Ammunition

More on Preppers

Dave_Maccar — Fri, 04 May 2012 12:10:50 -0400

by David E. Petzal

If you’d really like to depress yourself some evening, watch “Doomsday Preppers” on the National Geographic Channel. The show details the plans of normal, well adjusted people to cope with the aftermath of fiscal collapse, nuclear holocaust, the eruption of Yellowstone, solar flares, and so on.

The New York Times noted with outrage that many of these people were accumulating guns and ammunition in order to defend their 1,500 pounds of MREs and dried brown rice, but stockpiling guns is fine with me. My concern is that most of them seem pretty inexpert with guns. One prepper was counting on a Ruger Number One single-shot which, despite its many splendid qualities, is not what you’d pick to blast the mob at your door. Another managed to shoot off several fingers during a practice session. Yet a third, a resident of the Oligarchy of Bloomberg, took lessons in knife fighting because he was unable to get a gun, ignoring the fact that everyone in the Oligarchy of Bloomberg who wants a gun has one, or several, and when the pistol-waving mob comes to this fellow’s apartment I don’t think that he and his knife will last long.

A dose of reality was interjected into prepping recently when a resident of Washington State, one Peter Keller, shot his wife and daughter to death and then retreated to a heavily fortified bunker which he had spent 8 years digging into a hillside in the woods. The cops found his hole and waited him out. Then, after a 22-hour standoff, they brought in a breeching team and blew the door off his dugout. Inside were copious guns, ammo, body armor, and everything else a good prepper should accumulate. There was also the body of an apparent suicide whom the police believe is Mr. Keller. There went 8 years’ hard work in the time it took a couple of blocks of C-4 to go off.

I have nothing against prepping. I think a certain degree of preparedness is not only worthwhile, but necessary. Hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, ice storms, and Congress are facts of life that are all too real, and we must be able to deal with the havoc they wreak.

But if you have visions of accumulating tons of .223 ammo and dried corn and toughing it out by yourself after Life as We Know It ceases to exist, I suggest you watch a film called Threads, which was made by the BBC in 1984, and shows what life after a nuclear attack is bound to be like. You will not want to be around after the Big One arrives, your 5,000 rounds of 9mm ammo and food dehydrator notwithstanding.

Guns on Film: Can You Answer These 12 Movie Gun Trivia Questions?

Dave_Maccar — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:33:34 -0400

Let's have a little fun. As is the case for many, the guns I grew up hunting with represent my first real world experience with firearms. But from an even earlier age, my interest in guns was definitely peaked by those I saw in movies. Whether it was to find out what kind of gun a hero or villain carried, or just a desire to know how the gun I saw on the screen really worked, movies provided that spark that made me want to find out more. In a way, guns made me a movie nut, and vice versa. I mean, how can you blame me with toys like this beckoning from the aisles of Kiddie City...yeah, I definitely had this one.

If you can relate, or just want to remember some awesome movie moments, click through this gallery of movie gun trivia questions. On the first slide for each movie, I pose a question about a film character that met his demise in front of a muzzle. It might be about the movie, the guns in the movie, or both. Click to the next slide to see if you're right and learn some fun movie gun facts along the way.

Every film in here is at least a decade old, so there shouldn't be any spoilers for anyone. And if you haven't seen the flicks in this gallery...you should probably turn in your man card anyway. Have fun! --Dave Maccar

EPA Rejects New Petition to Federally Ban Lead Ammo and Fishing Tackle

Online Editors — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:07:35 -0400

--Chad Love

Remember last month, when the EPA was petitioned (once again) to ban lead ammo and fishing tackle? Well, guess what? The EPA has (once again) rejected the petition...

From this story on infozine.com:

The Environmental Protection Agency today rejected a request for federal regulation of toxic lead in hunting ammunition, again abdicating its responsibility to protect the environment from toxic substances. Earlier this year, 150 organizations in 38 states petitioned the EPA for federal rules requiring use of nontoxic bullets and shot for hunting and shooting sports to protect public health and prevent the lead poisoning of millions of birds, including bald eagles and endangered condors.

“It’s shameful that the EPA refuses to save wildlife from senseless lead poisoning,” said Jeff Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity. “The poisoning of bald eagles and other wildlife is a national tragedy the EPA can easily put an end to, since there are plenty of safe, available alternatives to lead ammo.”

Now keep in mind that this quote was pulled from a press release from the petition's backers, so don’t rake me over the coals for the obvious slant. I just thought it'd be interesting to see how the other side spins it. And just so you don't think the issue's dead, here's the last graf from the press release:

“We look forward to putting this issue before a court, since the law is very clear that EPA has the responsibility to protect wildlife and people from toxic lead exposure,” said Miller. “The EPA never evaluated the merits of regulating toxic lead ammo, nor has a court ruled on its authority to act under the federal toxics law — well, that will soon change.”

Which means, of course, that a lawsuit is on the way, so stay tuned...

