Category: The Gun Thing

Not just the guns, but all the stuff that goes with them

What I’ve Shot: S&Ws Of My Acquaintance, Part 1

The Gun Thing

One of the topics suggested to me by a couple Readers was:  “Talk about some of the guns you’ve shot before;  likes / dislikes etc.”

That’s a BIG topic, because I have shot hundreds of different guns over the course of my gun-loving existence.

And while we’re there, let me remind everyone that I’m not a gun enthusiast or gun expert.  I am a gun lover.  I love shooting guns, with a passion that seems to have remained more or less constant for about sixty years, starting with my first, a Diana air rifle, all the way to whatever gun I blazed away with last week.

Actually, I do remember what I fired last week:  my bedside gun (Smith & Wesson Mod 65), nominally in .357 Magnum, but realistically best shot loaded with .38 Special (or +P for goblin dispatch).  Of all S&W revolvers, this is unquestionably my favorite.

The very first time I held a Mod 65 in my hand, I fell in love with it.  It just points, in the same way that my index finger points, directly at the target.  And even though I don’t shoot it with exemplary accuracy, I still love shooting it, and that’s one of the reasons it’s my primary bedside gun.

Now I’ve owned a couple more  — still own a Mod 637 Airweight, for that matter — but I’ve never been a huge aficionado of S&W wheelguns.  (My late buddy Airboss had, as I recall, over three dozen S&W snubbies.  Now that’s an aficionado.) There’s no reason for my apparent indifference for the brand.  Smith makes excellent guns of all kinds, but I’ve just never owned that many.

Which is why I’m going to kick off this series — and oh yes, a series it will be — with this manufacturer’s handguns:  the ones that I’m least familiar with.  (I must mention at this point that this is not going to be a S&W history lesson, nor even a catalog of their guns.  There are lots of those around, so I’m not even going to try to add yet another of them.)

So other than the above two, which I’ve fired a lot, here are a couple that I’ve fired before, and wouldn’t mind owning.  They are in no special order, and I’ve used linked pics so that if you’re tempted…


Might be the “better” of the 65/66 options, in that it’s in a sturdier “L” frame (the 65/66 have the lighter “K” frame), comes with a 6″ barrel and has an adjustable rear sight.  Certainly, if I was doing any kind of competitive shooting, this would be my choice over the 65.  But only then.  And while I love the 586 / 686 line — it’s as accurate as all hell — I still prefer shooting the Colt Python.  And speaking of blued .357 revolvers (which I prefer over the stainless):

…except I’d swap out the rubber grips for wooden ones, because for this gun, wood is prettier.


S&W’s “kit guns” are well represented by this model.  I’ve shot several, and my only comment about them is that in my hands, anything shorter than a 4″ barrel is simply a waste of ammo.  Never been able to shoot the snubby versions worth a damn.  (And FYI, that’s not true of other snubby brands:  I have no problem hitting what I’m aiming at with shorter barreled Ruger SP101s or Colts, for example.)

Smith & Wesson 500 Revolver .500 S&W

Here’s me shooting the 500:

…and that’s with a muzzle brake.  Pass.

More of the same later.

Requiem: Browning BPS

Gratuitous Gun Pics

I read with some melancholy that Browning has decided to discontinue their pump-action BPS.

I always loved the look and feel of the BPS, but as with so many Brownings (of all types), I could never quite get past the “Browning premium” price.

Which, as Phil Bourjailly explains, is largely the reason why it’s been discontinued:

So, what happened to the BPS? Times changed. Semiautos were still called “jam-a-matics” in 1977, and many hunters back then preferred to shoot pumps even if they could afford a semiauto. As semiautos got better, the reliability gap between pumps and autoloaders shrank. Costs rose. The real advantage between pump and semiauto shotguns became price. The pump market adjusted. Remington responded with the Express in the 1990s, a cheaper version of the Wingmaster. Benelli introduced the very affordable Nova around 2000. Mossberg kept cranking out the same humble, durable Model 500 it has always made.

The BPS wasn’t intended to be a cheap pump, and Browning stuck by its gun for a long time. While it’s too bad the BPS was discontinued, honestly, it stayed around a little too long. In the last years of the BPS, it was readily apparent that costs had to be cut to keep the price down, and the gun no longer looked like the glossy 20-gauge that I bought so many years ago.

One wonders what would have happened had Browning followed Remington’s lead (or even preceded them) with a budget version of the BPS, but that’s really not the Browning Way, is it?

So why am I melancholic about the BPS’s demise?  I hate to see ANY gun discontinued, is why.

Primary & Backup

Gratuitous Gun Pics, The Gun Thing

As Longtime Readers (and even a few casuals) will know, my primary carry piece is a Springfield 1911 in, of course, .45 ACP:

…and my backup piece a S&W 637 in .38 Special:

However, I recently acquired (through inheritance, don’t ask) a very battered Colt 1911, not anywhere near in the condition as pictured, but which puts all my 175gr .45 ACP boolets into a half-palm-sized group at 25 feet:

…and I had an evil thought.

