Four Cool Tactical Tools You Need!

-

December 2, 2009

1

Oral arguments in the lawsuit, McDonald v. City of Chicago, will be held on the morning of March 2, 2010. A decision is expected by late June or early July.

It's also worth noting the amicus briefs that have been filed in the last week or so in support of the Second Amendment Foundation and other groups challenging Chicago's handgun restrictions.

There are at least 30 of them — ably reposted at ChicagoGunCase.com — plus two unaffiliated ones filed by the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund and the Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence. (The NAACP wants to ensure that any decision won't jeopardize other civil rights, and the Brady folks argue that even if the Second Amendment applies to state gun laws, the justices should adopt a deferential approach that lets nearly all of those laws survive.)

This article isn't long enough to summarize all of those briefs. But the highlights include:
* Thirty-eight state attorneys general believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right against infringement by state and local governments: “Unless the ruling of the court of appeals below is reversed, millions of Americans will be deprived of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as a result of actions by local governments, such as the ordinances challenged in this case.”

* Law enforcement instructors and trainers, in a brief written by David Kopel, highlight original research including what happened after South Carolina re-legalized handgun sales (crime fell) and Chicago enacted a ban (crime rose). Kopel runs the numbers and concludes: “Chicago after the handgun ban is much more dangerous, relative to other large American cities, than was Chicago before the ban.”

* Philosophy and sociology professors offer a break from a legalistic argument to stress the right of self-defense. An excerpt: “To the Founders, the right to be armed was an integral part of the right to self-defense, as is illustrated in a 1790 lecture by an original member of this Court, Justice James Wilson. Justice Wilson was a law professor, member of the Constitutional Convention, and the primary author of the Pennsylvania Constitution. He explained the right to use deadly force to repel a homicidal attacker as a natural, inalienable right.”

* In what may come as a bit of a surprise, dozens of California and Nevada prosecutors believe the Second Amendment must apply to states, saying “the fundamental rights embodied in the Second Amendment deserve the same protection afforded other fundamental rights.” (Note San Francisco, home of the failed-in-court handgun ban, is not one of them.) Read more

Source: cbsnews.com

Chicago Gun Case Brief Shows Brady Campaign Unreasonable

By

David Codrea

-

December 2, 2009

[T]he Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms should not prevent citizens, through their elected representatives, from enacting the reasonable laws they desire and need to protect their families and communities from gun violence.

What they're saying in the Chicago case is essentially the same thing they said in the Heller Washington D.C. case: Gun bans are “reasonable” and consistent with the Second Amendment proscription that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

This does not surprise anyone who has been watching these Brady characters for any length of time. After all, we're talking a group that–in spite of putting on a kinder, gentler public face via a name change–still internally identifies itself by its original name: Handgun Control, Inc.

We're talking about a group that's founder admitted:

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal. Read more
Source: Gun Rights Examiner

The Reasonable Man Behind the Seattle Gun Ban Lawsuit

By

-

December 2, 2009

The legal term pro se (meaning someone who forgoes a lawyer in order to represent themselves in court) is normally a handy way of identifying a kook. Someone who's crazy. A person usually only goes pro se after they've been turned down by every litigant in a tri-state area or because they think their case against the NSA can only be properly argued by the person actually being buzzed by the black helicopters.

Encountering a pro se plaintiff who's not nuts is rare. Which makes Bob Warden an anomaly.

And about thirty minutes ago he answered a call from The Daily Weekly and proved himself to be anything but crazy.While most people were still recovering from post-Thanksgiving gluttony hangovers, Warden and his adult son were out on a day trip. Their first stop: the federal courthouse, where they filed the lawsuit. Their second: Greg Nickels' house, where Warden's kid knocked on the door and served the mayor's son with the suit.

“Some families go shopping on Black Friday,” says Warden. “My family does this.”

Warden understands the conclusions most people would draw if they just heard a skeletal version of his story. Man walks into public place armed with pistol. Sues city. Must be one of those gun-nuts, right?

“If I didn't know me my knee-jerk reaction would be the same thing,” says Warden. “But I'm just someone who saw an opportunity to challenge what is a blatantly illegal thing.” Read more

Source: blogs.seattleweekly.com

PROTECT: Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s Assault on Guns

By

Kurt Hofmann

-

December 2, 2009

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) today introduced the PROTECT Act, legislation to preserve records of gun sales for longer periods of time to aid law enforcement officials in preventing gun crimes and terrorist acts. Under current law, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) must destroy these records in most cases within 24 hours of allowing a gun sale to proceed.