The Gun Nut Nation Survey 2012

Dave_Maccar — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:42:59 -0400

Sound off, Gun Nuts. Tell us what you love about today’s rifles and shotguns. Tell us what you hate most about the perception of gun owners in the media. Tell us about your hopes and fears concerning a certain election this November. Tell us about what makes you a Gun Nut in the following survey—a collection of questions about the politics, economics, and state of Gun Nut Nation. The results will be published in the July 2012 issue of Field & Stream. Thank you for participating.

Are Some Cartridges More Accurate Than Others?

Sarah Smith — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:53:39 -0400

by David E. Petzal

My answer is a definite “Almost certainly no.” Back in the last century a gun writer named Bob Wallack (who was also an accomplished gunsmith), grew tired of listening to claims that the .30/30, and the lever-action rifles that were chambered for it, could never shoot accurately no matter what, Wallack took a Marlin 336, installed a match-grade bull barrel (minus the fore-end), chambered it for .30/30, loaded some rounds with match-grade bullets, and proceeded to fire groups that would have done a .308 tactical rifle proud.

Whether a cartridge is accurate or not depends on how much attention the manufacturer pays to it. Last December, I shot a .264 Winchester Magnum that turned in atrocious groups. I don’t believe it was the rifle. The ammo was from a major manufacturer, but the cases looked like they had been punched from chewed bubble gum. This is because the .264 is a small seller, and the forming dies the company used are probably 50 years old, and they’re not about to invest in making new ones.

You will probably not see outstanding accuracy from any round that does not sell a lot and whose users do not have high expectations of it. On the other hand, people who buy 6.5/284, or .22/250, or .270, or any kind of match ammo, are going to expect a high degree of accuracy, and are going to be very, very cranky if they don’t get it.

You can often see terrific accuracy from big rounds, such as the .375 H&H, .416 Remington, and .458, even though there’s no need for it and the people who use such rifles don’t expect it. This is further proof that the shape of a cartridge is less important in the overall scheme of things than how carefully it’s assembled and the quality of its components. McMillan, builder of terrific rifles and fiberglass stocks, is introducing a line of ammo called ADG (for African Dangerous Game) that is loaded to benchrest standards in .375 H&H, .404 Jeffrey, .416 Remington, .416 Rigby, and .458 Lott, and it will be very interesting to see how well it shoots. My guess is, pretty durn good.

Round Two: Group Again Pushes for Federal Lead Ammo Ban, Restrictions

Sarah Smith — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:02:56 -0400

--Chad Love

For cryin' out loud, here we go again. After being defeated last year, serial lawsuit-filing anti-hunting organization the Center for Biological Diversity is back at it on lead ammo. If at first you don’t succeed...

From this story in the New York Times:

Citing risks to birds and to human health, roughly 100 environmental groups formally asked the federal Environmental Protection Agency this week to ban or at least impose limits on lead in the manufacturing of bullets and shotgun pellets for hunting or recreation. The use of such ammo by hunters puts about 3,000 pounds of lead into the environment annually and causes the death of 20 million birds each year from lead poisoning, said Jeff Miller, a conservation advocate at one of the groups, the Center for Biological Diversity.

Consumption of meat from animals that are shot with lead bullets also contributes unacceptable levels of the metal into people’s diets, Mr. Miller said in a phone interview. The ban sought by environmental groups would not apply to ammunition used by law enforcement and the military. In addition to bullets and pellets used in hunting and recreational activity like range shooting, the petition seeks to limit the use of the metal in fishing tackle and weights. A similar request was denied by the E.P.A. in August 2010. But Mr. Miller said that the new petition includes a larger consortium of groups, including some made up of hunters, and cites recent research demonstrating that the toxic levels of lead in bullets and shot cause significant poisoning of birds nationwide.

And once again, the NSSF is taking the lead on opposing the proposed ban.

But Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry, countered that a ban on lead would cause ammunition prices to skyrocket. Currently 95 percent of the ammunition used for recreation and hunting in the United States contains lead, he said, and there is no ready alternative at a similar price. Besides, he said, lead is useful for ballistic properties like its malleability. A bill that directly opposes the petition is already working its way through the House of Representatives.

Known as the Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting Protection Act, it would specify that the Toxic Substances Control Act’s exemption on regulating ammunition also prevents the E.P.A. from regulating the components of bullets and pellets. It was recently approved by the House Committee on Natural Resources but has not yet come to a vote on the House floor. Mr. Keane said his group would not oppose regulation of ammunition components if a need for change were “conclusively demonstrated by science.” However, he maintains that any such rules should be issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service or state wildlife regulators, not by the E.P.A. “This is not the E.P.A.’s sandbox,” he said.

Twenty million birds a year from lead poisoning? Is there a peer-reviewed source for that number, or did they just grab it out of the air? Thoughts? Reaction?

Why Handloads Shoot Better

Dave_Maccar — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:10:05 -0500

by David E. Petzal

Let’s start with some basic facts:
1. No two rifles shoot alike. Consecutive-serial-numbered rifles from the same manufacturer do not shoot the same, either in degree of accuracy or in what ammunition they prefer.

2. There is good ammunition, average ammunition, and bad ammunition. However, good ammunition will not always shoot well in some rifles, and average or poor ammo will sometimes shoot well in some rifles.

