Unreal...
Brownell's has good prices, and they ship their stuff right away.
I doubt seriously that any REAL legislation will come out of this incident, but of course, sometimes I am wrong too. Just do not see it happening though.
If any kind of new gun control measures to come forth, it will be through the "back door" of the UN, which out current POTUS and SecState are all enamored with. And don't look for Kerry to be any better. If anything he'll be worse than Billary...........if you can even imagine that!
MOLON LABE!
Ask how much I have on order. I dare ya.
The distributors are cleared out of about every 20 or 30 round mag, every AR, AK, everything listed in the possible ban. All of them. New, surplus, everything. RSR was showing 5-6K of one mag I went back the next day they were out.
Wish I had a room full of ARs. Sold a Bushmaster some months ago an an auction for $600. They're going for as much as $3,000 right now.
And not to be salesy but if anyone wants any (can ship but figuring pickup in general lex region) let me know quick. I'm a dealer for wolf and I'm putting in an order. I deal in quantity only so 500 or 1,000 round increments.
(don't want to violate site rules re commercial stuff but also know some ksr folk may be looking for some )
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
On a related note, my son ordered a home defender shotgun from Bud's Gun Shop and received notification Friday that it was available for pickup in Lexington. He called me and asked if I wanted to ride up with him on Saturday morning to pick it up. We got there at 9:10 (they open at 9:00) and the store was jam packed. My son's number was 61. It took an hour for his number to be called and another twenty minutes for the background check and to check out. It looked like for every one person checking out, another 3-4 people came into the store. By the time we left the store, the next number was 192.
While waiting, I talked to the young lady at the front of the store about how busy they have been and she told me that typically their business is pretty strong but that it had more than doubled after the election. She said it had begun to settle down and then the Newtown shooting happened, and they got slammed again and it hasn't slowed down. She said demand was strong across all product lines. She said inventories on many firearms and magazines were depleted and they were experiencing delays on shipments from the factories.
Prior to the Newtown shootings, I had read where in some parts of the country, dealers were having problems getting through to the FBI for the background checks. I won't be shocked if it becomes even more difficult for dealers to get through for those checks. Holder will simply make sure that the process is slowed way down. Afterall, if you can't get your paperwork approved, you can't leave the shop with your firearm. IMO, the whole process of getting the background check is antiquated. You can't fill out the paperwork ahead of time and bring it to the store. You need to fill out a new form every time you purchase a firearm because they have no record system that allows the approvals to be archived to reduce the burden on the approval system. Since they use a data base tied to your s/s number, you would think they'd have a more streamlined system.
Been holding off for a real reason lack of $$, but now it's 10mm Glock time. The nostalgic in me wants a Colt but I didn't have the $700 for the well tuned and display quality one i was fondling either
Either way, both ways, they're on the chopping block and I'll sacrifice a basketball trip to get them now.
Wampus -- you don't want a streamlined check system. The whole design was fought by the NRA to keep it from being streamlined. However, I do agree with you on some things that could make it quicker.
A few things..
1) NICS has been very busy, always is this time of year but even more now. They've shut down the customer service side to just do the background checks. Had to last year as well, but this year is busier no doubt.
2) there is no registration in NICS. They don't know what guns you're buying and any record of the inquiry is deleted within 48 hours by law. If they kept the inquiries they'd have a national database of who is buying firearms and the NRA fought tooth and nail to keep that from happening.
For example, a paper in New York just used freedom of information to publish all the handgun permit holders and their addresses in their 2 counties of circulation so people would "know what guns were in their neighborhoods":
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...ntcmp=trending
That's what the NICS system was designed to avoid, any record of who is buying guns.
3) the only record of what you bought is on the 4473 form, which is maintained by the dealer but doesn't go to the government unless the dealer closes and doesn't sell the business. Even then they aren't entered into a database.
We want a system that is antiquated at least on the buyer end. I've proposed fixing it on the database side so we can better find felons etc. but we want the ability to know what people are buying to be as crippled as possible.
4) The biggest reason the system is overburdened is in fact the dealers. We use the web interface for our checks, it's very efficient b/c we type in the info, it comes up there on their screen, they clear it or not, far easier. Only about 1% of dealers use it though. It requires installing a client side SSL certificate and apparently none of them know how to do that. I find that to be a less than acceptable reason. Even the big ones like Cabella's still call in on the phone.
5) I do think it wouldn't hurt for people to pre-fill their 4473. Obviously not a tracking issue, and the dealer has to verify it regardless. If you buy again within 5 days you don't have to fill out another one but that doesn't come up too often even in the retail stores.
