thing, I have to tighten my belt up by a notch (and sometimes two) because the damn thing is so heavy.  But all those are burdens which I bear gladly, because at the end of the day, my 1911 satisfies me in so many ways:  it works as well or better than any gun ever made, its cartridge works as well or better than any cartridge ever made, it’s a simple and old-fashioned answer to an eternal question, and whenever I walk outside without it I feel vulnerable.  (I know, my .357 Mag revolver is a decent substitute — for all the same reasons — but I’m not Jerry Miculek, so I’ll always be able to shoot the 1911 faster than any revolver.)

My 1911 is unquestionably the last gun — of any kind or chambering — that I would get rid of, and I cannot think of any reason other than death that would make me do so.  I have two 1911s, of course, because as any fule kno, two is one and one is none:  even John Moses Browning’s masterpiece has been known to fail, after all.  And yes [sigh], if I’m going to be away from home for a long time (road trip, etc.), I carry both. one on each hip, if for no other reason than balance.

All that is the long way round to explaining why I have more .45 ACP ammo in Ye Olde Ammoe Locquere than any other caliber except .22 LR.  I have .45 ammo that I can’t shoot anymore because the 230gr. FMJ absolutely destroys my wrist after about a box or so, but I still have hundreds of rounds thereof because if push came to shove, I’d shoot it despite the pain because then I’d be in extremis.  I have more .45 ACP ammo on hand than I could reasonably be able to shoot for the rest of my life — a statement all the more sadly true the older I get.

Which leads me to the next question:  which guns am I unlikely to need as I reach my appointment date with my old companion, the Grim Reaper?  That question has proved surprisingly easy to answer, which is why so many of my rifles recently went on the block.  I’m never going to go hunting again;  that itch has been well and truly scratched because I’ve killed enough game to satisfy just about anyone, and I find myself increasingly reluctant to shoot birds — so my Bucket List item to go shooting high birds with Mr. Free Market at some titled toff’s estate is probably going to remain unchecked.  So all my hunting rifles have gone bye-bye, along with a very satisfactory quantity of ammo to feed them.

Which leaves the AK-47.  I keep this for completely different reasons than I keep the 1911:  it is the ultimate SHTF gun, the gun which, as the man said, you’d want when civilization has crumbled, the jungle and its bunnies have taken over, and you need more firepower (and reach) than your handgun provides.  As with the .45 ACP, I have way more 7.62x39mm ammo than I’m ever likely to shoot in my lifetime, but that’s just a factor of my shortage fear:  over the years, every time some gun-control advocate has spewed his vile agenda, I’ve bought another few boxes or so of “39”, which is why the locker still can’t be carried except by crane or forklift.  It’s the reason behind National Ammo Day, and that reason remains as valid today as it was back then.

And that’s pretty much it.  My bedside gun, the S&W Mod 65, requires little restocking because back during the Dubya decade I found an unbeatable deal on Winchester 110gr, and I bought about ummm four large ammo cans’ worth for practice.  (At today’s prices — eeek! — that sounds indulgent, but that’s not what I paid for it then, so it still serves as practice ammo when I feel the need to shoot .357 Mag, which isn’t very often.)  I have a modest supply (about a thousand rounds) of .38 Special ammo which serves as both practice ammo for the Mod 65 and my backup Mod 637, along with some good Hornady hollowpoint self-defense ammo for the latter.  I hardly ever practice — maybe every other month or so — with both revolvers because they are, in the end, guns intended to be used at halitosis range so accuracy isn’t really at a premium.  Those couple-thousand .357 and .38 rounds are more than I’ll ever need.

And that’s it, more or less.

Alert Readers will note that in all the above, I’ve made no mention of plinking and its concomitant ammo, .22 LR.  This is because (repeat after me):  .22 firearms are not guns, but household appliances and tools like a frying-pan or a vacuum cleaner;  every home should have at least one of them, and .22 ammo is therefore a household commodity like sugar, salt or coffee.

