All about the money

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gun-sales23-2009aug23,0,4831409.story

Looks like CO Springs is going to start selling guns confiscated in crime. Looks like anti-gun nonsense goes out the window when it costs money, at least in this economically and politically uncertain time!

Diminishing Returns

A quick thought on diminishing returns (no, this is not my IRA's performance this year...).

It seems to me, as a rough rule of thumb, that when buying stuff, you can get the following tradeoff between cost and performance:

Top of the line: 100% of the performance for 100% of the cost
Decent Stuff: 90% of the performance for 65% of the cost
Value Stuff: 60% of the performance for <30% of the cost
Crap: 20% of the performance for 20% of the cost

These are just very rough guesstimates. Basically, crap is stuff like is often found in Walmart. Its cheap but it usually falls apart quick and doesn't perform that well. An example would be a "Walmart Special" rifle or a shoddy blanket that falls apart due to poor stiching and thin fabric, or the shoddy silverware we bought there that rusted out and fell apart in a few months.

Value stuff is somewhat decently made but doesn't perform great; you might find it used or as surplus or at a higher end big box store like target. For example, maybe a used service revolver or milsurp gun or a surplus army wool blanket.

Decent stuff is what most people use for day to day usage. You'll usually find it at a name-brand store, or used. For example, a decent quality name-brand pistol (like a Stoeger or Taurus or Beretta) or a decent camping sleeping bag.

Top of the line stuff is premium, and often edges out a bit of performance, but its expensive. For example, an MP5 carbine or absolute top of the line designer moutaineering sleeping bag.

I think you should avoid buying crap. DW and I bought our first wround of housewares at walmart at most of that stuff was crap. It wasn't very durable and you end up spending more in the long run anyways to keep replacing all the stuff. The only time to buy crap is if you really don't plan on using it often and its also not vital to anything. I think you should at least hunt for value bargains. It seems that for a small increase (not even always an increase) in price you can get much better quality. For stuff you use every day, you should look for decent stuff. And if you use something very often, especially if its absolutely critical, then pay top dollar.

I am not a rock climber, so if I were to buy a 50' rope "just in case" I'd probably go for value stuff, throw it in the closet or trunk and largely forget about it. If I enjoyed rock climbing and did it frequently on Denali I'd go for top dollar stuff. And if I either occasionally went climbing or felt I had a high probability of needing a rope (say my house was on a cliffside or I lived in a castle with turrets to escape from if it burned down or something) then I'd get a decent quality item.

Guns to Try

I'd like to try the following guns with DW out at some point to make informed purchasing decisions:

.44 vs. .357 magnum. .44 is viable critter protection, although .357 is better than a stick.

12 gauge vs. 20 gauge. 12 gauge is the gold standard but 20 gauge is kinder and gentler.

9MM vs. .40 SW. 9MM is kind of a weak round, but I've heard .40 SW can be "snappy." I am kind of edging away from .357 and .45 as they seem sort of redundant with a revolver caliber, but wouldn't mind trying those if they're available. I assume the Colt 1911 is popular for a reason!

The basic thought is that a well aimed shot from a smaller caliber is better than a miss from a large caliber. So I'd like to see how comfortable and controllable the larger calibers are for both DW and myself before investing lots of dough in new firearms.

Confusing Rules

So, a place where I often travel has some confusing rules about weapons. Most are merely inconvenient or philosophically distasteful but are easily enough complied with.

This provision about transporting weapons however is harder to deal with:

Weapons may be transported in plain view, secured in the trunk, or secured in the rear storage compartment of a vehicle. Weapons should be secured in a carrying case, holster, or suitable container. Firearms must be transported unloaded and ammunition separate from the weapon.

Carrying a loaded or unloaded concealed weapon... is prohibited, including those in possession of the State of Alaska Concealed Weapons permit.

Ok, so, CCW is clearly out. Let's parse the rest.

Weapons may be transported in plain view, secured in the trunk, or secured in the rear storage compartment of a vehicle.

So, its clearly ok to have the weapon in the trunk of my car. That's inconvenient as you have to get out of the car, take off your weapon, clear it, put it in the trunk (secured, I assume), and then get back in the car. That sucks when its really cold out.

I also assume its ok to have the weapon out on the seat so long as it is in plain sight. So you could put the weapon on the passenger seat or back seat. The downside to this is (1) scares the sheeple, (2) likely subjects your car (the grabbable area) to a Terry frisk, and (3) possibly gives probable cause for a more invasive search, which is a pain in the ass when you deal with a checkpoint frequently.

This is stretching it, but it may be in "plain sight" if you are open carrying. For example, say you have a shoulder holster on and take off your concealing garment before entering the restricted area. This is more convenient than dropping it on the seat. More questionable would be something like a OWB holster with concealing garment removed.

Weapons should be secured in a carrying case, holster, or suitable container.

I think its only possible to use a carrying case or suitable container if the weapon is secured in the trunk. The ideal solution would be a locking hardsided case in the passenger compartment that you put the weapon into, but then it would not be in "plain sight" (unless you have a clear plastic briefcase or pelican box). So, if going with any sort of inside-the-car gameplan, you need a holster that is somehow secured to the interior of the vehicle. Unless you want your paddle holster that's sitting on the seat to just fly around the interior of the car when making a stop.

Firearms must be transported unloaded and ammunition separate from the weapon.

This provision is the one I have the most heartburn over. Basically, if you want to carry a weapon in condition 2 outside the restricted area, you need to find a way to clear it. There are no clearing barrels at the checkpoint to the restricted area, and besides, I don't like waving guns around right outside security checkpoints. Clearing a weapon in a car seems like a bad idea to me. So there's really no safe way to do this.

Additionally, I'm not sure what "separate" means. Does that mean that if I've got an unloaded pistol at 4 o'clock on my belt and a mag pouch at 8 o'clock they are seperate? Or does the ammo need to be in the glove box? Or in a locked case? Or in the trunk? Just how separate is separate?

Why This Bugs Me

This whole dilemma is what irritates me about gun control. The proponents of such rules are trying to make things safer. However, the rules themselves force responsible gun owners into unsafe dilemmas (do I clear the weapon in the car? do I brandish a firearm at a security checkpoint? how do I secure a holster in plain sight in the passenger compartment?), while people who ignore the rules will just... ignore them.

Another reason why this bothers me is that it can make law abiding people into rule breakers very easily. For example, if the security decides that the ammo isn't separate if its in a mag pouch on my belt, then am I in trouble? Maybe.

The ultimate solution may be to either get a special concealed carry permit from the authorities for this facility (will be hard), or to try and get an exemption to policy, or to get the policy changed. For example, it may be possible to get an exemption that lets me continue to carry concealed until I can get to a safe place to clear the weapon. It may also be possibke to get a memorandum that clarifies the point about "in plain sight" and lets me put the weapon in a locked container in the passenger compartment, which is much better than a holster sliding around inside the car.

Otherwise, it seems like the only safe and viable gameplan is to carry in condition 4 (unloaded, no mag in the weapon) and put the gun on the seat in "plain sight" in a holster that's somehow secured to the seatbelt or something. And hope that security doesn't continously freak out and search my car.

Guns & Healthcare

Just found a few articles on Huffington Post that manage to link the gun control issue to healthcare (kind of a stretch, but oh well).

This one, by the leader of the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence (can I just call them the Brady Bunch? Its shorter...) is a hoot. First, he claims that the NRA supports carrying guns to political functions, asking, "Does their silence signal their consent?" Well, obviously Paul Helmke supports Lord Xenu raping cattle with a spork because he's never spoken out against it (sorry to any scientologists, live stock, or taco bell patrons that were offended).

Moving on. Paul points out a few incidents where people have carried concealed guns to political events. *GASP!* I bet there's quite a few more cases where people have carried concealed guns and nobody knew because they were concealed and it was legal. He then points to an incident where someone had the audacity to carry a pocketknife and leave their secured gun in the car. Helmke makes a big deal about how it was concealed in the car; what would he prefer us to do, leave guns out on the back seat and say, "Criminals, please break my window and take my glock, thanks!" Now, the guy was stupid for leaving a gun in a car in a school zone, but still. Not a cause for PSH.

He claims that carrying guns stifles debate. Well, if its concealed, and nobody knows its there, how does it enter the equation at all? If its open-carried, I doubt they're a safety risk (most assassins don't shout, "HEY! I HAVE A GUN!").

His final rhetorical question asks why the NRA doesn't preach gun responsibility. They do. Evidentially Paul has never heard of Eddie Eagle which teaches kids about gun safety, or the education programs run by the NRA that teach adults how to safely handle weapons, or the range construction advice team that provides guidance on how to build safe ranges. If you are legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon, and you have the proper training, and there is not iron-clad security at the event designed to protect the attendees, then I see no problem with responsible people carrying their own weapons for self defense. Its just a non-factor.