So I both agree and disagree. I want a system that keeps no records, but it could be better if the dealers would take advantage of some stuff the FBI has offered. They even offer a form fill PDF they can do, no one uses it either.
At our gun auctions we sell as many as 200 guns in 4-5 hours and we keep up with all the checks very well by using the web interface. we dont' even have a single person just to do them, we have two people who jump on and off as needed. If the dealers would get up to speed on this it would help.
We do hand out a 4473 when you buy your first gun so that gets filled out but we can't do the check until you are done b/c the submission requires we check "handgun, long gun, both" and we won't know that in most cases till someone checks out. We can do the check in under a minute.
What kind of Colt? Shame you don't want a 357 Sig Glock b/c I have a sweet one.Originally Posted by bigsky
Hey, thanks. That was really helpful. I was concerned that an administration as corrupt as Obama's might use the information for other purposes. At Bud's, they won't even give you the form to fill out while you're waiting for your number to be called. I asked why and they said that people were leaving the store with them and coming back a few days later. Apparently, that's a no-no.
10mm? Just wondering, but WHY a 10mm? Ammo for that is hard to find and very expensive when you do find it. Yeah, I know it packs a big punch much like a .357 magnum, just wonder what you find so interesting about a caliber that never really caught on and is kinda outside the mainstream.
I'm a .40 S&W guy, myself. Like the .38 Special and the 9mm too, but mostly because if it ever hits the fan, those are going to be the calibers you'll find on the dead bodies laying around. Although even in those calibers the ammo will become troublesome to find quickly if things ever go 'south'.
Again, just wondering.
MOLON LABE!
My personal preference is for 45 but 9 and 380 are more suited to carry as are 38 and 357. I like revolvers more and more for carry. They'll almost never FTf under the worst circumstances. IMO the military should never have gone away from 45. I know you can carry more ammo but the colt m1909 is a great example Of how stopping power is sometimes more important ESP in sidearm where you know you're already in a desperate situation. Of course it fired 45 colt so it had stopping power to spare.
I like the 357 sig a lot for sa. Good balance between power and weight.
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
The Senate Dems the media listed as favoring new firearms regulations after previously opposing the bans have backed off their new found stances and returned to their former pro-Second Amendment stances. Seems their constituents caught wind of their remarks and a few protests took place. Joe Manchin even wrote an Op Ed in the Washington Post stating he supported the millions of NRA members and would not endorse taking away Second Amendment rights.Brownell's has good prices, and they ship their stuff right away.
I doubt seriously that any REAL legislation will come out of this incident, but of course, sometimes I am wrong too. Just do not see it happening though.
If any kind of new gun control measures to come forth, it will be through the "back door" of the UN, which out current POTUS and SecState are all enamored with. And don't look for Kerry to be any better. If anything he'll be worse than Billary...........if you can even imagine that!
Obama must have already conceded the battle is untenable as well, his task force is to be headed by Bumblin' Joe. When Bumblin' Joe is assigned to do anything it is a sure sign of that BHO lacks faith in the passage of that legislation. Legislation he thinks he can get passed is handed to either his Chicago minions or the far leftists from other parts of the country.
I think the UN treaty would require a 2/3 vote by the Senate before it would become American law as our Constitution is written. Ofcourse, we all know how much Constitutional Law means to BHO. If it passes I expect that one to end up in front of the SCOTUS if there is no treaty presented to the Senate for a vote. BHO and the State Department lack the authority to enter into an agreement with another nation without approval by the Senate.
Keith, thanks for the update. Good news on the renewed 2nd amendment beliefs of those members who are so concerned... about their congressional seats. Whatever the reason, I'll take it.
I've seen opinions both ways about Biden heading this up. he was a big part of getting the original ban passed so they say while his other tasks have been busy work this is serious. The others point out as you do that everything else has been busy work.
Politically it'll be interesting b/c the major fight is the budget and while I have no doubt Obama would round up everything bigger than a slingshot in a second I don't know if he'll have the political chips to use with this mess getting worse, at least not at this time. Feinstein will use them, she's a true zealot on this cause, but not sure the White House will be in position to do it.
I've never been 100% in line with the NRA and I'm still not, but this is one of those times I'm glad they're a little on the no-compromise side b/c in the local races those guys know they'll target anyone and spend to get them out.
Also, regardless of the polls, in my part of the world this has in a way made people more pro-gun if it's defined as "I need to get one or have more". We're not even running more ads for our next conceal carry class as we think it may be full already. Trying to do another one in no more than a month. many of those will be first time handgun owners.