Interesting, isn't it, that Lautenberg's own press release describes the proposed legislation's purpose as being “to preserve records of gun sales for longer periods of time . . . “–but the title of the bill refers only to “terrorist and criminal transactions”? That's pretty clear testimony to what Sen. Lautenberg thinks of gun buyers. Granted, “PROGS (Preserving Records of Gun Sales)” isn't nearly as catchy an acronym, but that's probably not a criterion to which much importance should be attached.

So how, specifically, would Sen. Lautenberg's proposed legislation “PROTECT” us?

Sen. Lautenberg’s legislation, the Preserving Records of Terrorist & Criminal Transactions (PROTECT) Act of 2009, would:
require the FBI to retain for 10 years all records related to a NICS transaction involving a valid match to federal terrorist watch list records; and

repeal the requirement that other background check records be destroyed after 24 hours, and instead require that the records of all non-terrorist transactions be maintained for 180 days.

Remember, the “federal terrorist watch list records” are riddled with errors, generated with precious little (if any) concern about due process, and that the appropriateness of one's presence on the list is not easily challenged, because of the lack of transparency. Read more

Source: St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner

Gun Digest the Magazine December 21, 2009

By

-

December 2, 2009

Gun Digest is the source for firearms news, pricing and guns for sale. Readers benefit from in-depth editorial expert advice, show reviews and practical how-to instructions. Subscriptions are the First Amendment way to stand up for your Second Amendment rights. Click here to begin your subscription to Gun Digest.

Inside This Issue

• There’s a great big difference between things we need and things we want. M.D. Johnson has a few ideas that fit into both categories.

• It’s not about guns, but humanity, writes Kevin Michalowski in his “Editor's Shot” column. Click here to read it.

• Book Review: Trap & Skeet Shooting

• Rifles: Lazzeroni

• Shotguns: Ithaca Gun Co.

• Handguns: IXL

• Troubleshooting: The Landmann .22 Mag

• NRA Update: Student Beats Unlawful Code

• Precision Handloading: Factory Ammo Worth Looking At

• Precision Shooting: The Journey to Precision Shooting

• Towsley on Target: Double Check Your Loads

• Special Tactical Gear: For LE and Personal Defense

Jury Cites Thermal Imaging in Gun Conviction

By

-

December 2, 2009

Join Tactical Gear on Facebook »

“When it comes to making our streets safer, we’re going to use every single tool at our disposal,’’ Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said in a statement. “Science and technology are advancing every day. Bringing those advances into the courtroom is part of our mission and our responsibility.’’

The defendant, Jose R. Rodriguez, 25, was convicted of illegal possession of a loaded gun and unlawful possession of ammunition. He was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in jail. His lawyer declined to comment.

The case involved a Bullard T1 Commander, a thermal imaging camera that records heat output the way a conventional camera records light. The technology was designed for the military and has become commonly used in firefighting.

In this case, it was used by officers who chased Rodriguez in January, after he allegedly fled when officers tried to question him. According to police, officers saw him walking down Whittemore Street clutching his waistband, and they grew suspicious.

Order the Gun Digest Book of Tactical Gear.

At one point, the officers saw Rodriguez stretch out his arm as if he had thrown something. He was taken into custody.

While retracing his path, police recovered a 9mm semiautomatic Smith & Wesson handgun from the snow.

That is when officers used the Bullard camera, allowing them to determine that the firearm had just been discarded; the gun had retained the heat of the person carrying it, making it appear lighter than its surroundings. Read more

Source: boston.com

The Consequences of Deadly Force – Part 2

By

Michael Bender

-

December 2, 2009

Upcoming Training Calendar.

Deadly Force: You need to be in immediate fear of bodily harm.

Michael Bender of the Personal Protection Academy demonstrates defensive handgun technique, but stresses the legal and financial consequences of a defensive gun use (DGU).

Reasonably in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm. Hmmmmm. Sounds kinda squishy. Legalese. Let’s parse that a bit.

Many states call these threats forcible felonies … aggravated assault, various types of murder and manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, sexual abuse of a child, arson, robbery, burglary … really any felony offense that involves use of force or violence against a person so as to create a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury.

Here’s something we all need to keep in mind. Reasonable fear is in the eye of the victim … in other words, in the eye of the one who is scared.

What’s going to be most relevant is that the victim had a reasonable perception and a belief that the threat was real, regardless if after the event it was found that the attacker’s gun wasn’t loaded, or was a toy, for a couple of common examples of how foolish folks get shot by the Po-Po.

Keep this in mind, too. The Wolf doesn’t necessarily have to be threatening you with a gun before you’d be justified in threatening or using one on him. Big strong wolf attacking a smaller and weaker victim … great disparity in capabilities. In such a case, the smaller person might be justified in employing a firearm to avoid being maimed or killed.

Same thing with multiple attackers and a single defender.

Also keep in mind that an intended victim would only be justified in using deadly force against mere physical force in circumstances where the attacker’s physical force might prove deadly or crippling.

Lots to keep in mind!

Here’s more. It’s the threat of bodily harm, not having been harmed, that’s essential.

You don’t need to wait until you’re maimed before you can use or threaten force to defend yourself, if you perceive yourself to be in reasonably in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm.

Has to be immediate fear … this thing is coming down right now … he’s not stopping! And that’s quite different than, “Joe, next time I see you, you’d better have a gun.” Or, “I’m going home and will be right back with my baseball bat.” Not immediate. Plenty of time to get to safety, get out of Dodge, or call the police.

Prepare Now: Order the Gun Digest book of Concealed Carry. Click Here.

I recommend using Reasonable Man thinking … Reasonable Woman Thinking … Reasonable Juror Thinking … as a means of helping to define threats and justify self-defense actions.

Simple test: To justify force ask yourself if a Reasonable Juror would have the same or very similar perspective of the event, if he or she were in the same situation … same time … same place.

Woops! Not everyone is going to see an event the same way. So it’s my guess there’s a fairly wide swath of grey here, and that an intended victim’s force decision need not be perfect … but would have to be objectively reasonable to a Reasonable Juror, given the totality of the circumstances.

I want you to keep this in mind, too. We Sheepdogs can’t use our good old 20/20 hindsight to get our butts out of a legal jam if we make a faulty decision to use, or threaten to use, deadly force.

If the police find 10 machetes or loaded guns in your attacker’s car or even concealed on his person, after the event, and one of these weapons was not used to threaten you during the event, the law will not let you use that information as justification for shooting someone in self-defense, or threatening them with deadly force, based on the existence of a weapon that wasn’t known to you at the time you acted with deadly force.

More simply said … You can use the knowledge you have before your gun goes bang, but nothing you learn after.

Bottom line on all this … Make certain you can articulate to a Trier of Fact that you were reasonably in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm.

That’s all I have for you this time around. The next DGU Advisor topic will discuss the third condition … No lesser force will do.

Please feel free to pass this DGU Advisor on to friends, family, and colleagues.

Be safe out there, Sheepdogs.

For more information about Michael Bender and the Personal Protection Academy, call Toll-free (888) OK SHOOT or (888) 657-4668 or visit www.PPA-WI.com.

673 Guide Rifle: The Batmobile of Remington?

By

Editor Dan Shideler

-

December 1, 2009

3

Dan Shideler: The Remington Guide Model 673 is now collectible. — The Batmobile of Remington’s Model Seven family, the Model 673 Guide Gun.

Some time ago in these pages I made a few predictions about which of today’s currently produced guns stood a decent chance of becoming collectibles. One of the guns that appeared in my crystal ball was Remington’s Model 673 Guide Rifle.

At the time, I hazarded the guess that the Model 673 wouldn’t remain in production very long.

And guess what? I was right! (According to my wife, this was the first documented instance in which I have ever been right about anything.) The Model 673 bit the dust in 2006. I suppose I’m sad to see it fade so swiftly from Remington’s lineup, though I’m not surprised. Like the gun whose styling it mimicked, the Remington Model 600 Magnum Carbine of 1965, it was just too funky to last.

For those of you who came in late, the Remington Model 673 Guide Rifle was, to paraphrase Yosemite Sam, “the meanest, toughest, rip-snortin’-est, Edward-Everett-Horton-est” variation of the compact Model Seven that Remington ever produced. Introduced in 2003, it was an aggressively retro-styled bolt-action rifle chambered in a number of fire-breathing short magnum cartridges. The Model 673 debuted in .350 Remington Magnum and .300 Short Action Ultra Mag (SAUM) in 2003. In 2004 it was chambered for the 6.5 Remington Magnum and .308 Winchester chamberings.

Now I’ve fired a couple of Model Sevens in .308 Winchester and .260 Remington, and the recoil was noticeable but not severe for a 6-1/2-lb. rifle. But stick a .350 Remington Magnum or .300 SAUM cartridge in a Model 673 and it’s a different picture entirely.

This 1968-vintage .350 Remington Magnum factory load whips up 3200 ft.-lbs. of energy in the Model 673 -- and it’s pleasant to shoot. — This 1968-vintage .350 Remington Magnum factory load whips up 3200 ft.-lbs. of energy in the Model 673 — and it’s pleasant to shoot.

True, the Model 673 has a few touches that increase its weight compared to that of the original Model 600 Magnum Carbine — such as a full-length steel vent rib and a laminated stock — but it still barely tips the scales at 7-1/4 lbs. Not a heavy gun, certainly, but one that some might consider on the skinny side for a couple of hellbent-for-leather cartridges that approximate the ballistics of the .35 Whelen and .300 Winchester Magnum, respectively.

I suppose it’s a good thing that I wasn’t in a position to shoot the original Remington Model 600 Magnum Carbine back in 1965. In fact, I don’t think I would handle it very well even today. The original Model 600 Magnum Carbine had an 18-inch barrel and weighed only 6.2 pounds, compared to the Model 673’s 22-inch barrel and 7.25 pounds.

Shooting an original Model 600 Carbine must have been like stuffing an M-80 in a piece of cast-iron gas pipe, lighting it, and holding it up to your head. So the Model 673 is probably pretty tame compared to the original flame-throwing Model 600 Magnum Carbine.

Or maybe I’m just a wimp. Writing about the new Model 600 .350 carbine in the 1967 edition of Gun Digest, author Bob Hagel didn’t even mention its recoil or blast. He praised the gun to the skies, saying “There is little doubt that this cartridge and carbine will be popular, especially among hunters who hunt in the brush. It is adequate for the heaviest American game and should make an ideal rifle-cartridge combination for life insurance on the salmon streams of Alaska’s brown bear country.”

Alas, it was not to be. The Model 600 Magnum Carbine hit the canvas after only three years — which, in an ironic twist of fate, is exactly how long the Model 673 Guide Rifle lasted.

When I first heard of the Model 673’s demise, I went out and bought one chambered in .350. Why? First reason: I might not live to see it, but I’m still confident that the rifle will become a collectible, especially in the old .350 and 6.5mm chamberings. Second reason: I had approximately 130 original .350 Magnum factory loads sitting around with nothing to shoot them in. Third reason: I’m fascinated with the “guide gun” mini-boom that peaked in the past few years.

That last reason is important to me. I’ve spent 20 years in corporate marketing and advertising, and I view modern firearms marketing trends in a spirit of professional interest. It may be a new camo pattern, a new champagne bottle-shaped ultra magnum, a new titanium alloy, a new retro revival, whatever. I’m endlessly interested in these latest-and-greatest fads that sweep the industry every other year and then fade away into nothingness. The Guide Rifle fad was one of them.

I suppose it all started with Marlin’s Model 1895GS Guide Gun back around 1998. This was a stainless 18-inch-barreled lever action chambered for the .45-70. The 1895GS had a ported barrel, which was fine for shooting the old fuddy-duddy 405-grain .45-70 load. When you slipped something like a Garrett Cartridges .45-70 Hammerhead into the 1895GS, however, things started to get loopy. I remember sighting in my ported 1895GS and wondering after a few shots whether I would accidentally set my sandbags on fire.

That experience got me thinking: how many professional guides are there in the world, anyway? How big of a market can there be for a “Guide Gun”? Not much, probably. Naturally, most Guide Guns are sold to non-guides — in other words, to people who don’t really need them. There’s nothing wrong with that. After all, there’s a big difference between “need” and “want.” But it’s precisely these flash-in-the-pan mini-booms that create collectible firearms. (Remember those two casualties of the mini-boom in long-range handgunning 40-some years ago, the .256 Ruger Hawkeye and Smith & Wesson’s Model 53 in .22 Remington Jet? Both are hot collectibles today.)