***

This is another article by a gun-grabber. He claims that the right has pounded an extremist idea into the gun movement for thirty years. That is, the dangerous idea that guns and the second amendments are intended to overthrow tyrannical government. "With tensions escalating at town halls across the country, the overwhelming majority of Americans who wish to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights must speak out against the violent, insurrectionist philosophy that has corrupted the Second Amendment."

First with the easy point. Very ironically, the only violent incident he points to, a group of union thugs beating up the opposition, does not involve gun violence or conservative attackers! There have been no cases of gun violence at town halls, despite the PSH. The only violence thus far has been perpetrated by pro-healthcare reform union thugs.

Now for the real point. I originally wrote a lot about the right of revolution and history and all that but I think one should just read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Its all in there. Horwitz claims that this destructive insurrectionist ideology has been cooking for 30 years but I'd say its more like 300 -- its more dangerous than we thought! He's missing one of the most important sentences in there, though -- the one about long established governments not being thrown off for light or transient causes. I don't think any sane person today is advocating violent revolution as a good plan to resolve the issues we're facing now.

And again, people who are carrying concealed (emphasis on the concealed) pose ZERO threat to debate and discourse, because others don't even know they're armed.

***

This final article is about a guy who open-carried to an Obama event with a sign referencing Thomas Jefferson's quote about the tree of liberty. First, this guy was not a security threat. The gun was a prop, just like the sign; he was making a statement. As I said before, criminals rarely open carry and say, "I AM HERE TO KILL YOU!" Second, he might be guilty of being stupid or lacking tact, but he was not a raving lunatic nutjob. It seems like Chris Matthews was trying to provoke some rant but all he got was libertarian nerd.

This case does bring up the possible intimidation factor. I don't know. Maybe it is intimidating. But, if its legal, then its legal. In states like New Hampshire and Alaska, its legal to open carry, and its not even that unusual in rural or hunting areas to see guns on trucks or waists or whatever. I think its probably partially true that "No one from New Hampshire was alarmed. Maybe some of the people they bussed in from Massachusets were alarmed. But we're not really concerned about them." This guy was baiting the media for attention and he got what he wanted.

Now, I think that open carry with intent to intimidate is inappropriate, and it is illegal. It also provokes people to do stupid things (usually not the gun owner, ironically), as PSH kicks in. Also, a felony conviction removes your right to bear arms, so most gunnies are very careful about being responsible and try to avoid any sort of assault charges. So I don't really see this as being a major problem. I'd really be more concerned about being beat up by union thugs than the risk of being shot, at least based on current evidence.

ADN Healthcare Opinion Article

All politics are local, so here are a few thoughts on an opinion article from our local paper calling for a single payer healthcare system:
http://www.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/893083.html

I'm going to start with the author's hard hitting conclusion:
How can someone, or a family, be able to pursue life, liberty and happiness without health care? Can you imagine having a child and not having health coverage? Health care in this country should run similarly to how we pay for the fire department and police -- there is no public option for these services with wealthy people having a private system that guarantees them better care. There is no reason for health care to be on a two-tier, separate-and-unequal regime.

First, this writer is ignorant of how the world really works. If you are rich or politically powerful you DO get a private system that guarantees you better fire department and police. Why does Ted Kennedy get a private bodyguard (hint: he's not allowed to buy a firearm, and he's rich and powerful)? Why does Snoop Dog have a private bodyguard (hint: also wealthy)? Why does the city manager of Bellevue have a private police detail (hint: political power)? Fact: If you are wealthy (or powerful) then you get a private system that guarantees you better police protection.

Regarding fire protection, I'm guessing that response times in Beverly Hills are a bit better than in inner-city LA. Just a guess though. The rest of us settle for the "public option," with slower response times (or no response time). In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that you have no right to police protection and that the police do not have to respond to your call. Now that we have gotten rid of the unicorns and fairy dust and returned to our separate-but-unequal reality, let us move on.

A single-payer system already exists for some in the USA. Medicare and the Veterans Administration are two examples. Instead of the confusing morass of insurance company bureaucrats who are paid to deny coverage, there would simply be one payer. Congressional Budget Office studies estimate that there will be $400 billion a year in savings by eliminating private insurance profits and needless overhead. The administrative overhead of Medicare is 3 percent, while private insurance is nearly 30 percent.

I quote from a recent ADN article:
A recent study by the University of Alaska Anchorage found only 13 of 75 primary care doctors surveyed in Anchorage were willing to take new Medicare patients.
http://www.adn.com/senate/story/838221.html

If the AK medicare program is so great how very few of our local doctors want to participate?

I don't know what the exact answer to our healthcare issues are for Alaskans, but this guy should refine his arguments a bit and consider reality before he starts spouting off.