Those people aren't likely to support the ban. Some do, some of those b/c they don't really understand 'assault rifles' are to the gun control crowd things like the Mini 14 and some b/c they are mistakenly seeing them as separate from other gun issues. I see their point, but this is a classic case of the Martin Niemoller soliloquy "First they came". If we don't all hang together we're all going to hang separately, even putting aside some of our internal differences. There hasn't been a nation yet that banned a certain type of gun that didn't eventually ban them all.
The UN treaty is something Feinstein was focused on before these shootings. Knowing the climate was bad for things like the ban she was hoping to get the Small Arms treaty passed and then use it.
It's an interesting stroke b/c the treaty of course only controls transfers between nations, thus ostensibly not impacting US gun rights. There are two caveats though. First is the importation of guns. They could make it much harder to get guns brought in from elsewhere to reduce the supply, and you know they would. We'd start making them but presumably they'd be more expensive, etc. Anything to hurt the market.
Far more important Mexico has been calling publicly for US gun law changes including a national gun registry. The Mexican President telling us how to treat our own citizens.
The argument is all built around civilian guns going to the cartels in Mexico, the whole reason for F&F. Feinstein already had her report calling for action based on this angle ready when F&F was exposed. that was their new plan of attack.
If the treaty is passed and signed by the US then Mexico could argue at the UN that these guns crossing the border are a treaty violation (which it easily could be, even I see how it would fit), and thus we have to change our laws to conform to prevent those transfers to conform to the treaty. You can bet Feinstein wouldn't support putting up a wall. A real back end approach. Subtle, but not subtle enough for the NRA or the NSSF or others. the NSSF and the others aren't really political at all so for them to protest it you know it's bad law.
FWIW, the reason the other nations want it has nothing to do with the US, but the language saying UN members can only sell to UN recognized member states. That is to say, providing arms to rebels and insurgencies would be a treaty violation. Now it's easy to see why Iran got a committee chair. The more repressive the regime, the more at risk they are of a civil war, the more they want this treaty.
So it's horrible law on every level. Not unlike most everything the UN produces, a law that helps the large numbers of backward Third World potentates and fascist regimes in the world at the expense of the West, the US and freedom in general.
I really like the .45. I've got a Rock Island 1911A clone, upgraded it with an 18 lb spring and full length guide rod. I need to get a couple of ten round mags for it, every little bit of extra firepower could be handy at some time or another. I think my next purchase will be a 9mm, just to add some extra flexibility to my ammo choices beyond the .45 and the revolver calibers I have on hand.
Yeah, it gets passed and goes before the SCOTUS, I'm sure CJ Roberts will go out of his way to claim it's a TAX, and therefore constitutional!
MOLON LABE!
I think all too often people who don't know anything, or know very little, about firearms take the word from the gun-banners that speak of "assault weapons" (in all reality these weapons are not true assault weapons as they lack selective fire or automatic capabilities) and their vast firepower that allows them to fire "hundreds of rounds" a minute. That thinking to me is something out of Hollywood where every weapon seemingly is fully automatic, and has an unlimited magazine capacity.
Zero doubt about that.
Keith lots of folks don't understand, and I don't blame them. The anti-gun folks have gone out of their way to systematically create that image based on the look of the gun not its function. They want everyone to think it's the bottomless guns from the movies that spray ammo and blow up cars.
The only effective difference between a Remington semi-auto hunting rifle like the 740/7400 is the magazine size. The 740/7400 shoots far more powerful rounds. Think that 223 is nasty? try a 30-06.
The only additional 'danger' of ARs and other "assault weapons" is capacity. That's it. The Mini 14 is less powerful than the 7400 but b/c it has had larger capacity mags made for it it's on the list. The 7400 isn't on the list b/c it comes with 5 round mags. Few similar guns go above 10.
So at the most all you do is ban the magazines. Anything else is just for effect and to get us down the road towards more gun limits.
Most people don't know that, so they don't know they're being sold a bill of goods. Now they're "weapons of war", which is even more absurdly wrong than "assault weapon".
heck, in the last ban they sold AKs legally, they just had wood stocks and no pistol grips and you couldn't buy them with mags more than 10 rounds. Then they allowed you to modify them but you had to have at least 9 US made parts and there are all these silly rules. it ended up being endless silliness, which combined with its complete lack of effectiveness is why the ban was allowed to expire.
