Tag: Guns and such

Saith some guy in a magazine:

Fudd [\’f∂d\] (noun): A term that was originally a derogatory word for gun owners who hunted but were dismissive of modern semi-auto “tactical” type firearms. It has evolved to refer to a shooter who is mired in the past and scornful of any technological innovation that occurred much after they learned how to shoot.

When confronted with any development newer than that, they retreat behind a stream of cliches such as “I don’t want my life to depend on batteries” or “It’ll give away your position,” like a squid behind a cloud of ink.

Hey, at least I’m not as bad as a couple of my Olde Tyme Readers, for whom this brass cartridge business is just a passing fad.

And I’m not mired in the past — although if given a choice between then and now, then gets it by a day’s march.  Hell, it only took me a few years to get used to using a scope (forced into the things, it should be said, by deteriorating eyesight), and it was only a question of time before I came round to that semi-auto business (in a rifle, that is).

The reason that I’m taking a while to get used to batteries in my scope is that if long experience has taught me anything, it’s that anything that can go wrong will, and at a time and circumstance which will always have dire consequences as a result thereof.  (For those interested in such things, I never tolerated batteries in my guitars, forget that shit.)

Not being a cop or soldier, and therefore unlikely to need to “clear” a house of bad people, I couldn’t care less about affixing a trillion-candlepower flashlight to my handgun or rifle.  I have such beasts scattered around me, but they’re purely for the purpose of blinding anyone I want to do that to, and then mostly to buy me time to draw my gun.

I do rather like these little red-dot laser thingies for revolvers, though:

…and at some point I’ll bother investigating the gadget for my bedside gun and my 1911.  Or not.

My needs are quite simple, gun-wise.  Crappy eyesight almost mandates that if I want to actually hit anything, I must use a red-dot sight (if not a laser), so at some point (again) I may pop one on my plinking guns:

(not that I actually own one of these cute little Buckmarks, but when I do get one, it’ll be thus accessorized).  Ditto on the 1911:

…although breaking up the classic John Moses Browning design with that carbuncle just gives me the shivers, it does.  Not to mention that I’ll need to get a couple replacement holsters that will accommodate such horrors.

In fact… (from Kenny)

…fukkit, I’ll just stick to what I’ve got.  #Fudd

Longtime shooter and hunter Ross Seyfried is a gunnie after my own heart, especially when he writes stuff like this:

There is a lot of overlap, duplication and redundancy in rifle cartridge performance. As an aging curmudgeon, I constantly question the need for new cartridges. But I do it in good humor, because I’m not yet irascible enough to bite the hands that feed me, and it’s in my best interests to write about new numbers. The last few years, I’ve written about a bunch of them: ARCs, Buckhammers, Bushmasters, Creedmoors, Legends, Westerns, Noslers and PRCs.

They’re all good stuff, but actual performance in terms of velocity and energy can’t be new because these levels were established long ago by the expansion rate of nitrocellulose.

There are modern nuances like the ability to cram more performance into specific action types and lengths, or better downrange performance thanks to modern aerodynamic bullets and faster rifling twists. Or you can purposely step down in performance to meet straight-wall cartridge criteria required by some whitetail states—and thereby avoid having to use shotgun slugs.

All do what they’re supposed to do, but I also have a penchant for older cartridges. Dig deep into cartridge history, and you’ll find there isn’t much new under the sun. The 6.5 Creedmoor is today’s most popular 6.5mm, and it is ballistically identical to 1894’s 6.5×55 Swedish Mauser. The Creedmoor’s main advantage is that it fits into a short action, while the 6.5 Swede does not.

I love the 1892 7×57 Mauser so much that I have three. The 7mm-08 Rem. introduced in 1980 is a ballistic twin, with much the same comparison as the Creedmoor and the Swede: 7mm-08 fits into a short action; the 7×57 does not. The 7×57 has greater case capacity, but 7mm-08 is loaded to higher pressure. So in factory loads, the 7mm-08 has a velocity edge, but no deer will know the difference.

For nostalgia and tradition—and perhaps just to be different—I stick with the 7×57. There’s nothing wrong with being contrarian, but you still must feed the rifle. Thankfully, 6.5×55 and 7×57 ammo aren’t rare, but they’re not nearly as available as Creedmoor and 7mm-08—which is why my wife and daughters shoot a 7mm-08 and not a 7×57.

By now, my love for the 6.5x55mm Swede is a matter of folklore;  slightly less known is my fondness for the 7x57mm Mauser.  Here they both are, by comparison to more popular cartrdges:

One thing the Swede and Mauser have in common is a lo-o-o-ong bullet, which has excellent sectional density and therefore provides astounding penetration.

