Get the hunter on your list gifts they'll love with this guide.
By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily
[ Read Full Post ]
By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily
This was not a Hollander who could aviate, but a legendary sailing ship, doomed to wander the oceans forever, never reaching port. Wagner wrote a boring opera about it, but I digress. Apparently I have a former rifle that is a flying Dutchman, destined never to find a home.
It began life as a .378 Weatherby Magnum that I bought new in 1971. It came with a beautiful claro walnut stock as did many Weatherbys at the time, but being a classic-stock snob, I took it to Griffin & Howe, the custom gunmaker, and had all sorts of neat stuff done to it, including the addition of G&H iron sights, a QD side mount, a Canjar trigger, and a custom stock—a very handsome piece of nearly black French walnut.
The rifle was very accurate—you could shoot cloverleafs with it—but had one consuming fault: It kicked like the hammers of hell. The .378 Weatherby (actually a .375) sends a 300-grain bullet on its way at 2,950 fps, courtesy of 115 grains of powder, and produces 75 foot-pounds of recoil, which is a lot. But it was not the foot-pounds that killed you, it was the speed at which that rifle came back. You couldn’t... [ Read Full Post ]
By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily
If you’ve never been to the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming, you should drop whatever you’re doing and go there right this minute. Among its many wonders is the Cody Firearms Museum, which was founded in 1976. In the early 1980s, the Museum received a Maynard carbine (used by the Confederacy in the Civil War) from a Nebraskan, who claimed that a Native-American ancestor of his had used it at the Little Big Horn.
Half the old guns in the West were allegedly used at Little Big Horn, so the curators put the Maynard aside and more or less forgot about it. Then, in 1983 a range fire burned the Little Bighorn battlefield right down to the dirt, and for the first time, a team of forensic archaeologists was able to explore the battlefield and, in the process, dug up thousands of expended cartridge cases, including Maynard shells, and other artifacts.
The cases went to the Cody Firearms Museum, and then to the FBI lab for examination. Then someone remembered the Maynard carbine, and sent it along for testing. And sure enough, some of the shells found on the battlefield came from the old gun. One of them might even have... [ Read Full Post ]
By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily
Here’s one for you to ponder: Compared to most other machines, rifles are very simple mechanism—very few parts, and those are uncomplicated. Then why is it that two consecutive rifles off an assembly line will shoot so differently? Or to take it a step further, why is it that two custom barrels, made with the most exacting precision, will shoot differently? I mean, I know one barrel maker who does his own spectrographic analysis of each load of barrel blanks he gets, just to make sure the steel mill that produced them isn’t slipping something by him, and even his barrels don’t shoot alike.
Kenny Jarrett, the South Carolina gunmaker who specializes in sub-minute (and usually sub-half-minute) rifles of all sorts, from prairie dog rifles to buffalo rifles, once told me that when he was using factory actions as the basis for his creations, he would get two or so a year that simply would not shoot. I mean, whatever they did to the rifle, and they did everything, it simply would not shoot well. All they could do was cut the receiver in half, throw it on the scrap heap, and start again.
Kenny had no idea why this should be, and... [ Read Full Post ]
By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily
During the 1980s and 1990s, Field & Stream was owned by a corporation based in Los Angeles. Its management, from my lowly vantage point, was comprised of dimwits, lickspittles, blunderers, Harvard MBAs, toadies, and no-hopers. One of the ideas this bunch had was to hand out Lucite plaques with the company logo on one side and the company motto on the other (“Bend over. Here it comes again”) to all its employees. I believe this was done in lieu of bonuses.
Anyway, no one wanted these things but me. I thought they would make terrific targets, and when I let this be known, I shortly had more plaques than I could carry. And they did blow apart in a wonderful fashion. But when I shot them with a .220 Swift, a curious thing happened: The tiny, 4,000 fps bullets simply bored holes through the Lucite.