Musings on Caliber

I've been thinking a bit about calibers and these are my quick thoughts thus far. First off, this is for the "Big 4:" Handgun, Shotgun, Rifle, .22.

.22

I'll start with the easy one: the .22. Obviously, this will be in .22 long rifle. I plan on getting a cheap .22 rifle like a Ruger 10/22 or Marlin 60, and probably a handgun (semiauto and/or revolver). .22 is just cheap for plinking, practice, etc. A few pennies per round is great. Additionally, the cost of a Marlin 60 is so incredibly low, BTP is right -- who can't drop $100 for a cheap .22 and some ammo?

PISTOL

Here's where things get dicey. I see a few options: 9MM parabellum, .40 SW, .357 SIG, .45 ACP, .357 magnum, and .44 magnum.

9MM: Cheap, many shots. The advantages of this ammo are that it has a mild recoil, is cheap, and is common with military ammo (which may be available as surplus). Modern +P+ 9MM hollowpoints are pretty effective for self defense. Additionally, you get a lot of rounds in a magazine. However, the disadvantages are several. This is the weakest round suggested for self defense purposes. +P+ ammo will chew up your gun and increase wear and tear, and isn't really reccomended with cheaper guns (like, say, a HiPoint carbine), so that makes it hard to practice with your self defense ammo of choice. Penetration is modest, which is a big factor against animals and people wearing thick clothes.

.45 ACP: Proven manstopper. I'm going to jump over .40 SW and .357 SIG and talk about the other standby, .45 ACP. As I understand it, a .45 round is a larger round moving slower. Its got more overall energy and generally mushrooms nicely, but less danger of overpenetration. The .45 ACP is a proven man stopper and is a very common caliber -- the Anchorage PD carries .45s. The downsides are that magazine capacity is limited, often down to just a few rounds more than a wheelgun. Additionally, .45 ammo is more expensive which makes practice pricier. The recoil is obviously stronger than a 9MM.

.40 SW: Reliable Compromise. .40 SW is a compromise between 9MM and .45 ACP in almost every way. It is a very popular cartridge with law enforcement. The recoil has been described as "snappy." Has gotten to be pretty common and available.

.357 SIG: High Penetration. The .357 SIG is a new cartridge designed to mimic the .357 magnum in an autoloader. Its main claim to fame seems to be that it has a lot of penetration which is good when you're talking about car doors, large animals, etc. Its a new round but some PDs use it and seem to have no complaints. Not as common as the others.

.357 magnum: Time tested, good penetration, reliable round. This is a revolver cartridge. The .38 special is a weaker version of this that is often used in snubbies. It was carried by police for many years when they still made revolvers. It seems to have good penetration and stopping power. There are stories of using this cartridge to take large animals including black bears but its not really advisable. It picks up a LOT of energy in a carbine; out of a carbine its roughly equivalent to a .44. Probably one of THE most common rounds, up there with 9MM and .45 ACP.

.44 magnum: Grizzly country round. .44 revolvers are large, heavy, and pack a kick. But, they have a lot of energy. Not really good for concealed carry by all reports but popular with outdoorsmen. It sounds like a .44 magnum is the only thing that can take down a grizzly bear somewhat reliably (although a .357 surely beats a pointy stick). Like the .357 magnum, this round also gains a lot from a carbine.

I need to go out and shoot these different rounds. Right now, though, my thought is that .357 mag or .44 mag (if it can be handled) are the best rounds for AK due to their ballistics and the great energy they get from a carbine. Using a .357 out of a carbine (say, stashed in the trunk on a long drive to fairbanks) for a bear would be reasonable.

.357 SIG is the best autoloader round for AK due to its high penetration. However, anything is better than a pointy stick. I really don't have a strong opinion on autoloader rounds, especially if I also have a magnum setup for overland journeys. If I also have a revolver setup, I'd likely tend away from the .45 ACP, because I'd want the higher capacity from a smaller cartridge just to get some variety.

SHOTGUN

12 gauge or 20 gauge. There's no other real option. 12 gauge packs more of a punch, 20 gauge is easier on the shooter.

RIFLE

I plan on going with a pistol caliber carbine for the primary rifle for now, so the debate above is particularly salient.

Beretta 92 Family

In an earlier post, I discussed various semi-auto pistol "families." I'd like to dive into more detail on some of them here. If you have anything to add, please, feel free to chime in!

I'm going to start with the Beretta 92 family, which I a familiar with in its nearly identical military variant, the M9. The Beretta 92 is a time tested design first manufactured in 1972. The -92 series is chambered in 9MM parabellum, and the -96 series is chambered in .40 SW; otherwise they are pretty much the same. Here's my summary on the family:

Beretta M9/92
Available in: 9MM or maybe .40 SW
Compact: Beretta 9000 (with rare magazine adapter for each 92 mag -- may not work with 96/.40 SW mags)
Full-Size: Beretta 92/96 (or variant -- 92 Centurion, for example)
Carbine: Kel-Tec Sub2000 (9mm or .40 SW)
Carbine: Beretta Cx4

BERETTA 92/96

BASICS: Heavy, Bulky, and perhaps a bit pricey

I'd like to tackle each of these one at a time. The core of the family is the Beretta 92/96. Its a full bodied hefty pistol; it weighs in at 34 oz and the full size version has a length of 8.5 inches. As of this writing, the Beretta 92FS costs $630 online but you may be able to find a better price, especially on a used model. The price is higher than many polymer pistols but you are buying a metal frame and Beretta quality.

There are numerous variants of the Beretta 92/96. Notably regarding size is the Centurion. This is similar to a Colt Commander and the only difference is that its barrel is 1" shorter. This seems like a good compromise to me but they can be hard to find and a bit expensive.

One downside is that the M9 is big. It fits my hand comfortably but some of my female colleagues with smaller hands have a harder time getting a good grip.

FEATURES: Low recoil, points nicely, good control

I find it easy to shoot; the sights line up naturally, recoil is mild, and the controls are intuitively laid out.

The M9 has two safety features that I've grown used to. First is the slide-mounted safety. While some dislike this, I appreciate the feature that imposes one more level of control over discharging the weapon. I like to carry in condition 2, with a round chambered, so I like having the security of knowing that there's one layer of protection there. Its fast to take off once you've practiced a bit and it forces someone who snatches your weapon to learn a "trick" they may not know about or think about in the heat of the moment before they can turn the weapon on you. If you don't like slide mounted safeties, the G variant has just a decocking lever.

The other feature that I consider to be safety-related is the Double Action/Single Action (DA/SA) mechanism. The first trigger pull cocks the hammer and then fires the weapon. It has a long, heavy pull. Follow up shots are quick and have a much lighter pull. The downside to this is that its hard to keep that first shot on a small target and you need to learn two pulls. The upside is that the first show has a long pull, giving you the benefits of a heavy "New York" trigger. This reduces the risk of "spraying and praying" under high stress or of a negligent discharge.

Disassembly is a breeze. The Beretta 92 is easy to field strip and to clean. I've had no trouble with it shooting while dirty either -- even with Afghan dust all over the slide, it still works just fine.

ENDORSEMENTS: Maz Ayoob sleeps with one under his pillow

Massad Ayoob has mentioned that his "bump in the night" gun is a Beretta 92. So, if its good enough for him, its good enough for any of us most likely. Additionally, its the chosen sidearm of the US military and has been in service for a long time. This is a proven weapons system with a reliable and rugged design.

Beretta 9000

The Beretta 9000 is, from all accounts, a poorly conceived compact pistol. Overall length is 6.6 inches and weight is 26 oz. It is only loosely compatabile with the popular Beretta 92 magazine; there is a special adapter that must be slapped on to each mag for it to work in the Beretta 9000, and they are apparently hard to find.

The Carbines

I'll probably do a whole post on both the Beretta Storm and the Kel-Tec Sub 2000. Both seem like quality weapons, though. The Kel-Tec is cheaper (costs $300) and has the gimmick of folding; the Beretta is a high quality but somewhat pricey weapon (~$800 at Impact Guns). Either way, be sure to get the variant that is designed to accept 92/96 magazines.

FINAL THOUGHTS

I like the idea of getting a Beretta 92. The commonality of training with my issue sidearm is great. I like the DA/SA trigger and slide mounted safety and want to practice with those features if possible. Its a rugged and reliable weapon. Factoy magazines from Mec-Gar are reasonably priced. With modern +P+ ammo, 9MM can be effective. Both carbines are good choices and effective; I actually wish I had one in Afghanistan for slinging over my shoulder around the FOB. I don't like lugging my M16 around as its a bit hefty but a 4lb carbine that uses my M9 mags would be perfect.

However, there are a lot of downsides. The Beretta 92 itself is bulky and hard to conceal. Even wearing BDUs its tough to make an 8.5" hunk of steel disappear completely. That's a big factor for civilian carry. Additionally, the Beretta 92 doesn't work as well for people with smaller hands. The sub-compact cousin, the Beretta 9000, is by all reports a mediocre weapon. That's a big turnoff as well.