An M16 Explosion - and the Bullpup Design
Flashlights for Night Shooting
Ruby Ridge Hits the Tiny Screen
I recently got word from one of my "spies" that a shooter at a range had an M16 rifle explode. This wasn't your average malfunction caused by a barrel obstruction (usually easy to see due to a ruptured barrel or a ring or bulge in the bore). Nor was a simple premature ignition (which generally blows the magazine out of its well and sends brass fragments out of the port). Instead, this catastrophe blasted the upper receiver apart, sending shards across the range and making small cuts in the shooter's face and hands. Fortunately he had glasses on; no damage was done to his eyes. Additionally the bolt locking lugs were nearly sheared and the carrier lodged in the recoil buffer tube; the handguard was also blown part way across the range during the explosive disassembly of the firearm.
It's hard to say what caused this problem. However he was reportedly shooting rounds reloaded by unknown parties - always a practice fraught with potential disaster. Most likely someone had loaded the rounds not just a little hot but explosively hot, with the result that a good rifle was trashed and a shooter injured.
Excessive headspace from a round that was too short probably wouldn't create this much of a failure, though perhaps if he'd fired a whole string of them and the problem developed over several shots, there might be a failure of the bolt - though I don't place my money on this bet.
Since the possibility of bolt, carrier, and upper receiver failing at the same time with a standard round is WAYYYYYYY too much for a coincidence ruling, I'd vote for a massive overcharge of powder - probably two scoops instead of one with the old measuring dipper.
This is one reason that powder charges that nearly fill the cartridge are better than those that only come up to half or less of the capacity. It's just too easy for a double load of powder to be dropped and then not discovered with the latter. The old trick of checking the powder depth with a tooth pick or weighing each round might discover the problem -- but the people most likely to make this mistake aren't that careful or painstaking in the first place.
This potential for rounds that will trash your firearm is another good reason to be careful when reloading, a very good reason not to use old or reloaded-by-a-second-party ammo, and also a real object lesson in why shooters should always wear protective goggles when on the range.
It's interesting to note that this potential for a "blow up" in a rifle is one reason that many knowledgeable shooters are leery of the bullpup design that places the receiver of the firearm under the shooter's cheek. While failure of a rifle is rare, it does happen once in a while - as demonstrated in our story above. And just imagine if our guy had been firing, say, an AUG when he had the bolt failure/blow up of the receiver instead of his M16. The AUG has only a little strip of plastic over the "alternate" ejection port (for left-handed shooters). That bit of plastic would probably be somewhere toward the back of the shooter's brain if he'd had this accident with an AUG instead of an M16.
British L85A1 Rifle
I've heard rumors of a similar event happening to a British soldier with an L85A1; according to this tale, he was killed by a massive blowup like the one outlined above. I've never been able to track this "story" down and suspect that it never took place. But when stories like this start to circulate, soldiers quickly lose confidence with their weapon and then start to distrust it.
The bullpup design is neat on paper, but just imagine how troops take it when word gets around of the once in a million accident that blew Private Smoe blew his face off a couple years back. Suddenly everyone in the field is firing from the hit like Rambo and not hitting anything. Not the way you want your troops to behave if they're going to hit their targets.
A major malfunction with a standard rifle like the M16 may trash the gun but generally doesn't do lasting harm to the shooter. A major malfunction with a bullpup rifle causes a serious injury to the shooter.
As a side note, it is my understanding that, during the Vietnam War, some US special forces created AK47 rounds with charges of explosive replacing the powder. These were then sneaked into Communist supplies. How successful such psychological warfare tactics were is dubious. But it certainly would undermine the weapon in the eyes of those present when such a round was fired in a rifle.
Back to the Table of Contents
A good friend recently alerted me to an interested picture on the Web. This is worth seeing: A used target with a jagged pattern - and a special message to any burglars that may be around. This is apparently available as a window decal; it would seem guaranteed to make the bad guys take a second thought about breaking in.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to "crack" the home page that belongs to this picture. Anyone who knows of where it is should let me know so I can give credit where it's due. In the meantime, you can check out the picture at: http://www.naplesnet.com/donjohnson/target.gif
Back to the Table of Contents
Many SWAT and hostage rescue teams now mount bright flashlights on their firearms. At first glance, this may seem to many like the worst idea imaginable. Such a light ruins the user's night vision and also makes a dandy target.
And in many situations, NVG (night vision goggles) are certainly a better alternative to a flashlight (outside at least -- indoors NVG may not have enough light to work with unless you turn on the LEDs -- in which case you're a target if your opponent has NVG).