The other nice thing about these two old guys is that gun manufacturers often make rifles that are somewhat more traditional in appearance, in keeping with the cartridges’ heritage.  Here’s one I used to own back in the day, a CZ 550 FS in 6.5x55mm Swede:

…and another one I owned back in Seffrica, an Oviedo (Spanish) Mauser 1893 in 7x57mm:

With the latter, I once took down an eland with a single shot — the bullet went in at the front leg (it was a quartering shot) and ended up lodged in the skin behind the hind leg, having caused all sorts of havoc en route.  (I should point out that my guide did not want me to take the shot because the cartridge was not really sufficient for the job, but at 70-odd yards I wasn’t going to pass it up.  Yeah, my Jung & Foolisch engine was working overtime.)

Anyway, enough memory lane stuff.

I just love those old cartridges.  Here’s my dream 7×57 rifle:

Damn lottery odds are the only thing standing in my way.

Just the other day I was sauntering in a desultory fashion along the well-trodden (by me) byways of Teh Intarwebz, and happened upon Collectors Firearms Cruffler pages.  (For my Furrin Readers and others unfamiliar with the term, it stands for guns classified as curios and relics — C&R firearms — and the licencees thereof are known as Crufflers.  They are mainly people like me, although I’ve never had a C&R license.)

Anyway, here’s the page;  and if you follow the link, you’ll see that almost all the fine old beauties listed show signs of age — e.g. “some frosting in the barrels”, “slight pitting” and “dings and scratches”, to name but some.

Most alarmingly to my eyes, however, are the prices, which seem to be mostly in the > $1,000 stratosphere (and some a great deal more than that).

And yet, amidst all that carnage are to be found some excellent bargains, namely, some of the excellent Swiss Schmidt-Rubin Model 1911 straight-pull rifles and carbines (here, here and here).  Note the prices, which are well under that magic one-grand number.  Here’s the 1911 (long) rifle (one of which I once owned, and still wish I’d never sold):

Indulge me for a moment while I ramble on about these rifles.  Here’s what I said about them in my Great War Rifles post:

First introduced in 1896 and improved in 1911, chambered for the powerful 7.5x55mm Swiss cartridge, the Model 1911 had a straight-pull bolt action, and was unquestionably made to the highest quality standards of any rifle of the time (and higher even than many production rifles of today).

The Mod. 1911 is a marvel of functionality, its workings intricate and precise, its accuracy outstanding.

(For the whole story, feel free to diverge from this post and watch Othias and Mae’s take, and if you’re too impatient, just watch Mae shooting the thing.)

To work the Mod. 1911’s action is to experience poetry in engineering, and the rifle, even with that forward-mounted rear sight, is more accurate than 90% of the people who’ll ever shoot it.  (The later K.31 shortened the action and moved the rear sight back towards the breech.)

Let me be succinct:  if one takes into account the quality of workmanship, ease of use, smoothness of the action, efficacy of the ammunition, and finally price, I cannot see a better bargain in the firearms market than these three rifles.

So:  what about the ammo?

Sadly, the original RUAG-made 7.5x55mm (or GP 11) ammo ended production in the 1990s, but apparently has since been restarted as of 2016.  I say “apparently” because I suspect it’s being made purely for domestic use in Switzerland as I can’t find it for sale anywhere in the U.S. of A.  Here’s what it looks like:

It was the only ammo I ever used when I still had my 1911 rifle, so I have no idea how other brands will perform.

“Did you say other brands, Kim?”

Indeed I did.  A quick perusal at Ammoseek brought forth these options (click to embiggen):

I know, it’s a little spendy at $1.20+ per pull, but to put it in perspective, that’s cheaper than the current price of .30-30 I’ve been seeing.  (I would go with the Czech Sellier & Bellot, just because I’ve had excellent results with their other calibers before.)

Here’s my suggestion:

For just under (or a little over, depending on your choice) $1,000 you can get your hands on one of the best bolt-action rifles ever made, one that still shoots as well as the day it left the factory, along with 200 rounds of ammo to feed it.  It will almost certainly outshoot all the other C&R rifles listed at Collectors, and most likely a whole bunch of the other rifles they sell, too, not just the mil-surp ones.

Just in case you have a spare grand burning a hole in your pocket and a desire to own something special.

I don’t have the grand, but the desire to own a Schmidt-Rubin 1911 again is burning a hole in my heart… and I am not lying.

---

By the way:  yes, the later model K.31 was a shorter rifle (e.g. how the Germans changed the Gew. 98 into the K98k), but:  the 11’s receiver was forged, and the 31’s cast.  I happen to prefer the ring! of the 11 to the clack! of the 31, just as I prefer the sound of the pre-64 Winchester Model 70 over their successors (for the same reason).  There’s nothing wrong with the K.31 — and it loses over 2lbs off the Mod. 1911’s 10.  Yes, the older rifle is heavy;  but you’re not going to go on any route marches or parades — and whether in offhand or bench modes, that extra weight tames the stout recoil of the GP 11 cartridge.