With rimfire ammo, then, there are no limits.  In my case, I have jillions of rounds thereof because I love shooting it, I shoot it often, and it’s excellent practice as well as fun.

For those Readers who are at my stage of life and at my stage of shooting preference, feel free to use the above as a guide, if you wish.  For younger Readers who still have the hunting urge and so on, feel free to set your own limits when it comes to both the variety of guns and the ammo required.  In my own case, I used to have at least 500 rounds for each of my other guns, and a little less for each of the mil-surps which I used to collect back then (and which I seldom fired in any event).

In the end, it’s your self-defense, your survival and the guns which must guarantee both.  For those, you need not five or six months’ supply, but as much as you would need for a lifetime of shooting, shortages be damned.  You yourself must decide what works for you, so plan accordingly.

Finally, some here might think that I’m preaching to the choir on this topic, and I hope I am.  In that case, you can use it as confirmation that you’ve done the right thing;  if not, you can use it as a guide to your goal stock amount.

They’ll Be Firing Them For Rape, Next

Some Brit politician has been canned for speaking his mind.

Andrew Gwynne is under investigation by the parliamentary authorities after he wrote in the group that he hoped a 72-year-old pensioner would soon be dead.

Who hasn’t wished that some old fart would croak soon?  Hell, I’m at that age myself, and I’ve thought that same thing many, many times about someone in my peer group.

Sadly, our Andrew didn’t actually speak, per se, but sent it to a friend on WhatsApp, so of course it was leaked.

Personally, I think it’s one of the funniest exchanges I’ve seen all month:

I don’t know who “Dave” is, but that’s fucking hilarious right there.

Even funnier:

Gwynne also joked about a local cycling campaigner being “mown down”, suggested that a local vicar be “burned on a bonfire” and made derogatory comments about Angela Rayner and Diane Abbott.

Were he not one of Satan’s minions (i.e. a Labour Party MP) I’d vote for him, just for telling the truth.  I mean, who doesn’t get the giggles at the thought of a mown-down cyclist?  Or a vicar on a bonfire?
#InquisitionPayBack

And not even the pecksniffy Britcops could find fault with his statements — no doubt because they were crying with helpless laughter and couldn’t finish reading them, like I was.

Of course, he’s in deep doo-doo with the Party apparatchiks, but who cares about that?

My hero:

…coming soon to a meme near you.


By the way:  the title of this post is a riff on something written in George MacDonald Fraser’s Flashman.  No slight was ever intended towards rape victims, nor indeed towards rapists either.

Actually, Gwynne could easily be fired for rape, because he’s not a Muslim.
#TwoTierJustice

That .22 Test

I’ve often spoken about how a specific .22 rifle or pistol will have a “preference” for a specific kind of ammo.  Last time I said that, I got an email from Reader Don K., who asked simply:  “Got the targets from that exercise?”

Well, it’s taken me nigh on three days to find it, but I have.

The test was done indoors at the DFW Gun Range in Dallas, back in 2003 or 2004.  Here’s the rifle used in the test, my Marlin 880 SQ topped with a 4x fixed scope (don’t remember the brand, sorry — I’ve since replaced it with the variable Bushnell in the pic):

…and here’s the ammo I tested:

I don’t remember the distance — I think it was 25 yards — but it’s irrelevant because the 1″ targets were all stuck on the same piece of paper.

I first checked the scope’s zero by firing a 5-shot string of my go-to .22 LR (CCI Mini-Mag High Velocity) just to set the scene, so to speak:

…and then I got serious.

The barrel was allowed to cool between each 5-shot string, and one of the range guys loaded each mag for me so that I never knew which ones I was shooting at any given time.  All shots were aimed-deliberate (i.e. not timed), and the scope was never adjusted in any way during the shoot.  For clarity, the results are listed clockwise as in the picture above, but I don’t think that’s the order in which I shot them.  When I say in comments that the shot “felt good”, it means that as far as I could tell, it should have hit the point-of aim, i.e. the bottom of the little black diamond.