Chuck, way too much emphasis is on magazine size, IMO. It takes a decent shooter very little time to change a magazine, and most decent shooters aren't going to spray massive amounts of lead downwind. Any rifle of the AK/AR and many other variants on the list can double their magazine size by using some duct tape and taping an extra magazine to the other upside down. A quick disconnect, flip and reconnect is all the movement that is needed.
I consider the .223 to be a varmint caliber, fit for coyotes and the like; it would not be my choice for a combat caliber. Agree with you on the 740/7400 Remington. Those rifles in any caliber .243 or above are much more lethal with 5 shots than the AR is with 15. The M16's three round burst is an option for a reason, someone along the way has decided it would take three rounds to incapacitate the enemy, you aren't going to attempt to take out three targets in a burst. I think the need for three round burst speaks loudly of the .222 caliber's lethality.
What makes little common sense with the weapons on the ban list is that few fit what criminals are likely to use. A number of these weapons are high end weapons and not the cheap, easy to obtain weapons that the criminal element is more likely to use.
The SKS is a good example of a firearm that was on the banned list last time around if it had been altered from original and did not have at least 9 US made parts. The SKS can be altered to look quite different, depending what is added. Put a folding stock on it with the forward hand grip, a heat shield; toss on a few other goodies like a one-point sling, bipod, muzzle break, tactical scope, and tactical light and the rifle looks every bit like the assault weapons that spew hundreds of bullets out of bottomless magazines on Hollywood movie sets. Drop the same action into a Monte Carlo stock with a hunting sling and standard 3-9x40 scope and it looks a lot like a run of the mill semiautomatic hunting rifle. Neither rifle is more lethal than the other. One was legal to possess, the other was not.
Many good points, Keith. I am not sure .223 was meant to be a lethal round, though. It was meant to create a wounded soldier, not a KIA. Debatable wisdom, esp against an enemy willing to die. But the real reason I am considering finally joining the 223 crowd is ammo availability and cost. I have a sniper package (customized Rem 700), and the 308 is just too hard to find and too expensive to run a lot of rounds. Esp match quality. If it hits the fan, I won't be able to get it unless I load my own.
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
"Practically, it was more like a Roman army decimation -- a brutally harsh punishment levied by a ruthless hegemon, an act with a message: Don't mess with us.”
- Eamonn Brennan, ESPN
.338>30.06>.270>.308>7mm08 although the new short magnums are nice and getting much more available. Flat shooting rifles are fun, and shock power cant be dismissed, but nothing beats a big piece of lead. The .308 just isn't flat shooting enough for Montana's big country. Lots of people go to the 7mm magnum but its a big round and hard to reload. I like a long neck, unbelted.
.44>.357>.38 call me red hawk Harry
.220 swift>22.250>.223 or .222 love that 4000fps
.22 rimfire magnum>.22 rimfire for the bottom of the boat, my 20 gauge/.22 rimfire mag is nice
That's the pattern of my thinking, and owning.
And yes, reloading>buying off the shelf.
But if you're old school minimalist .30.06 and .45 Colt. a .22 and a 12 gauge will suffice.
Minimally.
Right now I only have two auto pistols, a .22 rimfire for target shooting and a vintage .32 acp. The colt is my little travel companion.
Last edited by bigsky; 12-27-2012 at 07:48 AM.
If I lived in MT, I would check out the .333 lapua. But it is way worse even on ammo cost and availability than the 308. That will cover some distance. If you don't have a big Barrett .50, of course. I would love to shoot one of those.
I am in the same old school, mostly for time reasons. Don't have time to shoot, with small kids and the time it takes to go find a place to shoot if you live in Fayette County. .45 ACP, .308 bolt action (Rem 700 action), short-barrel 12 guage pump, .22 semi-auto.
Do you load? I have been looking at it - specifically the Dillon 550B progressive press, but as little as I get to shoot it is hard to justify.
Chuck, check you PMs.
"Practically, it was more like a Roman army decimation -- a brutally harsh punishment levied by a ruthless hegemon, an act with a message: Don't mess with us.”
- Eamonn Brennan, ESPN
Well, I do believe that the .223/5.56mm round is more than adequate to kill a man. Lots of our enemies have been killed with this round.
Your other point goes to military doctrine, in which many militaries could care less about their troops. Their troops get wounded, they get walked over/run over, walked away from. The Chinese do this, so do the Russians. Their doctrine does not value their troops.