When you push bullets above 4,000 fps, strange things happen. I’ve seen paper targets sprayed with molten lead from a bullet’s core as it passed through. Apparently the heat and stress of the trip up a rifle barrel at that speed melted the lead cores. I’ve seen highly frangible .22 varmint bullets go through mild steel plate that... [ Read Full Post ]
By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily
Blogger's note: The following has nothing to do with guns, but so what? A good letter deserves an answer
This is in response to a gentleman named O. Garcia, who commented on March 5th on my blog regarding gunwriters, specifically, the scarcity of good new ones. Mr. Garcia pointed out that younger gunwriters don’t write like old gunwriters because American English, both spoken and written, has changed an astonishing amount in a very few years.
Amen to that, brother. There’s nothing wrong with change in a language (else I would have to write in the manner of Wm. Shakespeare if I wanted to make a living), but the quality has declined. If you’d like proof of this, listen to our President’s daily losing battle to get a coherent sentence out of his mouth. (And he a Yale graduate, no less). Then compare it with Franklin Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy or Harry Truman (who didn’t even go to college). Bubba Clinton might have been OK if he could have grasped the concept that you have to shut up once in a while. [ Read Full Post ]
By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily
In my travels throughout this great, wide, and wonderful land, people always ask me “What about Hillary?” as though I have some kind of inside information which they don’t. Shooters, it seems, are more worried about Hillary than they are about avian flu, global warming, and the end of oil combined.
So what do I think? I think she will get the Democratic Party nomination. She has far more money and far more determination than anyone else, and will steamroll the opposition. If the election were held today, I think she would stand a good chance of winning. A lot of people really don’t like her, but then a lot of people really didn’t like W, and he got re-elected handily.
If she is elected, she will make gun owners wish her husband was back in the Oval Office. She does not like firearms and she does not like us and she is much meaner and more vindictive than Bubba. She will sign every gun law that comes along, and scream at Congress for more.
She will also unleash the BATF, which, being a Federal agency, is naturally sensitive to political pressure. Under President Bubba, it revoked thousands of FFLs and... [ Read Full Post ]
By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily
A couple of days, ago, a colleague was quizzing me on the difference between factory rifles and the semi-custom guns that cost a lot more. “What sets the high-priced machinery apart?” he asked.
Two things, I told him. First, you don’t see the flaws in a $4,000 rifle that you do in a factory rifle. As an example, take the .325 WSM Browning A-Bolt I bought a few weeks ago. It’s certainly not a bad gun, but the barrel is too long for the fore-end, there are gaps between the stock and the barreled action that a reasonably gaunt weasel could dive into, and the trigger was not adjustable, which meant that the rifle would be limited to a decent, but not good, trigger pull. Also, some of the parts, notably the trigger, are pot metal. I don’t mean to pick on Browning, but this is pretty typical of what comes out of the factories.
If you want to spend a whole lot more money and get a rifle from Charlie Sisk or Ed Brown Precision or New Ultra Light Arms or Mark Bansner, you don’t see things like this. There are no gaps, no pot metal, no triggers needing adjustment or replacement,... [ Read Full Post ]
By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily
This blog is supposed to be about sporting firearms, but the responses to my ravings of March 9 were so interesting that I am compelled to follow up.
On the Trapdoor Springfield: As one reader quite correctly pointed out, our soldiers did well with the Model 1873 at the Wagon Box fight. They did well with it on many other occasions as well, including Little Bighorn, where we tend to forget that troopers under the command of Frederick Benteen won their part of the battle. The truth is that you could have armed Custer’s men with AK-47s and they still would have lost. Two hundred and fifteen against 2,500 (or many more) is bad odds. But still and all, the single-shot rifle was an outmoded tool even during the Civil War.
On the M-14. During my 6 years in a green suit I was both an armorer and a cadreman, and got to see a lot of trainees shoot the M-14. By and large, they didn’t do very well. Most of them had never shot a rifle before, and it was simply too much gun. But the M-14 is a very good rifle, and tuned up, it can really shoot. That’s why... [ Read Full Post ]
By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily
One of the things my Navy-officer uncle brought home from World War II was an M-1 carbine (one of the most useless firearms ever issued to the military, but that’s another blog) with a hammer and sickle carved in the stock. The hammer and sickle, you may recall, was the symbol of the now-vanished Communist Party, and I always wondered why an American soldier, sailor, or Marine would cut such a thing into his weapon.
