When “New” Means “Expensive”

I’ve been thinking recently about supplementing the old Springfield 1911 with another one sometime.  So I’ve been idly browsing the usual places, looking for a new 1911, with only a few specific must-haves.  Mostly, it looks as though I’m going to have to spend around $800-$900 to get what I need.  I’m not ultra-fussy because to me, a 1911 is like a hammer:  you pick it up, it works, and I don’t need much in the way of add-ons.

Over at Shooting Times there’s an article talking about the new 1911s on the market, so I went there with all sorts of anticipation.  Here’s one they listed:

Now before you explode, go to the article and read the comments.

Me, I need a drink.

Enough Ammo

From Clay Martin (via Peter’s blog):

The one thing I see over and over again in prepping circles is a belief that a mountain of ammo is all you need. Absolutely not true! In fact, I believe that most people would be better off with 300 rounds and the skills of having shot 20,000 as opposed to 20,000 stockpiled and the skills of having shot 300.

Amen to that.  I cannot tell you the degree of comfort I feel when I unholster my Springfield 1911 and raise it to a shooting position.  I’ve put a lot  more than 20,000 rounds through this old friend, and I’m not sure that I can operate any other  piece of machinery as well as I can my 1911.

As for rounds on hand:  I have an ungodly amount of FMJ practice ammo, and maybe a few hundred rounds of self-defense ammo (which I add to on a monthly basis, a box or two at a time depending on the status of my bank account).  I’d have more of the HP stuff, but at the range I always shoot off a mag of premium hollowpoints first — following the maxim of “practice with what you’ll use” — but I can’t afford to shoot 200-odd rounds of premium self-defense .45 ACP ammo every week, sue me.  So I shoot 8, buy 20, week after week.  In my 1911’s “grab ‘n go” ammo bag, I have 200 rounds of .45 loaded in magazines, after which I’d probably need a rifle anyway.  Which brings me to my next point, and a confession.

I don’t have the same degree of familiarity with my rifle  part of the SHTF equation.  I know I should shoot the AK more, but hell;  in my life I’ve probably fired an AK more often than any rifle other than .22, and what’s to remember about shooting an AK-47?  I’m confident that in any SHTF (urban street fight), I can put 20 rounds into a dinner plate-area at 50 yards, shooting “aimed-rapid” (which is all you need to do in that scenario.  At 100 yards, I can’t even see  the damn target anymore because Old Fart Eyesight, and at that point I’d go to one of my scoped rifles anyway).

So I break out the AK every few months (vs. every week for the 1911) and shoot off three or four mags (20-rounders) before I get bored and put the thing away (after letting the barrel cool and the handguard stop smoking, don’t ask me how I learned to do that  before putting the thing away in a foam-rubber-lined gun case).  And yes, I have an ungodly amount of 7.62x39mm ammo too;  in my AK’s “grab ‘n go” ammo bag, I have 400 rounds of the “39”, which should suffice for any urban unrest I’m likely to encounter;  and let’s not even look into Ye Olde Ammoe Locquer for more.

Practice more, folks, and you’ll end up needing less ammo in storage.  To repeat those wise words:

Most people would be better off with 300 rounds and the skills of having shot 20,000 as opposed to 20,000 stockpiled and the skills of having shot 300.

Strange Fascination

This pic at C.W.’s blog got me thinking.

It makes me smile, too.

I have written before that men like to be in control of machinery — that many men, very much including myself, prefer stick shifts to automatic gearboxes, bolt-action rifles over semi-automatic rifles, ditto revolvers over pistols and so on.

Where we do use the auto / semi-auto doodads, it’s for practical reasons only, like buying a car with an automatic gearbox when having to navigate stop-start traffic on a daily basis, or needing the greater firepower in a pistol’s fifteen-round magazine compared to a revolver cylinder’s six, to give but two examples.  But those are simply reasons of practicality, while our enduring fondness for being in control — i.e. working  the action of a thing — can be found in the fact that the auto/semi-auto versions haven’t replaced the manual versions completely.

When it comes to rifles, men of the manual-operation persuasion are blessed in that we have several types of operation to choose from:  bolt action, lever action and pump action are all there, and all are still popular, hence our reaction to the pic above.