So here I sit, as far from being a professional guide as anyone could possibly get, with a new Model 673 Guide Rifle in .350 Remington Magnum resting in my gun rack. Because I believe that all guns, collectible or not, are made to be fired, I recently loaded up some .357, 160-gr. hollowpoint loads to see how much of a mess I could make out of five-gallon contractor’s paint cans filled with water. The answer: plenty.

There’s something thrilling about seeing a paint can lid rise 20 feet into the air, borne aloft by a mushroom cloud of water vapor. Accuracy with the 160-grain loads was only so-so, about 2.5 inches at 75 yards, probably because the short bullet was overstabilized by the gun’s rifling. With my factory 200-grain stuff, old as it is, the 673 will almost cut cloverleafs at 75 yards if I hold my mouth just right. That may not seem impressive to you, but if anything dangerous ever pops up in front of me more than 75 yards away, I’m not going to shoot at it. I’m going to run away from it, probably screaming.

I’m aware that there are now more custom bullets available for the .350 than there were 40 years ago, and I wouldn’t mind noodling around with something on the order of a 225-grain softpoint if I were hunting elk or really big woodchucks. But the .350’s stubby case doesn’t cotton to long bullets, and the old 250-grain factory load is probably the most the case can take and still feed reliably.

The Model 673 differs from the original Model 600 Magnum Carbine in a few noticeable ways. It doesn’t have that funky dogleg bolt handle; the vent rib on the barrel is steel, not nylon (the better to act as a heat sink during extended shooting sessions, I suppose); and perhaps most importantly, its stock has very little drop. It’s a rifle that’s made for a high scope mount unless a) you’re built like the Hunchback of Notre Dame and your head is situated between your shoulder blades, or b) your scope has a pretty small bell. Scope with large bells may bump heads with the rear sight mounted on the barrel rib.

I’ve just done a quick price check on Model 673 Guide Rifles. At the moment, they can be had new in the box in the mid-$500 range in your choice of 6.5mm, .308, .300 SAUM, or .350. It might take me awhile, but sooner or later I suppose I’ll just have to have one of each.

And why not? Like I said, there’s a big difference between “need” and “want.”

This article appeared in the November 23, 2009 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.

Shooting with both eyes open

By

-

November 24, 2009

When you raise your pistol to the target do you instinctively close one eye to line up the sights? Don't. Starting today, right now, begin teaching yourself to shoot with both eyes open. Here is why. Closing one eye severely compromises peripheral vision. Closing one eye cuts that down by some 40 percent. Add on the stress of a deadly force encounter and you will most likely experience vaso-constriction resulting in at least some level of tunnel vision. You will be focused on the threat so intently other items in your field of vision will be out of focus…. and that field is already reduced because your one eye is closed. The end result is you might end up losing half of your peripheral vision! That means you could miss seeing an additional threat or misidentify a friendly or innocent bystander. You need all your vision. Here is how to make it work.First, identify your dominant eye. To do so, extend your arms with your hands together, palms facing away from you to make a 1 inch triangle with your hand through which to look. Keeping both eyes open focus on an abject some distance away and slowly draw your hands back toward your face. Keep both eyes open and keep the object centered in the triangle. As your hands get close to your face the triangle will automatically come in front of your dominant eye.If you shoot with your right hand and your triangle ended up over your right eye… or vice versa… you win. All you have to do make an effort to keep both eyes open though dry-fire and live-fire training. You can do this.If, like me, the triangle falls on the eye opposite your shooting hand, you have some adjustments to make. You can take up shooting with your other hand or you can turn your head a bit and aim with your left eye while shooting with your right eye. You are losing a little bit of vision to your left side, but not as much as if you closed your left eye and shot with your right.A third option is retrain your eyes so your dominant eye matches your dominant hand. Put translucent tape over the off side lens of your shooting glasses and aim naturally with both eyes open. I failed miserably at trying this. My lef eye did nothing but water as it strained to focus on something. I finally gave up. But it works for some.Sit down and figure this out. It's the right thing to do.