So. Ammo that shoots well in a given rifle versus ammo that doesn’t is comparable to a suit that really fits versus a suit that doesn’t fit. Ammunition manufacturers turn out loads that will work acceptably in most rifles of that caliber. Suit makers glue (Mostly, they don’t sew them. Gluing is cheaper and faster.) suits that sort of fit men in any given size. They can’t afford to make them fit a particular physique.

However, if you go to a true custom tailor (a “bespoke” tailor, as the British say) he will take something like 20 measurements of your body parts and sew your suit to fit. It will not fit anyone else, but it will, by God, drape on you to perfection.

Back to rifles. Unlike the user of factory ammo, the handloader is able to tailor his ammo to fit his rifle. If you handload any given cartridge, you can choose from half a dozen powders, dozens of different bullets and powder charges (the latter measured in half-grain increments, which the factories can’t do), and three or four different primers.

Out of all the possible combinations, you’re going to find something that fits your rifle as precisely as a bespoke suit. And then it will really start to shoot. In the past couple of weeks, I’ve tested two rifles which shot no better than fair with all sorts of factory ammunition. However, with handloads, they averaged well under a inch, and very often, under half an inch.

This is just one reason why, if you don’t handload, you don’t have to worry that there’s something wrong with you. Put your mind at ease. There is something wrong with you.

Talking African Dangerous Game Hunting with Tony Sanchez-Arino

Dave_Maccar — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:54:08 -0500

by David E. Petzal

The other night I had the pleasure of listening to a talk by Tony Sanchez-Arino who, at age 82, is about to begin his 60th season as an African professional hunter. In addition to countless safaris, he was also an ivory hunter and, I would guess, a game-control shooter. His numbers of animals taken are staggering: just under 1,300 elephant, 2,044 Cape buffalo, and 322 lion. His talk dealt with the three questions he is most often asked.

Which is better, a double rifle or a bolt action?

Answer: "They’re both good. You go with whatever is most familiar to you. Don’t go to Africa with a rifle that’s new and strange."

What’s the most dangerous animal?

"That’s impossible to answer, because a lot of it depends on the country in which you hunt them. For example, Cape buffalo in open country are as easy to kill as cattle, but in heavy cover they’re something else. I can tell you what is most likely to kill you if it gets hold of you, and those animals are, in order, elephant, Cape buffalo, and lion."

What’s the toughest animal to stop?

"The Cape buffalo is by far the toughest. Sometimes when you’re shooting them it seems like you’re giving them vitamin pills. Lions can be difficult because they’re so fast; a lion can cover 100 meters in 6 seconds. People get in trouble because they shoot at them from too far away. Get close and you won’t have a problem. Elephants are comparatively easy to drop."

And as a side note, Sr. Sanchez-Arino’s favorite bullet is the Swift A-Frame (which is true for a number of PHs I've talked to) and the rifle he uses most is a .416 Rigby bolt-action.

He’s contemptuous of a number of things: “Ballistics tables, all these formulas and numbers, anything you read on the Internet, and ‘experts.’ All you need is a bullet with enough penetration to reach the vitals of whatever you’re hunting. The rest is nonsense. And never believe anything you read on the Internet, or anything you hear from an ‘expert.’ From them, you get horse***t in industrial quantities.”

He has never, in the course of all his years in the profession, gotten so much as a scratch.

The End of the Magnum Era?

Dave_Maccar — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:00:48 -0500

by David E. Petzal

One of the things I picked up on at both SHOT and SCI was that shooters may be getting away from cartridges that cause your eyeballs to pop out of their sockets, and back to rounds that normal humans can handle.

Part of this, I’m told, is due to the growing popularity of ARs and their small cartridges. Last September, when the young guy next to me stared at my cartridge block full of .30/06s and asked, “What’s that huge cartridge?” I knew a different day was dawning. If you were weaned on a 5.56 or a 6.8mm, you’re going to think that a .300 RUM, for example, is an artillery round.

Part two is the proliferation and near-perfection of laser rangefinders and range-compensating scopes and binoculars. Up to this point, the only way to hit at long range was with some horrific round that had an ultra-flat trajectory, courtesy of a colossal powder charge and its side effects of short barrel life, killer recoil, and ear-shredding report. Now you can take a mild-mannered cartridge, consult with your scope, and drop a bullet right where you want to without walking in circles afterward.

Mark Bansner, the gifted Pennsylvania rifle maker, put it succinctly:
“All my young customers are computer geniuses. They crunch the numbers and they see that you don’t need to get your teeth kicked out to hit at long range. So they order a 6.5/284 instead of a .300 magnum.”

On the other hand, at SCI at least, I’m seeing a lot of dangerous-game rifles built for the really big rounds such as the .500 Nitro Express and the .505 Gibbs. If you’ve never shot one of these, you have a fulfilling new experience awaiting you. In the meanwhile, you can shoot your .257 Roberts without shame. It’s OK now.

Polymer Casings: The Future of Ammo?

Online Editors — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:52:23 -0500

These rounds might mark the end of the metal casing. The polymer casing significantly reduces ammunition weight while retaining its accuracy--meaning you can carry more ammo during your next hunt.