As Longtime Readers will know, I have an abiding love for all three of the above, and have fired countless rounds through all of them.  Don’t ask me to pick my favorite type, but I have to say, when it comes to pure fun, it takes a lot to beat an open field filled with old tin cans, fruit and suchlike, a pump-action rimfire rifle and a couple thousand rounds of .22 ammo.  I know, it takes a while to reload the tube magazine, but that also allows the barrel to cool, which is no small thing.  So let’s look at a few choices among the latter.

Browning Model 90 / Winchester Model 62 are the originals, and are still available today.  The fact that these old guns (discontinued in 1959) in good condition can fetch well over a grand at gun shows today is testament to their popularity.

But are they that popular?  Recent events seem to prove otherwise.  Of all the gunmakers extant, Henry is the only one which continues to make old-style pump-action rimfire rifles:

It’s a beautiful little rifle — that octagonal barrel! — but I think Henry does us gunnies a real disservice by pricing them so high.  I mean, if Marlin and Ruger can make semi-auto rimfire rifles which retail for less than $150, why do Henry pump rimfires typically cost close to $500 for an action which is much less complex?

I would love to own one of these rifles, most of all because it shoots .22 WMR as well as .22 LR and I can think of few better varmint-whackers than a magnum pump action, but at that nearly-$500 sticker?  Sorry.

Actually, I do know why Henry pump rifles are priced so high:  they have no competition.  Which brings me to my next gripe.

I don’t understand why Taurus discontinued manufacture of their Model 62 knock-offs, either.  (I know, they’ll say “no demand”, but they continue to make other guns which hardly sell at all — the Judge revolver in .45-70 Govt comes to mind, for some reason — so I don’t buy the excuse.)

My Taurus stainless-steel carbine model is beyond beautiful, and as I’ve said before, when I take friends shooting with this little thing, I have to take at least  a brick of .22 ammo with me, so much do people enjoy shooting it.  (Hell, I always carry over a hundred rounds in its case, just to make sure I don’t commit the cardinal sin of .22 ammo shortage at the range.)

Finally, we have a sorta-pump (in that it has a pump action, but doesn’t have an exposed hammer), the sleek, beautiful (and expensive, at around $600!!! new) Remington 572 Fieldmaster:

Look, I’ve fired the 572 dozens of times and sent many a hundred rounds downrange through its 21″ barrel, and if someone gave me one I’d never sell it — but I’d trade  it in a heartbeat for a rifle with an exposed hammer.  Like the Taurus Mod 62 long-barreled model:

It all has to do with that “manual operation” thing — and the more parts you can control, the better. De-cocking is easy with an exposed hammer, impossible with the Remington’s hidden one.

Anyway, let me end by saying that if you don’t have a pump-action rimfire rifle, you’re missing out on a whole lot of fun.  You know what to do.

Tell Us More

From Socialist President-Wannabe #257 comes this cheery little opinion:

Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg wants more gun control, and says policies like universal background checks and making it tougher to obtain assault-style rifles don’t infringe on Second Amendment rights.
“The biggest thing I can tell you about some of these weapons that I trained on and saw and carried is that there are some weapons that have absolutely no place in our neighborhoods in America in peacetime,” Buttigieg, a U.S. Navy Reserve veteran who served in Afghanistan, told a full house at Somerville Theatre on Tuesday.
The South Bend, Ind., mayor said, “We need to make it harder to obtain assault rifles. We need to have red flag laws that disarm domestic abusers. We need to establish universal background checks.”
But his ideas were, “not anti-Second Amendment, because every right and every freedom in the Constitution comes with responsibilities” he said, adding the right to bear arms “does not entitle you to … other weapons of war.”

So… “there are some weapons that have absolutely no place in our neighborhoods”, are there?  Which ones, specifically, do you have in mind, my little Socialist politico?

Because if you’re talking hand-grenades, RPGs or Claymore mines, then I might concede the point.  Everything else?  Go fuck yourself.