.308 Power without over-penetration… you can have it all.

By

-

November 20, 2009

Looking for hard-hitting .308 that won't over penetrate? Look to Extreme Shock Ammunition. Long known for making some of the best frangible ammo in the world, Extreme shock now offers the .308 160-grain Short Ranged Tactical (SRT) to its impressive line of hunting and tactical ammo.The newly developed .308 160 grain SRT was engineered for modern law enforcement and military personnel who require the legendary stopping power of the .308 without suffering the over-penetration common to the heavy bullet. The SRT allows entry teams to utilize M-14 & AR10s as entry weapons and minimizes the liability aspects of the heavy caliber. (story continues below)

These lead-free rounds are frangible and will fragment on hard surfaces that might cause a lead-core bullet to ricochet. A special coated copper jacket surrounds a compressed tungsten powder core to reduce the bullet’s velocity, producing lower recoil and minimizing muzzle flash, thus allowing faster second shot placement. The dense tungsten core allows it to penetrate less dense materials with ease, while still remaining frangible. While lead-core munitions are susceptible to over-penetration, these rounds have 745 ft. lbs. of energy combined with a 100% kinetic energy drop, making them the safest yet most lethal CQB/Training round manufactured anywhere in the world today.The 160 grain SRT has an MSRP of $19.26 for 6 rounds or $66.05 for 20 rounds.To learn more about the full range of products offered from Extreme Shock Ammunition, please visit www.extremeshockusa.net, call Extreme Shock USA at (276) 926-6772

Buy Good Batteries…

By

-

November 19, 2009

Warning about Cheap 123A BatteriesThe picture below is a New York Police Officer’s Glock 22 and M6X light. He was using off brand “cheap” 123A batteries in the light. Quality brand name 123A batteries have a built in circuit breaker to prevent this from happening. This is the only pictures I have as of now.Email:”Officer Safety Alert Glock 22 and Insight M6X?The attached photos are from an explosion and fire incident that occurred with an issued Glock 22 and Insight M6X while driving. This happened to a New York officer. According to him, he heard a popping noise as he was pulling into the courthouse parking lot and saw that his pants were on fire. He jumped out of the car and put the flames out, then once he thought everything was over, the second battery exploded in the light like a “blow torch” (his words). The officer is OK, but the weapon is no longer serviceable.”

.__________________

What's most important?

By

-

November 18, 2009

When people start talking about their training purely in terms of the number of rounds fired, I get concerned. While it is true that marksmanship skills are important, there are other things to consider. First off, think in these terms. If you were to end up in a shooting incident, what is your goal? My goal is to NOT GET SHOT! Yes, it is true that by shooting I can stop the threat, but in order to shoot effectively I need to make sure I'm fully able to participate in the battle. So my first order of business to do my best to stay safe and fight effectively.How do you do that? It starts with situational awareness. In the best-case scenario you are not caught off guard when a situation escalates to gunfire. You see it coming. If possible you take steps to defuse the situation or at least be looking to get to a position of tactical advantage. Think on your feet. Be looking around for good cover and plan a route to that cover. Keep thinking.This type of planning means that you know the difference between cover and concealment. Cover stops bullets. Concealment just gets you out of your adversary's line of sight. If you have to shoot while moving to cover you'd better had trained to do it. You are responsible for every bullet that leaves your muzzle.Train yourself to pay attention. Train yourself to think tactically before you enter a situation and as a situation unfolds around you. The mechanical elements of firing your weapon are very important, but they pale in comparison to your decision making skills. Hone those skills so that if the time comes you don't end up trying to shoot while wounded. I'm sure you've trained for that, but wouldn't rather not be wounded?

Armed Game Room Manager Isn't Playing Games

By

Corey Graff

-

November 18, 2009

Game Room Manager Shoots Robbery SuspectNovember 18, 2009HOUSTON (KTRK) — A game room manager in west Houston shot and killed a man who tried to rob him.Police say the man came into the D and A game room on Westheimer at noon Monday, pulled a gun and demanded money from the manager.As the man was leaving, the manager pulled out a gun and shot him. He later died at a hospital. Read moreSource: abclocal.go.com

Practical Accuracy Makes a Great Rifle

By

Walt Hampton

-

November 18, 2009

We get a lot of inquiries about big game hunting rifles from guys in search of the one-hole group. While this quest is admirable and I do believe that we should strive to bring our hunting rigs to their full potential, in order to be a successful hunter in my opinion one does not have to have benchrest accuracy.