CCI Mini-Mag Standard Velocity

(no flyers called;  all felt good)

Remington Target:

(the 12 o’clock miss was a called flyer)

CCI Green Tag:

(the 6 o’clock miss was a called flyer)

RWS Dynamit Nobel Target Rifle:

(no flyers called;  all felt good)

Remington Eley Club Extra:

(no flyers called;  all felt good)

Remington Eley Target Rifle:

(no flyers called;  all felt good)

So:  same gun & scope, same shooter, same distance, same session… and different results.

I have to say that my memory tells me that I was most surprised / disappointed by the Green Tag and the Dynamit Nobel results, and most impressed by the Remington Eley Target Rifle.  Here’s why.

As you become more and more accustomed to shooting .22 LR, you will find that it becomes easier within a string to call a “light” or “heavy” strike, caused by a lighter or heavier powder loading respectively.  You can pretty much overcome this variance by weighing each round before shooting it, by the way, but I didn’t do that before this range test.  Perhaps I should have, but I assumed that spendy target ammo should all be consistent within a box;  well, they weren’t.  When I later shot off some Green Tag, I could tell that at least two out of seven rounds felt “light”, which frankly is unacceptable for premium ammo. (Why seven?  That’s what the magazine holds.)

All the Eley Target Rifle rounds felt absolutely consistent when fired, so that seven o’clock “flyer” is the fault of Yours Truly.

Anyway, that’s how that ammo worked for me, in that rifle.  I have no doubt that the results might be different in another rifle, in the hands of another shooter perhaps, but that’s the fun of the thing, isn’t it?


Addendum:  here’s a consecutive set of targets I also found (from a range session at about the same time as the above test) which show the benefit of practice and concomitant familiarity.  All three 10-round strings were fired offhand from my then-new Ruger MkII Target Bull Barrel pistol, with the same ammo, distance unknown.

It was the first time I’d ever fired that gun.

Note the tightening of the group as I got more in tune with the trigger.  (I wish I could still shoot that well, but two decades or so have had their way with my eyes, damn it.)

Cornerstone, Dislodged?

Looks like the Trumpistas are aiming their harpoons at another whale:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin said that the agency will review the agency’s endangerment finding — the “holy grail of the climate change religion” that has created over a trillion dollars in regulatory impact.

Wut dat?  Breitbart explains:

The finding stated that greenhouse gas emissions are an alleged threat to public health and welfare.

And when you look at the data which supposedly supports the finding, it, like most other “environmental” data, is a bunch of codswallop.

The EPA proceeded in an unorthodox manner. Slicing and dicing the language of the statute, it made an “endangerment finding” totally separate from any actual rulemaking-setting standards for emissions from cars. EPA argued it had the authority to do this because Congress didn’t specifically forbid it from taking this approach. By taking this approach, the endangerment finding intentionally ignored costs of regulations that EPA knew would follow from the finding — and indeed ignored any other policy impacts of those regulations.

Results (that you or I would care about)?

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at the Heritage Foundation, said that the EPA regulations that arose from the endangerment finding have contributed to automobile prices to rise from $23,000 in 2009 to nearly $50,000 now.

The EPA has relied on the endangerment finding for seven vehicle regulations that reportedly have an aggregate cost of more than one trillion dollars, according to the agency’s own regulatory impact analyses. 

We all knew that enviro-bullshit was behind so much of the price increases — that, and the raft of “safety” regulations that accompanied them.

My message to Sec. Lee Zeldin:

Get rid of that stuff.

Me, I’d like to see the FedGov refund some of that trillion-dollar price increase to everyone who bought cars and trucks — internal-combustion-driven cars and trucks, that is — from 2009 until today.

Why?  Because it was taken from these buyers by government malfeasance.

And if our current government wants to “claw back” some of that money from the people and organizations who instigated this swindle, that would be fine, too.