Imagine being asked:

“What’s your primary carry piece?”
“A 1911.”
“And your backup piece?”
“Also a 1911.”

Hey, as the saying goes, “Two is one and one is none”… right?

And because the four spare CMC mags can do duty for both guns, I wouldn’t have to carry those bulky lil’ .38 speedloaders either.

Yeah, I know: “But but but… two 1911s are heavy, Kim!” 

I just lost over 40 lbs, so another 1lb or so of gun weight isn’t going to hurt me at all.  And besides, if that skinny old fart Clint Smith can carry two 1911s, then so can I.

So Much For That Diversity Thing

Business, Corporate Wokism, The Gun Thing

I remember once attending a board meeting of a company I worked at, and one of the agenda items was replacing a deceased board member.  One of the nominations for the replacement was some woman I’d never heard of, but as the nominator stated, “It’s time we had a little diversity on this board.”  And that’s all he said;  no mention of her qualifications, experience, nothing.

As the most junior executive in the room, I wasn’t going to say anything, but I couldn’t help wondering why nobody else had either.

Anyway, a vote was held and the nomination passed unanimously, albeit with one abstention (guess who).

This was back in the mid-1990s.

Anyway, it appears that one company has recently followed the same route — one assumes for the same reasons, only it backfired horribly on them.

Here’s the story:

On December 5, 2023, Breitbart News noted that shareholders disgruntled over Smith & Wesson’s continued manufacture of AR-15 platform rifles had filed a lawsuit. The suit claims that the defendants, who are Smith & Wesson board members and the company’s senior management team, “knowingly allowed the Company to become exposed to significant liability for intentionally violating federal, state, and local laws through its manufacturing, marketing, and sales of AR-15 style rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms.” . 

And who were these “disgruntled shareholders”?

Plaintiffs in the case included the Adrian Dominican Sisters, Sisters of Bon Secours USA, Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, and Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary.

…making me wonder:  what the fuck were Our Ladies Of The Blessed Disarmament doing anywhere near S&W’s management?

Anyway, they failed, the rotten rosary-swingers, and a jolly good thing it was too.

On March 13, 2024, Breitbart News reported that Nevada’s Clark County District Court signaled no “substantial likelihood” Smith & Wesson would be found liable, saying the activist shareholders appear not to be aligned with the company’s best interest and requiring them to post a half-million-dollar bond to continue their suit.

The plaintiffs were instructed to post the bond by April 23, 2024, but they did not.

On May 6, 2024, Judge Joe Hardy pointed to their failure to post the bond as ordered and dismissed the lawsuit against Smith & Wesson.

Errrrr “the activist shareholders appear not to be aligned with the company’s best interest” — I’ll say they aren’t.  They tried to get into the company to subvert its business — kinda like the Commies do in our school system — but it didn’t work.

If I were on the S&W board, I would file suit against these BoCs for compensatory damages for the legal fees, at least.

I know, I know:  something about “Vengeance is mine,”  saith the Lord.

Bollocks.

Quickie Rant

Gratuitous Gun Pics, The Gun Thing

I made an observation the other day that the prices of new bolt-action rifles of any kind of quality seem to have crept up over the $1,000 mark.  (I make exception here for the “budget” rifles like the Savage Axis line, by the way.)

But it’s even worse for that old stand-by of the impecunious, American mil-surps.  Here, some guy sounds off about this phenomenon, and he’s absolutely right.

Given that mil-surp rifles were almost by definition produced in the jillions, they should cost no more than a few hundred dollars, even supposing that a half-jillion people want to buy these old beauties (unlikely) and especially during these times of Bidenflation.  [FJB]

Here’s a random sample from Collectors:

Even an old beater is over $500:

Don’t even get me started on the Garands and M1 Carbines:

The furrin bolt-action rifles of the same vintage aren’t any exception:

These old bolties shouldn’t cost more than $600, even today.  They have outdated (ergo expensive-to-feed) chamberings and are mostly battered beyond belief.  That’s always been their charm — that, and the fact that you could pick one up for a few hundred bucks.

Nowadays?  No chance.

In fact, the only “bargains” below $1,000 are the crappy Arisakas, Carcanos, Mosins and such.  (The good Arisakas — not the “last-ditch” ones made in uncle Yoshi’s garden shed — fetch prices very close to the Enfields and Mausers as above.)

(A special mention goes to the Swedish 1896 and Schmidt-Rubin 1911 rifles, which remain well below the $1,000 red line and are still excellent rifles, albeit expensive / hard to feed, especially the latter because of their ammo costs.  Even Prvi Partizan stuff is spendy.)

“Yeah, Kim,”  I hear you say, “but those are Collectors prices — and they’re not known for bargains.”

Tell you what:  go to your next local gun show, look for quality rifles of the above makes (i.e. that haven’t been bubba’d and have matching serial numbers and decent bores), and if you find one below a grand, buy it, send me pictorial proof thereof and I’ll send you a box of ammo for it.