As for “the right to bear arms does not entitle you to … other weapons of war”:  well, I hate to break it to you, my little Indiana Mussolini, but way back when the Second Amendment was being debated, this little thought appeared:

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia.  Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, February 20, 1789

And speaking of the federal government bringing the power of the sword nukes to the party (this applies especially to your butt-buddy-in-crime, Eric Swallwell), Coxe added this afterthought a few months later, in the same publication:

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”  —  June 18, 1789

“Private arms” means not only hunting rifles and sporting shotguns, but mean and nasty assault rifles like AR-15s and AK-47s, i.e. those other  terrible implements of the soldier.  To protect us from you, and Swallwell, and all the others of your ilk when you start stepping on our Constitutional rights.

We’re not Venezuelans, and we’re not going to let you turn us into them.

Now fuck off back to South Bend, and disappear into your well-deserved obscurity.

Vítejte, Přátelé*

Oooooh I love this development (via Insty, thankee as always):

CZ-USA, the U.S.-based affiliate of Czech firearms manufacturer Česká zbrojovka a.s. Uherský Brod (CZUB), announced today plans to locate their North American Headquarters and build a new manufacturing facility on approximately 73 acres at the Port of Little Rock. CZ-USA plans to implement a two-phase approach with an investment of up to $90 million and create some 565 jobs over a six-year period. CZ products are considered some of the highest-quality firearms in defense, competition and sport shooting around the world.

Indeed they are.  I’ve owned several CZ / Brno guns in my life, and the only thing I can say is that I’ve regretted selling (because:  poverty) every single one of them.  In fact, here’s my list of Four CZ Guns I Would Own In A Heartbeat (in no specific order):

CZ 550 Safari / 602 Brno  (.375 H&H)

It is quite probably the most popular dangerous game rifle in Africa.  Arrive at any safari camp with one of these bad boys, and the guide / PH will nod his head approvingly.  Back in a previous life, I used a borrowed 602 (chambered in .458 Win Mag) on a large lion, with astonishing results.  (As the saying goes:  “The .458 Winchester Magnum:  delivering pain in equal amounts at both  ends of the rifle!”) More recently, the Cape buffalo head which fills most of a wall in Doc Russia’s den came from a beast taken with his .375 H&H 550.

CZ 550/557 Lux (any caliber):

I prefer the “hogsback” stock over the straight “American” style, but regardless of stock, the 557 (old: 550) is quite possibly the greatest rifle to be had anywhere for the price, and the single-set trigger (4lb pull to 3.5 ounces, with just a single forward push on the trigger) is beyond reproach.  My 550 was chambered in 6.5x55mm Swedish, I sold it to a Reader because poverty, and I’ve regretted it ever since.  (However, he tells me that he’s taken many, many  deer with it since, so I don’t feel too bad.)  What I love most about this rifle is that you can pick pretty much your favorite chambering (even the new 6.5 Creed!), and CZ makes it.

CZ 75B (9mm/.40S&W)

I have spoken before of my respect for this wonderful pistol, so no more need be said.

CZ 455/457 (rimfire)

Sure, you can get a better .22 rifle than the 457 (old: 455), but you’d have to spend a lot  more $$$.  As a 455 owner once put it to me:  “If you can’t one-hole a brick of .22 with this gun, you’re  the one at fault.”

And now a bonus:

Brno ZKM 611 (.22 Win Mag)

This was made by Brno before CZ bought them.  CZ doesn’t make the little 611 takedown rifle anymore [sob] , and that’s a pity, because it is the only rifle I’ve ever picked up and shouldered where it immediately felt like it was an extension of my arm.  Want, even second-hand.

The 611 has been replaced by the CZ 512 semi-auto , which also comes chambered in .22 Win Mag (as well as .22 LR):

Of all the CZ guns on this list, the little 512 is the only one I’ve never fired.  I’m reliably told that the 512 is an improvement.  Hmmm… have to say, I prefer the 611’s looks.

So welcome, my friends* at Česká zbrojovka Uherský Brod (CZ-UB).  Sorry you ended up in Little Rock instead of in my state, but hey… we’re almost neighbors (in Texas-distance terms, barely a couple 6-packs up Interstate 30), so expect a visit as soon as you open your doors.  (One question, though:  why did CZ-USA move out of Kansas City?)