Many times we are asking a rifle to perform beyond its capabilities and we are disappointed with what should be adequate hunting performance. I have several examples of these rifles in my own safe and am perfectly happy with them, as long as I adhere to their range and circumstance restrictions.

Minute of angle (or less) accuracy is a fine thing in a hunting rifle but we sometimes forget that we achieved that accuracy level on the shooting bench under controlled conditions; these factors go right out the window when the sleet is blowing in your face and the deer is trotting through the timber at 150 yards.

This is why I try to recommend to anyone that asks that you should: 1) practice at the bench to know what your rifle and load will do at certain ranges and; 2) get off the bench and practice off-hand, sitting and prone at unknown distances on life-size targets.

After spending a month or so shooting my Marlin 1893 .30/30 on and off the bench at 50, 100 and 150 yards I gained enough confidence with the gun to take it to the deer woods. The area that I regularly hunt has shooting possibilities from the end of the barrel to 1,000 yards, so I chose to stay in the timber where any opportunities presented would be within my self-imposed range restrictions.

Because I derive much of my hunting pleasure from the gun I carry, it was no sacrifice to pass up a few borderline shooting opportunities and take only the shots that “felt” right. This particular rifle couldn’t produce a 1-inch three-shot group if it was set in concrete and shot by the Almighty Himself, Because I recognize the limitations and “hunt the gun” I have killed every deer at which I have shot with it.

Gun Digest the Magazine, September 14, 2009

This article appeared in the September 14, 2009 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine. Click Here to learn more about this issue.
Click Here to Subscribe.

Unless we are talking about long-range hunting, and here I mean 300 yards or more, it just isn’t required that a hunting rifle be a “one-holer”. With today’s rifles, loads and telescopic sights, 300 yards may seem shorter than ever before but until you have practiced at that range and actually seen what you can do with your chosen rifle, you have no business shooting at game at that distance.

Yes, it makes it easier to hit a small target with an accurate rifle but even the most accurate bench gun will not make up for poor choices in shot selection or a bad technique. I know plenty of guys that have rifles that regularly produce sub-MOA groups at the 100-yard bench only to find out that they can’t keep three rounds in a Number 2 washtub at 300.

Practical hunting accuracy is the accuracy necessary to deliver every time a killing shot within your maximum range requirement and your capability to shoot. Try this simple experiment, if you dare. Buy a life-size cardboard deer silhouette target at the local sports shop.

Place the target at different distances and have at it from different practical shooting positions, doing your best to honestly simulate hunting situations.

Don’t wait until there is fur in the scope to find out that you need more practice.

Given the choice between two identical rifles, one of which is demonstrably more accurate from the bench than the other, of course we would choose the more accurate gun; but we seem to get hung up on the bench accuracy when it comes to hunting rifles.

You might also be interested in the Gun Digest® Book of Long-Range Shooting. Learn More

Given the choice between a handy, pert rifle that fits my physique and hunting style but will only make 8-inch groups at 300 yards and one that is longer/heavier/less “shootable” or comfortable for me but will deliver from the bench 2-inch groups at the same 300 yards, I’ll be shooting the gun that fits me.

Why? Because I know that with a rifle with which I am comfortable I will be much faster and more confident at closer ranges. At ranges approaching the 300 yard stripe I’ll either: a) try to get closer; b) take extreme care to make sure the shooting situation is right and that I have done all I can to hit what I aim at, or c) I won’t shoot. Since my hunting style is “walk a while, sit a while”, this is what works for me.

If you sit in a box blind for your hunting where you are sure of a solid rest I honestly can only see three reason for missing: a bad shooting choice, too much of a hurry or you don’t know your gun.

Then it wouldn’t matter if you were shooting a laser.

Walt Hampton is a professional gunsmith and writer from Virginia. He and his son Wade operate Buck Mountain Rifle Works, manufacturing semi-finished gun stocks and building custom rifles on order. Visit his website at www.buckmountainrifleworks.com or write him at [email protected].

Game Room Manager Shoots Robbery Suspect

By

-

November 18, 2009