But most home owners, police officers, etc., don't have a budget that permits NVG purchases. In such cases, a flashlight may be an important tool to consider. Because while the flashlight has its drawbacks, it is cheap and does turn the night into day - at least at the target area where it counts.
There are also situations where a flashlight is an advantage. Provided the flashlight has a momentary switch (so it will go off quickly if you want it to or if you drop it), and provided it has a very bright light, it can raise the intimidation factor considerably and even momentarily blind an opponent.
Most important, however, is its ability to identify a friend or foe - something that can be important if there are several friendlies and foes (foelies?) in the same area.
To preserve night vision, it's wise to get into the habit of closing one eye when turning on the light. Also, it's wise to turn the light on and off rapidly, side-stepping very quickly when it goes off. This gives an opponent the illusion (via ghost image) that you're somewhere that you aren't.
For several years now I've suggested to my readers that a flashlight is a good idea for civilian use. Homeowners have a nasty habit of acing a spouse or child in the dark when they are mistaken for a burglar. A flashlight cures that tendency for lack of proper computer identification.
Too, the chances of discovering that the burglar in your home is really just a 12-year-old twirp from next door is great. It's good to have the option of seeing who is hiding there in the dark corner. You don't want to hesitate, wondering who might really be in your glow-in-the-dark sites; that can lead to your getting shot by a bad guy who takes advantage of your slowness.
Nor do you want to fire too soon and discover you've aced someone that you might have been able to simply say "drop on the floor and be quiet" and have seen him comply. And I can guarantee you want to avoid the pain and paperwork of killing somebody in your home if it isn't absolutely necessary.
Of course, there's even that possibility that the commotion in the dark might be caused by part of a SWAT team that's hit your house by mistake. Maybe you'll be justified in shooting, confused and unsure who was there.
But again, why go through all that if it isn't necessary? A flashlight enables the user to know who he's facing and ID them positively.
While the idea of gunning down a crazed killer in the front room is a worry, and probably what spurs most people into buying a firearm for self defense, there's also the need to be able to react to a wide range of dangers, not just the very worst one. Being capable of confronting someone with a bright, dazzling light with a gun right on target and with shoot/not-shoot reactions ready to go without being encumbered with any hesitation is my idea of what's needed if you are to be prepared to defend yourself.
Now I don't want to give the impression that I think that a flashlight is the end all, be all, and great-necessity of night combat. If I had to choose between a gun with night sights and a gun without them with a flashlight, I'd go with the night sights.
But I've also found myself go QUICKLY into a very dark area to search for a bad guy (fortunately he wasn't there). If I hadn't had a flashlight, I would have been in bad shape because there wasn't time for my eyes to adjust nor time to wait around. It was go in, hit the darkest places momentarily with a flashlight, then scoot to another location when the light went out, gun at the ready at all times.
Waiting would have been better - had it been an option. Night vision equipment would have been great if I could have afforded it and had had it with me. But those weren't options in that case. That flashlight made me a lot safer and my job a lot easier.
I've thought about that time a lot and just don't see what the alternative is for this type of situation since there was that off chance that I might be dealing with anything from a 5-year-old kid to a stray dog that was making "burglar noises" in a place where it didn't belong. In such a case, a flashlight is a very useful tool to have.
Back to the Table of Contents
Back by popular demand... Well, okay. Back because I though maybe gun lovers and closet survivalists would enjoy it. It's an old article from Guns & Action, one of the spin-off magazines that Soldier of Fortune had going.
This article, "The Right Stuff" has some ideas that might keep you from getting killed should you have to defend yourself with a firearm. That might make it worth your while to read it. You can find it at The Right Stuff.
Looking for some excellent advice on using combat pistols, rifles, and the like? If you are, you should check out Frontsite Newsletter.
Lots of states now have concealed carry laws. If you're looking for a quality fanny-pack (which is a good way to "conceal" a full-size handgun), then you should check out Fanny-Pack Gun Concealment Holster Bags.
Back to the Table of Contents
As noted last week, it looks like one madman is going to once again spur the politicians into action - disarming the innocent so the guilty can have an easier job of it. (We may agonize over a few cents of a tax cut forever - but those gun laws whip right through the house in any democracy, it seems.)
This has certainly happened in Australia.
Australian authorities, we are being told by the mainstream press, are being "driven by a wave of anti-gun feeling after the Port Arthur massacre" to work for new gun laws that - guess what - will limit the ownership of the military style weapons that are rarely used for crime or murder. But any time such a gun is used, you can bet all the crooks, politicians (perhaps a subgroup of the previous), and the misguided will all forge a pact to ban some or another gun.
When one backs up and looks at who the victims of this latest madman were, it becomes apparent how flawed the gun-ban strategy is. Because the gunman didn't pick on those who might be armed; rather he sought out tourists, the one group that sure to be unarmed.
If a madman tends to kill those he knows aren't armed, logic would dictate arming the unarmed or passing concealed carry legislation so a madman would have a tough time knowing who is and who is not armed. But that makes too much sense. Politicians aren't about to do the logical thing.
Instead the Australian legislators are now intent on banning automatic and semi-automatic rifles along with (inexplicably) pump-action shotguns, the latter weapons having apparently been added as a good way to outlaw a few extra guns while the public is being hoodwinked by the mainstream press.
There's another dark reason for such bans.
If the public can't defend itself from criminals, then it is more willing to become dependent on the police and military. The public becomes more like children for mommy government to rule as she sees fit. And the public becomes willing to put up with bans, curfews, censorship and all the other garbage that becomes necessary to deal with the run-away crime that results when criminals know their potential victims are unarmed.
You can bet that if the new bans on weapons go into effect in Tasmania, the crime rate will go up. But of course the mainstream press will fail to report this. By then there will be some other disaster to be covered; most likely one that can only be solved with more laws and bans.
Anyone see a pattern here?
Back to the Table of Contents
In just a few days, we'll all get to find out the truth about Ruby Ridge - as told by CBS. Yes, those bloodsuckers in TV land have a movie of the week about this tragic abuse of power by our government.
One can hope this will do a better job then the "in the line of duty" series we got treated to with poor David Koresh and the Branch Davidians. That movie was finished before the smoking rubble had cooled at Waco. Of course it gave an even-handed view of things since David Koresh had been under siege with his phone lines cut while it the "show both sides of the story" movie was being made. Yes, Hollywood is always fair and never anything but critical of the powers that be.
Right.
At one time Weaver, as well as the survivors and families of the Branch Davidians, might have sued film makers for defamation of character. But those times are past.
The reason for this is that the courts have gone out of their way to preserve the 1st Amendment (perhaps to balance their efforts to destroy the 2nd Amendment). The current legal thinking is that anyone that is in the public light becomes "common property" when it comes to art, photos of them, etc. This makes it possible for the media to say whatever they want without much need to support what they say with actual facts. If they like you, you become the god of the month (remember the BATF agents in the Waco movie?).
If the press or movie makers hate you, then you become a monster (ibid., David Koresh).
My bet is that in the upcoming movie Randy Weaver will be a hate monger, gun running, SOB that got his family gunned down. Weaver may not have been perfect, and certainly holds views I could never buy into. But surely the guy needs a break, especially after having his wife and son killed in actions that our own Congressmen have declared were violations of his civil rights.
Of course the same rules that permit the press and Hollywood to crucify the innocent also mean that little guys can lampoon the big guys on the Internet and elsewhere (have you seen the latest Phil Hunter's renderings of Reno, Dole, and the "Li'l Prez" at http://www.prairienet.org/guns/philhunter/?). As the Internet grows, you can bet more and more of the mainstream press is going to wish the laws weren't quite so liberal.
Which is exactly why we're seeing the press bring us all those stories about how grandma is going to run away with some pervert she met through e-mail or how children are having their brains turned to putty by the Web. And that's why the mainstream press is so quick to support Congress whenever it makes noises about cutting down on all that "pornography" on the Net.
The folks that have brought us the worst muck from Hollywood (remember those high-brow offerings of Showgirls and the Last Temptation of Christ?) and who bring us the most biased reporting and outright lies in the mainstream press, all suddenly become very moral and want censorship when it comes to the Internet. We are admonished that such filth has no place in American society. We're told that only "reliable news sources" are to be trusted. "Oh, me, oh, my," you can almost here them say while ringing their hands for the plight we face.
Such behavior is inspired by the growing popularity of the Internet as a source of news through a growing underground group of new reporters. People are going to the Web and newsgroups to learn what the mainstream and politicians aren't telling us. The short of it is that where once we would have swallowed CBS's Ruby Ridge baloney, now we go to a Web site that has the other side of the story, told by friends of Weaver.
In the past the government quietly shot or burned groups like the MOVE in Philadelphia, or the "current tax protester" with no one offering protest in the press or Hollywood. The press painted the culprits in bad light and the mayor, agent in charge, or whoever told us via the evening news that the troublemakers pretty much got what they deserved. Later we might have a movie about the whole thing; the politician or law enforcement officer in charge of the mess was the hero, of course, and the victim - oops, I mean criminal - was painted as the worst sinner since Cain.
Today that's changing. And the change is tied to the Internet, underground and small publishers, and the shortwave radio - all those sources of information that the big corporations and governments don't have full control over.
This is why, when it means cutting the little guys on the Internet who are becoming competitors with the CBS news and the movie of the week, the networks, Hollywood, and corrupt politicians are abruptly in favor of censorship instead of all that free speech stuff.
"For the good of the people," of course.
Back to the Table of Contents
Well, you've probably heard about the BATF team that kicked in the wrong door last week.
That's not what this story is about.
While it's troubling that SWAT-style government teams seem to be so quick to stomp into homes, rifling belongings, and then leave the disaster with nary a "sorry" for cold comfort, there's something that's even worse going on behind the scenes. And the mainstream press is all but ignoring it because it is designed to help disarm the general public.
The only coverage this got (to my knowledge) was a small story in the May 10th, 1996 issue of the Boston Globe. The story US to Help State on Gun-files Snarl: 11-Year Backlog Hinders Police Work, by David Arnold and Frank Phillips. This reveals that the BATF is helping Massachusetts computerize records of more than 800,000 gun purchases in that state.
Of course the first big problem here is that your and my tax dollars shouldn't be helping the state of Massachusetts break the constitutional rights of US citizens to own firearms. That aside, our tax dollars shouldn't go to any state for any such boondoggle, unconstitutional or not.
More importantly, BATF has been forbidden by federal law to create computerized lists of firearms owned by the general public. This hasn't stopped the agency from compiling such lists - something it's currently doing with the forms turned in by Firearms Dealers who've been driven out of business by the new higher licensing fees created by Lloyd Benson shortly before he resigned as Secretary of the Treasury.
Of course the press story didn't concern itself with this finer point of a large federal agency breaking the law of the land. Instead it concentrated on the fact that this action was greatly needed because the police had "no quick way to track individuals who might be stockpiling weapons."
What? Is stockpiling weapons (whatever that means) a crime in the US? Is that a good justification for spending tax dollars on a program that breaks federal laws?
Apparently so, as far as the Boston Globe is concerned.
How will the computerized records be used?
Well, already they're being used to "alert" the police to the fact that a homeowner may have a gun. Apparently this will then be used to justify extra caution. What form this will be is a bit vague. SWAT team dynamic entry, perhaps? Who knows? Anything seems possible these days when it comes to harassing gun owners, especially in a state like Massachusetts.
It is interesting to note the blinding speed that BATF is capable of when it comes to transforming paper forms into computer records. Public Safety Commissioner Winthrop Farwell is in charge of the Massachusetts gun records. According to his office, BATF workers using equipment were able to scan and enter handwritten information into computers. These were then processed via computer at the rate of 2,000 records every eight minutes. Obviously it wouldn't take long to set up a system to register every legally owned firearm in the US, should the powers that be decide to do so and the people go along with it.
A government agency collecting illegal computer files on US citizens should be big news. It would be if the mainstream press weren't out to ban guns.
Here's the blurb for the lastest "investigative report" slated to appear on the "independent" Discovery Channel (Cable TV). See how "objective" it sounds to you:
>>
The episode looks at the question of whether state and federal laws exist to reflect the will of the people, or to protect the citizens from their own government. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is the most maligned law
enforcement agency in the United States. Allocated a hopelessly inadequate budget and hamstrung by laws which forbid it from using computers or even keeping records of gun sales or ownership, ATF is the whipping boy of a powerful industry and its political supporters.
This film follows the agents through gun shows, inspections, raids, and backstreet salesrooms. It shows them fighting a losing war against gun makers.
While the BATF is busy breaking the law and making computer records, our mainstream reporters are not only not covering the story, they're telling us that the exact opposite is going on. Discovery is telling us how the poor BATF has a "hopelessly inadequate budget and [is] hamstrung by laws which forbid it from using computers or even keeping records of gun sales or ownership."
Shame on Discovery and the rest of the mainstream press for either continuing to lie to us or for the world's worst reporting -- you can take your pick. (To paraphrase an old Russian saying, "They pretend to tell us the truth and we pretend to believe them.")
Meanwhile, buried in the article that appeared in the Boston Globe was the fact that the BATF "also has about 14 million federal records it is ready to process".
It does?
What are these records? Certainly there aren't this many Federal Firearms License holders.
Are these from the forms being turned in by retiring businesses? If so, then it's very possible that some of the firearms you or your neighbor own are already in the BATF computer system - something to think about when you hear about the latest BATF dynamic entry raid of the wrong house.
Back to the Table of Contents