My uncle could shed no light on it; the gun was not issued to him and he never did say whether he found it or traded for it. And that carbine is probably still out there somewhere, its mysterious symbol forever unexplained.
All this was brought up by my trip to the Las Vegas Knife and Gun Show in February, where all sorts of old guns were on sale. Unless you have less imagination than the beasts of the field, you can’t pick up an old gun—especially a military one—and wonder who carried it, and what became of the man, and what trail the gun took to end up on your hands on this day in this place.
Fine guns—there were some gorgeous old Winchesters there—have their own... [ Read Full Post ]
By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily
After writing about my impressions of the Bushnell Yardage Pro that I groped at the SHOT Show, I was savagely set upon in this blog by several of you who thought I should have tested the thing and written about it with more authority. Friends, let me assure you that you are ignorant and live in Outer Darkness. SHOT Shows don’t work this way.
They work this way: With almost no exceptions ever, gun and optics manufacturers come to the show with toolroom samples that either don’t work at all, or sort of work. The object of these samples is to get gun writers excited so they will write about this stuff and set the gun-using public to jumping up and down and barking like baboons. Actual working production-line guns, scopes, etc., do not appear until months or years later.
My job at the SHOT show is to run around like a wolverine on meth, find this stuff, get back to the office as fast as our dying airlines can take me, and write about it. But as for using? That will take a while.
On top of that, some gunmakers never come through with guns they have promised. Prominent among these is... [ Read Full Post ]
By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily
And while we’re on the subject of military rifles, it’s worth mentioning that the U.S. has less than a terrific record on equipping our troops with the latest and best. Consider:
The Union Army fought the Civil War with single-shot muzzle-loaders, despite the fact that practical breechloading repeaters were available for almost all of that period. After the war, the Army went with the single-shot Model 1873 .45/70 Springfield, despite the demonstrated superiority of repeaters. General Custer could tell you about this. We stayed with the Model 1873 right up until the Spanish American War in 1898, when we met up with the Mauser, firing smokeless powder. Ooops. Our mistake. Despite the availability of the Mauser, we replaced the Model 1873s with a strange Danish bolt-action called the Krag-Jorgensen. It lasted all of ten years or so. We fought World War I with the Springfield Model 1903, a great rifle, and a flagrant copy of the Mauser. Mauser sued the U.S. Government for patent infringement and won. For the first year of World War II we got by with the Springfield. Then M-1s got to the troops. It was the best rifle of the war for two years until the Germans came up with the MP43—the first...By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily
More on “The Father of Ten Million Rifles.” It’s been a long, long time (maybe 70 years) since Field & Stream had any kind of article on military small arms. In the years before World War II, and during the war, we covered the subject regularly, courtesy of our two gun columnists, Captain Paul Curtis and Colonel Townsend Whelen. Curtis wrote about shotguns and Whelen about rifle, but military guns were a subject close to their hearts.
Our readers at the time felt the same way. Everyone knew the war was coming, and that it was going to be a doozer, and millions of men were either veterans of World War I or getting ready for World War II, so military stuff was of major interest to them.
Why we stopped is a mystery to me. All guns are interesting, as are the stories behind them, and I was glad to see General Kalashnikov and his rifle get their due in print.
Kalashnikov is a gun-design genius. If you go back and read the old issues from the 1930s and early 1940s, you can read about another genius named John Garand, whose M-1 rifle was called (by no less an authority... [ Read Full Post ]
By David E. Petzal and Philip Bourjaily
In February, in order to escape the SHOT Show, I went with Keith McCafferty to the Las Vegas Gun and Knife Show, held at the Mandalay Bay exposition center. It’s a big show, and contains everything from the most horrendous junk to veritable treasures with everything in between. It also contained a prime lesson in the economics of used-gun pricing. To wit: It ain’t how much it’s worth, it’s how bad people want it.
The gun in question was a Winchester Model 97 Trench Gun, made for the U.S. Army in the early years of the 20th century. It was in absolutely pristine condition, and carried a price tag of $3,000. Three grand for an ugly military gun that probably cost the government $23.50 when it was new. Obviously, someone out there is strange for Model 97s, or trench guns, or is just strange, period. [ Read Full Post ]