American military doctrine calls for our wounded to be evacuated ASAP. As little waiting as possible, as much battlefield care as possible until EVAC., even to the point of taking troops away from the fighting to care for our wounded. We also have, without a doubt, the best trained battlefield medics anywhere. ANYWHERE.
And as far as how many rounds it takes.......... if it takes one, good......if it takes three, good........if it takes more, that's good too. As long as the bad guy gets dead, whatever it takes is good. But American doctrine calls for three rounds to get it done, according to the battlefield studies/simulations done to see what is the most efficient/cost effective way to kill our enemies.
MOLON LABE!
Saw a video today where they said it takes 59 foot pounds to drive a potentially legal blow. They did it on a demonstration at 450 yards.
With a .22. No, not ideal. But very telling.
Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.
I'm going to link to Chuck Hawk's great site, a chart that is based on the work of Marshall and Sanow. Their conclusions are HOTLY contested and debated, but their data is sound as long as you know what they did. They looked at police records of shootings and which calibers and ammo were used and developed a percentage of times that combo resulted in a "one shot stop".
http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm
Take that fwiw but in their data a .22 LR shot resulted in a one shot stop between 20 and 33% of the cases examined.
With all the talk out there about how this round or that round wont' stop someone, the truth is any caliber bullet can kill a person and where you shoot someone has a whole lot to do with it. Does no good to shoot a 45 if you can't shoot it well.
It's also all about the situation. Attackers don't politely announce they're going to attack you from 7 yards out and wait for you to get your ear protection on. that's why the 25ACP is involved in so many crime shootings. They're standing right in front of each other when the shooting starts.
I'm in the "any gun you have on you is better than the one in your gun safe" camp. For carry I see no reason to go below 380 b/c they make mouse gun sized guns in 380 now, smaller calibers aren't smaller guns. 9mm just a little bigger, and nothing beats a revolver in 38/38+P/357 for reliability.
Anyway, I digress. The 223 will sure kill someone, but a 30-06 will kill quicker, i.e. stopping power. You can kill a deer with a 22 but it's not legal b/c they won't drop in their tracks. Any hunter knows it's about shot placement and one shot stop.
So the 740/7400 and any other number of guns are more effective at killing someone with one shot on average than the assault weapon calibers. Those calibers were chosen so troops could carry more ammunition b/c they will be acquiring multiple targets in situations where they will have to shoot more than once. Hunting deer is totally different. The military didn't move away from the 30-06 b/c the 223 was a superior round. It flat isn't, it's just you can carry far more 223 than 30-06. That and the distance of combat went from 100s of yards to 10s of yards so the drop off of rounds like 223 wasn't a barrier.
BUT, any caliber can kill a person or a deer. I recoil a bit at the idea that "a 22 will just make them angry" as if we're shooting BBs.
Along these lines and on point with the Newtown/Assault weapon debate, there was a schoolyard shooting in 1979 by Brenda Spencer in San Diego that inspired the Boomtow Rats song "I don't like Mondays". She used a 22 rifle and just shot almost randomly into a school yard from her window. Killed two adults, wounded 8 children. Her explanation for her actions was "I don't like Mondays. This livened things up." She was 16 at the time.
Last edited by CitizenBBN; 12-27-2012 at 09:55 PM.
Wampus -- picking up on our discussion of the NICS checks, got email from them today they are no longer sending checks that need "eyes" to agents, they are queuing it as "delayed" and it goes in line.
some come back with a basic "approve", some are only slightly delayed as it goes to an agent to scan the data and you get a very quick "approve" (often a minute or less), so those are both "approve". the next status is "delayed", which means they need to look at something closer. This goes to all those database issues I described elsewhere.
If it goes to "delayed" the ATF has 3 business days to investigate otherwise the gun can go out the door (with some exceptions they can set about release dates, but in general). What's happening is the delays are piling up so bad they are going to start missing the 3 day windows due just to the queue to process which obviously is a bad thing for all of us. By pushing these "quick looks" to the delayed pile they can focus 100% on the delays that are coming up on the 3 day deadline.
It's crazy busy for them. The funny part is the ban is looking less likely than last week or 2 weeks ago, but everyone is going to be safe and get their guns now.
it's not just gun owners buying more either. We added a 2nd conceal carry date and we're probably going to have a 3rd and many if not most of them will be first time handgun owners. It's also a rush of people buying their first gun before they are banned. Not a lot of support for a ban on those guns if non gun owners think they have a need, now is there?
In blue states the reaction may be different, but here in red state land we're adding new first time gun owners by the truck load with the threat of the ban. Probably not what Feinstein intended. lol.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks