Probably one of the most common myths you'll run into in the gun culture is that a large shooter can withstand more recoil than a smaller gunner. By the same token, many a human with bear-like proportions is surprised when their 80-pound spouse or child is less recoil sensitive then they are.
How can this be? Shouldn't greater body mass translate into greater recoil dampening?
Yes and no. The catch is that not all the body moves rearward at the same time during the recoil of a firearm - which is fortunate as the wrist or arm might likely break during the stresses of shooting magnum cartridges or shotgun shells. Instead the body moves rearward in a "wave" with the hand/wrist/arm jerking backward and then shoving against the shoulder and so forth until the "tail bone connected to the hip bone" finally brings the whole being into motion (provided there's that much energy - generally there isn't).
Now each step of this rearward shoving and pulling can only take place if the mass of the next part is overcome. And therein lies the problem with a massive individual. Newton's "a body at rest tends to stay at rest" takes over. So his hand/arm/and shoulder are traveling rearward while the rest of him is anchored in place. Result? All the energy is deposited in his shoulder area and the recoil seems excessive to him.
A smaller shooter, by way of contrast, has less inertia to overcome and the energy translates farther into his/her body accordingly, causing the recoil to seem milder because it is spread over a greater body area (much as spreading out the recoil of a semiautomatic pistol makes it seem milder in recoil when compared to the same cartridge fired in a revolver).
This effect becomes most noticeable with shotguns and magnum rifles. It's less of a problem with handguns - though the .44 Magnum starts to show the effects with most large shooters.
During WWII the US Army bought into this theory and went so far as to issue light machine guns (like the Browning Automatic Rifle) to the short guys in a squad. At least that was the ideal practice that was to be carried out at the start of the action. As the war ground on, such niceties were quickly discarded and firearms philosophy became the "one size fits all" found in most militaries.
If you're tired of reading my rants about the mainstream press, just skip to the next section of this issue of Guns 'N Stuff. But I think these things need to be said because there are still people out there that think Dan Rathers & Company serve up the honest truth on a nightly basis.
The latest barrage appears to have been launched on the off chance that the Freeman/FBI standoff might end in bloodshed. Instead level heads prevailed on both sides and the Freeman surrendered. This is a fortunate thing because I really don't think everyone out in the sticks would have sat tight had another Waco-style fiasco occurred.
That said, one of the worst abusers on the airwaves over the last few weeks was The (so-called) Learning Channel. On June 2, 1996, they rebroadcast yet again their "Survivalists and the Militias" which is a mental rip-off regardless of your viewpoint about the militia and survivalist movements. Although it is never mentioned, almost all of the footage in this "documentary" comes from the mid-1980s with a few new shots spliced in and a new voice over to "bring it up to date".
This spiced-together Frankenstein piece of journalism thus gives the impression that the armed and dangerous folks on the screen, like the infamous CSA (Covenant, Sword and Arm of the Lord) are still hiding out in Arkansas ready to go off the deep end. In fact the group was axed by the Federal government in what (with hindsight) looked sort of like a warm up for the Weaver and Waco disasters.
In this new reincarnation of the CSA footage, the viewer is told this is a survivalist militia group; in fact there's no such animal. Survivalists rarely got into groups beyond family size except in cult-like assemblies like the CSA or the Branch Davidians. They certainly weren't anything akin to the militia movement and it is a gross travesty of reality to present such an idea.
Shame on TLC for presenting us with footage over a decade old and then pawning it off as something new. To have it used as a way to beat up on gun owners, the militia movement, and "dead horse" survivalists is nothing short of criminal.
I'll repeat it: "The mainstream press pretends to tell us the truth, and we pretend to believe it."
But more and more of us are saying, "Enough!" and turning to alternate news sources. These news sources may be just as biased as the mainstream press in some ways, but they don't pretend that they have all the truth and they do occasionally point out the worst faults of both the government as well as its citizens.
The FBI is, according to legend, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yet, almost from the start, it has been more like a national police force than an ivestigation wing of our federal government. And lately it's shown signs of becoming a para-military unit.
Most troubling is the FBI's HRT (Hostage Rescue Team). To be honest, the more I hear about the HRT, the less I think of it as a group that I'd want to have rescuing me if I were being held hostage by anything other than a Boy Scout Troop. These guys train to come in like the proverbial gang busters: Submachine guns, stun grenades, the works. And, as of late, this arm of the FBI is even fielding APCs (armored personnel carriers) and assault helicopters, both of which are offered up as "rescue vehicles".
APCs and helicopters are not "tools" that are overly understated. Rather than a "surgical strike" or rescue, the HRT's equipment seems more like sledge hammers designed for crushing the skulls of hostage and terrorist alike. APCs, for example, aren't noted for their stealth technology. If nothing else, by the time one of those things lumbered up to rescue you, you could be drawn and quartered by the terrorists.
Now I don't want to be misunderstood. I know there are times when very decisive action and a massive response may be needed. There are times when a sledge hammer approach is needed when dealing with criminals or terrorists. But such a response is not a "one size fits all" that works with situations like those that developed in Waco or at Ruby Ridge.
In these two situations, the HRT was deployed under conditions where there weren't any hostages -- with terrible results. How, for example, could they have considered the children at the Weaver ranch as hostages? Or those children at the Branch Davidian homestead? To rescue hostages, you need to first have them. To use hostage rescue tactics designed for dealing with terrorists on American families with one or two members wanted for breaking the law is poor tactics - as demonstrated at Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Now the FBI may be cleaning up its act and perhaps in the future will talk more and shoot less, not deploying the HRT at the drop of a combat helmet. Certainly the FBI's showing with the Freeman stand off looked like a suitable response.
(For a time things didn't look too promising when the government started trotting out the attack helicopters, APCs, and snipers - to "rescue" those 3 children inside a farm with the Freeman "suspectes" surrounded and outnumbered by at least ten to one.)
The FBI held its fire as did those they were so intent on "rescuing" so they could be carted off to prison. Outside negotiators were allowed in, finally getting things to move to the point that the Freeman could be convenced to surrender. This operation was a hopeful sign - though I'm not so sure whether the lack of violence was so much because the FBI has learned lessons from Waco and Ruby Ridge or whether the agency has simply learned not to grand stand in front of the TV cameras. At least this operation didn't end in bloodshed; that's a hopeful sign.
Some day I hope the FBI lives up to the Investigation part of its name a bit better, leaving more of the SWAT-team stuff to TV fictional characters; I hope the FBI reserves it HRT for dealing with real terrorists and actual hostage situations. I may be way off base, but it seems to me that the FBI should concentrate on the Investigation of crimes and spend less time trying to mount assault-style "rescue" work, leaving such operations to local law enforcement SWAT teams and officials who generally do a better job of it because they know those they're dealing with and are known by those being "rescued" or arrested.
I often hear the "they must know what they're doing because they're in charge" argument presented as the reason the FBI should be given authority to oversee a variety of cases. My counter to this has always been that just because someone has power and authority doesn't necessarily make them right. Look at the Nixon or Clinton administrations or the captain of the Titanic. I've seen no signs that the FBI is less apt to falsify evidence, make mistakes in the lab, or shoot the wrong people than do local policemen. And unlike the FBI, the local law enforcement personnel are answerable to local people. That means that while an HRT sniper might shoot Mrs. Weaver and never expect to stand trial for his actions, a local policemen shooting a suspect knows he will face an impartial hearing at the least and most likely end up in court if there's even a hint of wrong-doing on his part.
So if I'm sitting out in Mayberry, USA, don't send in the HRT in to rescue me from terrorists. I'll be happy with the local law enforcement officers, even if they're being led by Barny himself.
With concealed carry laws going into place in many of our more progressive states, there has been a boom in hide-out handgun sales in the US. Small guns are in. And mugging is becoming dangerous for the criminals.
Of course with the average Joe finally getting a chance to protect himself from thugs for the first time since the early 1800s, we should expect the government bureaucrats to jump right in and make it as difficult as possible for the good guys, right?
That's happened with the latest BATF edict.
The bureaucrats at BATF are now classifying a small handgun hidden in a holster that at first glance appears to be a wallet as an "Any Other Weapon". In the past, such a classification was reserved for guns made to appear to be ink pens, cigarette lighters, or belt buckles. They were designed to look like something other than a firearm, making them easy to smuggle into places like prisons or presidential meetings where such a small weapon could do great harm. But now all that's changed.
Now a standard firearm, without any modifications being made to it, is being designated as an Any Other Weapon when it is simply placed inside a container of some sort. According to BATF, this transforms it from what it is into another entire classification of weapon.
Taken to the next logical step, one might argue that a gun placed inside a briefcase, purse, or fanny pack also becomes an illegal Any Other Weapon. Especially if the gun might be fired while still in the container. Ditto for guns hidden in desk drawers or behind a store counter.
Or how about a concealment holster riding under a belt or jacket? After all, the gun being hidden from view no longer appears to be a firearm, right? So what if the whole idea of concealment is to conceal the fact that you have a firearm? This line of thinking might be construed to mean that you make an illegal modification to a firearm when you do something to conceal it.
It would be nice if the government started trying to help the average citizen instead of making life easier for criminals. But perhaps that's asking too much of a bureaucracy intent on manufacturing new "violations" to justify its existence.
In the meantime, if you have a wallet-style hideout holster that a derringer, revolver, or other pistol fits into so that it appears to be a wallet in your pocket instead of a gun, you'd better discontinue using it. Otherwise you may discover that you and Randy Weaver have a lot in common..
A Reader Writes: My question concerns the many AK rifles on the market. I cannot get a straight answer on what the difference between a NHM-90, NHM91, MAK-90 and a regular AK-47 are. Can you shed some light on this?
For the "real scoop" on the AK47, you need to buy my AK47 book from Delta Press
That "plug" out of the way, the major differences between the AK-47 and its American spin-offs are in the lack of selective-fire parts and lack of machining to keep folks from easily converting the guns to selective fire by simply putting in the auto parts.
Externally, the "post-ban" guns brought into the US are "modified" with thumbhole stocks, lack of flash hiders, etc., to meet the "assault weapon ban" regulations that "transform" these guns from the "evil guns used only by drug dealers" into fine sporting weapons.
There are several broad styles of AKs. Some have machined receivers, others are sheet-metal stampings. Trigger groups in either category can be milled or stamped metal as well. Both work equally well so I'd be more concerned with price rather than construction method if I were shopping for a new AK.
The commercial AK47 spin-offs in the US seem to work consistently well with the 7.62x39 ammunition. However I have run into an awfully lot of reports of AKs chambered for the .223 chamberings being unreliable. Therefore I generally recommend against buying a .223 AK unless you can test it with several boxes of ammo and then return it if it doesn't function reliably.
When the AR-15/M16 was having reliability problems in Vietnam, Colt Firearms experimented with a gas piston that would replace the gas tube in the rifle. They went so far as to build a prototype of this gun, but then the US military wised up and got new powder for its ammunition, issued cleaning kits to troops, and chromed key parts of the M16 rifle -- thereby doing away with reliability problems.
With memories of troubles with the AR-15/M16 rifle still in the minds of many vets coming back from Vietnam, and with civilian sales of the Colt AR-15 climbing, some businesses thought there might be a market for a more reliable gas system for the rifle. So soon the Rhino Gas System for the AR-15/M16 rifles was being sold in limited numbers. This system did away with the gas tube, replacing it with a gas plunger similar to that of the AR-18/180. The system worked, though it had a tendency to shear off the heads of the two bolts holding the bolt carrier key in place if they became loose.
Unfortunately for those marketing the Rhino system, the problems with the AR-15/M16 gas tube were already cleared up by use of ammunition with fast-burning IMR powder. Soon everyone realized there was little need for a new gas system. Rhino soon closed its business doors due to lack of interest.
Recently an even more promising replacment gas system has been created for the AR-15/M16 rifle. Introduced by Michael C. Morris, it holds much more promise than did the earlier Colt and Rhino assemblies.
The Morris system still uses the gas tube of the rifle, but shortens it and couples it to an extended bolt carrier gas key (36 in the diagram below). The plus of this is that the gas key can't get out of alignment with the gas tube (34) -- which can happen on occasion with the standard system. With the Morris system, the gas key always surrounds the gas tube, even when the bolt carrier is in its rear-most position. The added mass of the extended gas key will make the gun a tad more apt to chamber a cartridge as well. More importantly, the system is claimed to be a bit more resistant to fouling.
Other added pluses are that the Morris system can be easily retrofitted to existing AR-15s and M16s with a minimum of machining. And once in place, barrels can be exchanged with the upper receiver in the field. This would make it possible for a shooter to quickly change from a 20-inch barrel to, say, a 16-inch barrel. This would be a real boon to those of us who like to have several different options; currently to do this you have to buy an entire upper receiver to mount the barrel assembly on. The Morris system would make such an option about a hundred bucks cheaper for each barrel to be exchanged.
For those wanting details, the Abstract for Morris's patent number 4,765,224, granted August 23, 1988, reads like this: An M16-type automatic rifle is provided with an improved gas operating system. The tube extending forwardly from the bolt carrier key is of such length that it permanently mates with the aftwardly extending gas transfer tube as the bolt carrier key shuttles forward and aftward in operation. This arrangement minimizes fouling by combustion products from the firing of ammunition. Modifications to the gas transfer tube and barrel nut assembly accommodate the extended bolt carrier key tube and facilitate quick change of the barrel in the field with a standard tool.
Although Morris submitted his patent idea in 1986, it's only now starting to "take off" - which is pretty much the normal time lag with new patents and inventions. It will be interesting to see if this new idea catches on. Certainly for those wanting to add a few barrel options to an existing AR-15, it has a lot of promise. I wouldn't be too surprised if it catches on with the civilian market for this reason, should it fail to capture the military market.
With the AR-15/M16 looking like it will continue to be the most viable military style rifle system well into the next century, it will be interesting to see if the Morris gas system gets added to the list of the many modifications and refinements that have been made to Stoner's "black rifle" since its introduction.
You can read about this patent at the US Patent List. Manufacturers interested in securing manufacturing or other rights to this modification of the AR-15/M16 rifle should contact Morris's patent attorney.
Springfield Armory has been importing semiauto versions of the German G3 rifle into the US for some time. When the so-called assault weapon ban went into effect, the Springfield Armory import, the SAR-8, underwent a transformation to a "sporter" with pistol grip stock and a missing flash hider.
Now Springfield Armory has created a second modification of its rifle with the introduction of the SAR-8 "HBCS" (Heavy Barrel Counter Sniper).
Still chambered for the .308 Winchester (7.62 NATO), the SAR-8 HBCS uses the recoil-operated, delayed roller-lock system found in the Heckler & Koch family of rifles and submachine guns in this rifle's lineage.
Departing from the standard rifle, this new model has a permanent optical scope base attached to its top; this accommodates all Weaver-style scope rings and mounting systems. Iron sights are missing from this model since it is designed solely for target or counter sniping use. With this in mind, the trigger pull is in the 4-5 pound range.
Overall length is 46.25 inches; barrel length is 23 inches. The barrel itself is free-floated inside the handguard to prevent barrel flexing when a bipod or hasty sling are in use. As with most target rifles, this gun is on the heavy side; it weighs 14.5 pounds, empty.
You can find out more about this new gun as well as a variety of other firearms at Springfield Armory's Web site.
Into US Army training manuals? In fact many firearms enthusiasts discover a lot of useful information about military style firearms like the AR-15 (M16) and Beretta 92 in Army manuals. You can find these online at the Army Training Digital Library. (This site appears to be under construction - which it once in a while for new manuals if you can't find what you want the first few times.)
"Water, water everywhere, nor any a drop to drink," may be what you're thinking during a major emergency. Contaminated water can be more dangerous than no water at all. If you're in an area of the world with earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, or other potential disasters that may make water in short supply for a while, then you can find some information that might save your life in my article, "Emergency Drinking Water".
Of course one has to be careful not to let your neighbors know you're preparing for an emergency. After all, the mainstream media has hammered the survivalist movement - and those who prepare to take care of themselves instead of expecting Mommy Government to come in and help them.
At one time a few hundred years back in the US and Europe, self-sufficiency was a goal for most, with those so prepared looked up to as the "Ant" counterpart in the grasshopper and the ant fable. Now, those who prepare have been branded as those dreaded "survivalists". Thus we find ourselves quick to apologize and explain away the fact that we have large amounts of armament and think it prudent to store food and water.
I've never met a person who stored food, water, or armament for emergency use who wasn't quick to explain to me that, "Yes, we have a year's supply of food, our own emergency power, and enough guns to arm a small army -- but we're not Survivalists."
After all, the only Survivalists are in books and on TV. Everyone else is just prudent -- and secretly so if possible.
Another new site worth visiting: the Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO).