Treaties, Executive Orders, and the NRA

So... It seems that a lot of folks understand that the electoral math of the question makes any significant federal gun control in the near future unlikely.

Unfortunately, many still hold the idea that somehow, the Obama administration doesn't need congress to implement gun control; that they could do so by executive order (or that the ATF would do so without congressional action, at Obamas direction), or by signing the UN arms treaty; and that they would of course, do so at their earliest opportunity.

... I guess because Obama is the living earthly incarnation of satan or something?

Comics from the new and so-far very good web comic Failure to Fire. 

Finally, these same folks mostly seem to believe that the NRA is useless, or worse, actively conspiring with the evil one to take away our guns etc... etc...

All three of these ideas are entirely incorrect, as I have written here and on other blogs many times before (as this is a commonly held mistaken idea that has come up often).

Oh and an aside: anyone who is getting their information or opinions (on any subject whatsoever) from reading things like Alex Jones, Joseph Farrah, World Net Daily, or anything that Larry Pratt or the GOA put out... you should really just stop. They’re about 90% full of it, and the 10% that isn’t, is overblown.

Before we get get into the legalities of the first two ideas, let's talk about the politics for a second...

For those that do, please tell me... Why do you believe so strongly that, against all evidence, gun control is the hill the democratic party wants to die on?

Because, make no mistake, that's what it would be; even if the gun control was Obama and his administration alone, without the action of congress.

If Obama really cared that much about gun control, he would have done it already.

If you think that "He was just waiting for his second term. Now that he doesn't have to be re-elected, you'll see, he'll do all the things we've been saying he was going to since 2008"...

...You're an idiot.

Oh it's absolutely true that Obama will be more liberal/progressive/socialist etc... this term; and will get more aggressive about what he wants etc... (or perhaps more to the point, his far more radical appointees, who he can sacrifice if necessary, will do so).

It's this ridiculous argument that somehow Obama is special, specially evil etc... and that by virtue of this he has some magical ability to completely ignore the realities of law, the constitution, government, politics... physics... that makes these folks idiots.

Perhaps there are some rational arguments to be made that perhaps Obama want's gun control bad enough to commit politicial suicide, or to have his party do so; but I haven't seen them being made. Just this idiotic "because he's Obama, that's why" crap.

Yes, Obama want's more gun control (though not to the extent that some seem to think), but in order to do so, he needs to deal with CONGRESS.

Obama wants a lot more things, a lot more than he wants gun control; and he isn't going to waste any political capitol whatsoever on a subject he doesn't really care about that much.

Why do you think he put Joe Biden in charge of the "special comission"?

If he was serious, he'd be leading the charge himself. He'd be on television twice a day with specific ideas, and demonizing opponents etc...

If it works out, hey, great, he can claim credit. If it fails (and it will), he doesn't get any of the blame.

What Obama really wants is to raise taxes, cut the military, increase social spending etc... He's not stupid, he knows that he's going to need congress to do it.

What Obama absolutely does NOT want, is to see Obamacare repealed (for which he's going to need to have at least the senate stay under democratic control); and that trying to shove gun control down our throats would just about guarantee all the vulnerable Democratic senators would lose their seats.

There are maybe a dozen truly committed, truly anti-gun senators, and maybe two dozen in the house... plus another dozen completely safe seats in the senate and maybe 50 or 60 in the house. No-one else is going to put their seat on the line over an issue that they either don't care about all that much, or that they don't see any major advantage in supporting.

Now, on to the legal question

Neither treaties nor executive orders can violate the constitution (including the court decisions interpreting the constitution).

First, treaties:

Some seem to believe that a double evil combination will occur, where Obama signs a treaty that will unconstitutionally ban small arms; and by doing so while congress is in recess, he can immediately implement the provisions of the treaty to do so.

If you believe this, let me say to you, right now, without any hesitation...

YOU'RE A MORON

Or, at the very least, you have no business having an opinion on this subject, since you have no idea how our government works, or anything about law, or the constitution.

Treaties cannot be implemented without the approval of congress. They must be ratified by the senate, and their implementation must be enabled by house legislation (approving the funding for implementing the provisions of the treaty).

If a treaty is signed, but never ratified, the executive branch cannot implement any of its provisions.

However, that's entirely irrelevant because...

Treaties don't trump the constitution, nor do they override court decisions interpreting the constitution.

Ever, under any circumstances.

Treaties can supersede state and federal law, but not the constitution.



Any provision of any treaty that would do so, is automatically null and void.

Here are the relevant supreme court decisions:

Amaya v. Standard Oil:

"the treaty-making power does not extend ‘So far as to authorize what the constitution forbids.’"

Reid v. Covert (which is controlling in this question):

“No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. 

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

And the summary of the majority opinion:

“The United States is entirely [354 U.S. 1, 6] a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. 

(Quoting Article VI, Clause 2…)
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land … ” 

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. 

Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.”

Treaties MAY NOT supersede the constitution; however, it is important to note that the constitution does not necessarily apply to actions outside our borders and not concerning our citizens (US v. Curtis Wright).

The ratification of a treaty is an act of congress, and no act of congress, or its effects, may supersede the constitution. Article II and Article VI are mostly clear, and what ambiguity there is has been clarified numerous times by the supreme court.

Treaties CAN AND DO trump previous federal laws, and both state laws and state constitutions; which was clarified in Gibbons v. Ogden.

...And on to the executive orders...

Now, there's some important language I quote above:

"The United States is entirely [354 U.S. 1, 6] a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution."

As this applies to acts of congress, it also applies to the executive branch and its agencies.

The substance and authority of the government exists solely in the constitution; therefore no agency of it may act outside of its authority.

Because great power and discretion are given to the president (and by extension the executive branch) in foreign affairs, executive orders can ignore the constitution outside the borders of the country and when acting on non-citizens; but they cannot ignore the constitution inside our borders, or when dealing with American citizens.

"It doesn't matter if its unconstitutional, Obama is evil and doesn't care, and he's going to do it anyway"

Yeah...

Rather than address this whole thing again on the politics side, I'll just refer you back to the politics section above, and say...

YOU'RE A MORON

Or at the least, without any knowledge or understanding, you're parroting misinformation spread by either morons, or by those who are deliberately manipulating you (most likely for fundraising purposes).

But since we're in the legal section, let's get back to that...

I can see that there are some arguments (other than the "but he's evil" one that is), where its plausible the Obama administration might decide to attempt some blatantly unconstitutional garbage...

But...

Why do you believe that if the Obama administration suddenly decides to do various clearly and obviously unconstitutional things, that they'll actually be allowed?

That they'll have funding to do so?

That they won't be stopped by the courts?

That there won't be a million lawsuits?

That the various officials of the executive branch will go along with it?

That the enforcement agents of the executive branch will implement and enforce these new unconstitutional measures?

Again, I'm not talking about the possibility that they may attempt minor and lesser executive action to restrict guns in some ways (more on that below); just the idea that somehow, because Obama is extra special magic evil; that he can all of a sudden magically seize or ban all our guns (or all our evil black guns etc...)

Ok... the NRA

Right now I'm rather irritated with the NRA.

Not because they are "evil, ineffective, compromising backstabbers", but because of this:

http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

This statement... Much of it is reasonable, true, good, useful helpful; unfortunately, some is very much not:

And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people. 

Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?

Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment." 

But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?

In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with oneanother to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of
every month of every year. 

A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000
acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18. 

And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate
owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not
complicit co-conspirators. 

Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.

Ahhh yes... it's all the medias fault, especially that nasty TV and those awful video games.

Not only is this not helpful, in context it is both idiotic, and actively HARMFUL.

Not intentionally so of course; but in spectacular arrogance and ignorance.

I think the Penny Arcade response to this is appropriate here:

Lord knows, this isn't the first time the NRA was harmfully wrong (their entire history on the Heller case for example)... and it won't be the last.

However, that doesn't mean that I don't generally support the NRA.

I'm a life member, and I won't be resigning my membership over this stupidity (though I will be letting them know how I feel; and unlike most gamers, I know people inside NRA management... I would suggest everyone else who does as well, also make their displeasure known).

The NRA are by far the most effective organization for protecting our rights surrounding firearms and self defense (as I have written many times before, for example: http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2010/06/political-captial-fundraising-mission.html)

The GOA has been promoting the idea for years that the NRA are the bad guy... but frankly, the only thing Larry Pratt believes in is Larry Pratt... And the only thing the GOA is effective at is spreading  unreasonable fear, and disinformation, aimed at increasing their fundraising.

Without the NRA our right to keep and bear arms would be fully abrogated by government... and would have been long ago.

Are they perfect? No. But they're the best we've got, and they do the best they can; and they are certainly NOT "part of the problem".

All that said... there's still some potential problems (of course)

I don't mean to suggest that there isn't any possible thing that the Obama administration could do on its own, or headaches, irritation, delays and difficult etc... they could cause.

For example, through executive orders and "administrative procedures", "administrative rules", "executive agency regulations" etc... the import of some firearms... possibly even all firearms, and ammunition... could be accomplished.

That is a foreign policy action, which has what could be interpreted, in principle, as having enabling legislation, depending on interpretation.

The administration couldn't ban the domestic manufacture, sale, or possession of any particular type of firearm; nor could they establish standards through the ATF or DOJ that would have the effect of doing so (there is specific legislation addressing this issue, and executive orders cannot counter that).

...BUT...

That doesn't mean they couldn't make life immensely more difficult; applying maximum scrutiny to every manufacturers, distributor, FFL etc...

Some have suggested they could simply order the NICS system shut down; but there's actually a default out for that. Even if there wasn't, this would clearly be an action intended to ban further sales of firearms, and the courts would be on that in a heartbeat (with the SAF, SAAMI, the NSSF the NRA, and every firearms manufacturer behind it).

...But they could make every transaction go through enough scrutiny to make the 3 day delay/proceed limit; backing the system up, and preventing sales entirely in some gun control states.

They could also go for some restrictions that may be allowed under existing law, and wouldn't be clearly unlawful or unconstitutional... The evil mind can think up lots of scenarios where some restriction could happen...

But again, the politics of the situation militate against it; except possibly in a minor way.


So, to appropriate the meme:

Keep Calm and Carry One... or More... Guns...

Stupidity, Politics, and Math

So...

I REALLY didn't want to write anything about the Connecticut school shooting... Frankly, it may sound callous, but we've seen this before, we've seen this worse.

It's truly awful...

...but sometimes truly awful things happen; especially when mental illness is involved.

That's not why I'm writing though... Or even exactly what I'm writing about...

What has basically forced me to write about this, is the outright stupidity that much of the pro-gun side is exhibiting at the moment.

Stupidity, paranoia, histrionics.... whatever you want to call it, it's irritating me enough that I had to write this little 3800 word rant.

The world is not ending.

The sky is not falling.

This is not the "American Dunblane".

No-one is coming to take our evil black rifles.

"...But... But.... 26 dead kids.... AHHHHH!!!!!!!.... IT'S DIFFERENT THIS TIME, I DON"T CARE ABOUT ALL THE OTHER TIMES, IT"S DIFFERENT THIS TIME... AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!"

No... It's not.

Why not?

Because, much as abortion is for the right, gun control is something the left talks about to get column inches and screen time, to win the approval (and money) of single issue voters from your own side; and of course, to feel morally superior... It's not something you actually DO.

... If you actually DID it, it would end up hurting you... Again, much like abortion....

Pro gun folks, please stop screaming about how all the fun guns are going to be banned, Obama tyranny, etc... etc...

It's not going to happen.

There will be no new gun control of any kind (except perhaps, at worst a symbolic gesture, though I doubt even that), never mind a new so called "assault weapons" ban, or a magazine capacity ban.

Not that I wouldn't strongly oppose such a thing, but:

1. I'm pretty sure such a thing would never get voted on at all.
2. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even get debated in committee.
3. I'm pretty sure if it was, it wouldn't be voted on in committee.
4. I'm pretty sure if it ever made it to the floor, it wouldn't get a floor vote.
5. I'm pretty sure that if it did, it wouldn't pass...
6. Actually, I'm pretty sure such a thing wouldn't get more than about 25% behind it... 40% at worst
7. I'm pretty sure if it did somehow pass in one house, it wouldn't get through both houses.
8. I'm pretty sure if it did, it wouldn't make it through conference or reconciliation.
9. I'm pretty sure even if it did, current jurisprudence would prevent such a thing from ever being implemented.
10. If there were any kind of "ban" passed, and it were to somehow make it through the courts, it would have to be so restricted, narrow, and limited as to  be meaningless

I repeat, there will be no meaningful or significant gun control legislation of any kind even voted on... or likely even debated in open hearings, never mind passed.

I'm sure several bills will be introduced... Carolyn McCarthy, Frank Lautenberg, and Dianne Feinstein need to get their fawning press... and in an attempt to appear "reasonable" some republicans will talk about talking about it... but they'll never be slated for conference. They'll just be symbolic gestures by congresscritters in pro gun control districts.

In fact, there will most likely be several conflicting bills introduced by several different people in each house.... Intentionally so. This allows the politicians in question to pretend THEY were trying to get the GOOD bill passed, but couldn't, so they wouldn't vote for the BAD bill... etc... etc...

Nothing but red meat for the base... Just like every other time this has happened since 1996.

"...But.... But.... How can you possibly say that? Awful media screaming.... Gaaahhh!!! SCARY BLACK MILITARY STYLE RIFLES!!!!!, Dead CHILDREN!!!! PELOSII!!! FEINSTEIN!!! OBAMA!!!! GAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!"

Simple.

Politics, and Math.

Fox news was reporting that this morning, Rasmussen released a poll conducted after the shootings:

Only 27% of the population support additional gun control. Over 60% believe that additional gun control won't stop things like this from happening. Over 70% believe that this is a mental health issue, not a gun issue.

AND THEY ARE RIGHT.

This IS a mental health issue. A major one. And a cultural issue (the part of the culture that turns guns into a magic rod of power in their heads, and denigrates and degrades the value and nobility of human life).

If you haven't already, you should read Clayton Cramers book about mental illness and how poorly we deal with in this country "My Brother Ron"... We basically have NO way of dealing with the mentally ill at this point, and it's a major problem.

... and a lot of folks know this, and understand this.... Though I don't think anyone has a really good idea what to do about it.

Occasionally, "the people" are not mindless sheep. Occaisonally they're actually surprisingly wise... Especially after decades of obvious garbage being shoved down their throats, is utterly contradicted by just a few minutes of real world experience, or the tiniest bit of basic logic and reason.

... And yes, "the people" can, on occaision, exhibit the ability to reason using facts and logic.

It's rare I admit...

So... as far as "more gun control" goes, the people don't want it, it won't work, and everyone not operating on a predetermined agenda (or through naive idealism, or blind ignorant fear) already understands that...

Because, as any advocate for the legalization of drugs will tell you, banning only stops the law abiding. It doesn't eliminate either the use, or desire, for the banned subject.

Because of course the argument makes sense when it's applied to something you support, but is utter twaddle when it's something you don't support... Of course...

...No, of course not...

Gun control is exactly as good an idea as banning drugs, or alcohol, or knives, or cars, or any other damn thing that requires an adult level of responsibility to manage properly.

Of course, that hasn't ever stopped politicians before.... like, well... for example, prohibition.

And much like prohibition, something like half the households in this country have guns in them.

When you account for the fact that very few of the households in the urban northeast, midwestern industrial cities, or coastal California, are among that number (and that's about 1/3 of Americas households)... and it actually works out to something more like 3/4 of households outside of the big anti-gun constituencies.

...and for the past 8 years, the second most popular gun in America, is what our president has been calling a "Military style Assault Weapon" (which in and of itself is a delberate fraud, but that's another issue entirely).

Since 2004, manufacturers have sold between 500,000 and 1 million AR-15 type rifles a year. While there are certainly lots of folks who have three or four of them, most folks only have the one...

They sell them at WAL-MART now. And not just one model, covered in mossy oak for the hunters... The last time I looked into the WallyWorld gun section a few weeks back, they had FOUR different models, including ones with rails, collapsible stocks, flash hiders, 30 rounds magazines...

You can't demonize the rifle that the guy takes to the range for his 12 year old daughter to shoot. The scare tactics only work on people who don't know any better...

...and more than half the country now knows better.

But I digress...

Basic truism of politics: Politicians never do anything unless they think it is to their advantage.

EVER...

...and outside those few districts that are strongly pro gun control (about 20% of the population, but only about 2% of the area) there is no advantage in gun control.

Plenty of advantage in talking about it... Talking about it helps liberals raise money...

But actually DOING something?

No... that's bad.

Gun control hurts the democratic party. The only places that support it would support democrats anyway, and everywhere else, every single democrat that votes for gun control means thousands fewer democratic voters.

Gun control cost the Democratic party control of Congress in 1996, they know it, and they will NEVER repeat that mistake again.

So, Democratic party politicians will talk about gun control on TV, but they won't actually DO anything that they can get nailed down on, unless they are from one of the (very few) anti-gun districts, or their seat is completely safe (in which case they're playing to the small but wealthy national liberal donor audience).

Hell... there isn't even any money in organized gun control anymore. There used to be big money lobbies behind it, but now almost all gun control is funded out of the Joyce foundations, and they don't have the money to spend on buying either politicians, or media campaigns.

Private individuals rarely donate very much to the gun control cause, if anything; and that has always been the case. A few very rich ideologues, the occasional frothing or crying liberal, and the sad people whose loved ones were killed by lunatics and idiots, and who are now used by the ideologues to put a sympathetic and legitimate face on their actions... and that's really it.

 You can almost always get people to donate "for" something... it's a lot harder to get them to donate "against" something; unless you can make people very afraid, and then convince them you will take their fear away.

Well... most people aren't afraid of guns anymore... and of the ones who are, most don't believe that the government is going to be able to do anything about their fear.

There's just no constituency for gun control.

Just 27%, in a poll after a major emotional event...

Certainly less, when the emotion dies down, and they have to actually commit to something, not just say what they think the guy at the other end of the phone wants to hear...

Ok... so maybe no AR-15 bans... but what about magazine capacity limits?


Not a chance. Any real restriction on people doing something they actually want to do... they remember it. A magazine ban would lose the Democrats every remaining rural house and senate senate seat they have left.

There's literally tens of millions... if not hundreds of millions, of "high capacity" magazines out there. Unless they made ex post facto law criminalizing their possession  then seized all of them (also a constitutional problem) and destroyed them... Which, never mind the legal, constitutional, political, and economic issues surrounding that, is simply PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE...

It's also just plain stupid... People understand and remember stupid. They remember being irritated, and inconvenienced.

Again, this is the kind of idea that only sounds good to the ignorant or the fearful. Those who have no clue... who just don't know any better... And now, more than half the country knows better.

No... A ban of any kind, of any weapon, of any magazine, just isn't going to happen.

No-one who isn't in a guaranteed liberal pro-gun control seat is going to touch ANY gun control of any kind.

Hell, the NRA has had more than 30,000 new members sign up since the shooting, along with over 80,000 renewals, and who knows how much in additional donations (I'm already a life member); and more are coming in every HOUR.

People on the left keep saying "We need to have a conversation about gun control"... 

Well, guess what, we've been having that conversation since 1968; and as of 2008, it's over.  

They lost, and we won. 

That doesn't mean there isn't still work to do of course; there's 150 years of racist, bigoted, fascist, legal kruft to get rid of.

That's going to take decades, and millions of dollars in legal fees, and there will be setbacks along the way...

But, fundamentally, gun control is dead.

I'm going to say this flat out:

There will not be any kind of meaningful, serious, or significant gun control legislation on the federal level within the next 12 years... possibly not ever again.

"...but... but... the Republicans are caving... they're stupid, venal cowards... but.. but... they ALWAYS sell out and screw up. I just KNOW they're going to cave on this like they do everything else and they'll go along with a ban...

...but.... but... DUNBLANE!!!! STOCKTON!!!! AAAAAHHHHH!!!!!"

... OK...

Why would they do that?

Republicans certainly do a lot of dumb stuff... just look at who they ran for president the last two times... but they do it for a reason.

Like all politicians, they only do that which they believe is to their own advantage.

Any vote on gun control at all, never mind a vote FOR gun control?

To what advantage, and for whom?

There is no rationale under which any remaining Republicans (now that Chaffee and Snowe are gone) would vote for any kind of gun control legislation; nor would better than half the democrats. 

It's a losing issue for democrats, it's an even worse losing issue for republicans, AND then the dems get to lord it over the republicans... There's no WAY they'd let that happen. 

However, to avoid fundraising issues, giving the press talking points, or being nailed down on the record, rather than vote yay or nay, they'll just make sure that it never comes to a floor vote. 

• Just like they did after Aurora (2012, 12 dead, 58 injured)
• Just like they did after Seal Beach (2011, 8 dead, 1 injured)
• Just like they did after Giffords (2011, 6 dead, 13 injured)
• Just like they did after Binghamton (2009, 13 dead, 4 wounded)
• Just like they did after Virginia Tech (2007, 32 dead, 18 wounded)
• Just like they did after Columbine (1999, 13 dead, 21 wounded)

Just like they have after every other "Ahhhh!!!! they're going to take our guns now!!!" incident since 1999.

Oh and note... I don't include the shooters in those totals, or mention their names. Just a thing for me...

Let's do some math here....

The last significant piece of gun control legislation to pass at the federal level was the 1994 so called "assault weapons ban". There was a minor amendment that was passed in 1999. The so called "assault weapons ban" expired in 2004, without any kind of serious attempt at renewing or extending it.

Nothing has changed since 2004 to make gun control any easier or more likely... or 1999, or 1994 for that matter. 

In fact, post '96, it's a lot harder and a lot LESS likely.

Every significant federal gun control measure introduced since 1999 (and there have been a lot of them. McCarthy and Lautenberg introduce restrictive bills every few months) has not only failed, but I believe they have all failed to even reach a floor vote. Only rarely have they even made it out of committee. 

... and the 1999 bit was minor legislation on trigger locks, and only passed as a last second add-on amendment to an anti-crime funding bill (to put more "cops on the street"), 51-50 with Al Gore voting as tie breaker. 

The majority of serious pro-gun legislation since 1999 on the other hand has either passed, or come close to passing in one house or the other (usually passing in the house and never coming to a vote in the senate). 

Just as an example, the national parks carry bill in 2009 passed 279 to 147, under a democrat controlled house (and just after a couple of mass shootings within a few months). The national concealed carry reciprocity bill from 2011 passed 272-154 (just after a couple MORE mass shooting events). 

They couldn't even get gun control after Columbine...

They got a nifty piece of propaganda disguised as a documentary... but no actual gun control.

After losing control of the house and senate after '96 (because of gun control), the Democrats took both the house and senate back in 2007; and had the house, senate, and presidency from January 2009 until January of 2011. 

In that time, they didn't even bother trying to advance a serious bill out of committee. 

There's a reason for that...

Overall, the Senate has 46 members with an NRA A grade, and another 13 with a B or C. Only 35 get a D or F (6 are not rated). 

Of those 35, many can't afford to vote for any kind of gun control right now (no matter what speeches they make in front of the cameras); either because they're in very pro-gun states, or because they're in moderately pro-gun states (or even pro gun areas of generally anti-gun states... look at the map below) and have a strong challenge facing them.

There are 11 strongly pro gun Democrats in the senate, 1 slightly pro gun, 3 neutral, 2 slightly anti-gun... (from a+ to c-) meaning none of them have actually supported major or serious gun control in any meaningful way (otherwise they'd be graded at D or F)... Then there's 2 D's and 36 F's (counting Sanders and King as democrats of course). 

Oh, and there's only one strongly anti-gun republican in the senate at this point, Mark Kirk of Illinois; and two neutral to slightly pro-gun (both got C+), Collins of Maine, and Coats of Indiana. Every other republican gets either an A or a B. 

So... WORST case, we'd be looking at a 60/40 split...

...But that's before the electoral politics and math come into play.

The Dems know that with the economy going the way it's going (and they're going to be attempting to make it worse) they're going to lose seats massively in 2014. They are desperate to hold on to the senate, or at the very least to prevent a filibuster proof Republican majority

The following democratic senators are up for re-election in 2014:

1. Alaska - Mark Begich - Very Pro Gun - very unsafe seat
2. Arkansas - Mark Pryor - neutral - very unsafe seat
3. Colorado - Mark Udall - neutral - not a safe seat
4. Delaware - Chris Coons - Very anti-gun - safe seat
5. Hawaii - UNKNOWN (special election to replace Daniel Inouye)
6. Illinois - Dick Durbin - Very anti-gun - safe seat
7. Iowa - Tom Harkin - Very anti-gun - iffy, can't afford to screw up
8. Louisiana - Mary Landrieu - neutral - very unsafe seat
9. Massachusetts - UNKNOWN (special election to replace John Kerry)
10. Michigan - Carl Levin - very anti-gun - safe seat
11. Minnesota - Al Franken - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
12. Montana - Max Baucus - very pro-gun - iffy, can't afford to screw up
13. New Hampshire - Jeanne Shaheen - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
14. New Jersey - Frank Lautenberg - very anti-gun - safe seat
15. New Mexico - Tom Udall - slightly anti-gun - safe seat
16. North Carolina - Kay Hagan - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
17. Oregon - Jeff Merkley - very anti-gun - safe seat
18. Rhode Island - Jack Reed - very anti-gun - safe seat
19. South Dakota - Tim Johnson - very pro-gun - very unsafe seat
20. Virginia - Mark Warner - very pro-gun - not a safe seat
21. West Virginia - Jay Rockefeller - moderately anti-gun - very unsafe seat

Now... look at that list....

That's 21 Democratic senators up for election, only 9 of which are actually "safe" seats (including Mass and HI), and four of which are very pro-gun. 

Of those senators, who is anti-gun, and in a safe seat?

1. Delaware - Chris Coons
2. Hawaii - Whoever it is, they'll be an anti-gun democrat
3. Illinois - Dick Durbin
4. Massachusetts - Whoever it is, they'll be an anti-gun democrat
5. Michigan - Carl Levin
6. New Jersey - Frank Lautenberg (the most anti-gun senator)
7. New Mexico - Tom Udall
8. Oregon - Jeff Merkley
9. Rhode Island - Jack Reed (as bad as Lautenberg)

Al Franken almost lost his last election, and there are plenty of hunters and shooters in Minnesota. He can't afford to lose a single vote, or to have Minnesota uninvolved voters mode involved at all. If it comes to a vote he'll probably vote for it, but he won't be pushing hard for it. 

Tom Udall may actually be iffy... He's generally pro gun control, but he's not very outspoken about it; and New Mexico is swingy on the issue, with a slight pro-gun bias. My guess, if it actually comes to a vote he'll be for it; but he'll want to avoid it. 

Tom Harkin is another one. He's anti-gun, but he had a serious challenge last time (his opponent wasn't all that strong, and lost by a wide margin, but Harkins negatives are HUGE in his home state right now), he's going to have a  serious challenge in 2014 (he's a core target for unseating as part of the GOP midwestern strategy, and he's got some serious weaknesses), and Iowa is generally a pro-gun state (though there's a lot of anti "scary black rifle" shotgun owners... all that great bird hunting and all...). Same guess, he'll vote for it if it comes up, but he'd much rather avoid the issue. 

You know who REALLY can't afford to even have something come up for a vote?

Harry Reid. 

You know... the Senate Majority leader? 

The guy who controls the senate agenda, and what comes up for a vote when?

If he presides over gun control legislation of any kind, he loses his gavel in 2014, and his seat in 2016; and he knows it. 

No if's ands or buts about it, he's gone, it's that simple. 

Reid isn't going to let that happen.

... and that's just for 2014, never mind 2016 and 2018. Gunnies have long memories on this sort of thing, as does the NRA, never mind the SAF, JPFO, GOA, the various state rifle and pistol associations....  

The numbers are even worse looking for gun control in the house. House members have to run every election; and of the 435 members of congress, 242 get an NRA "A" rating, and another 30 get a B or C. Only 146 get a D or F (17 are unrated).

Take a look at this chart:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/19/us/politics/nra.html

Of those 146 congrescritters, 37 of them are in STRONGLY pro-gun states (though not necessarily pro-gun districts). Another couple dozen are in moderately pro-gun states, or in pro-gun areas of anti-gun states. 

Basically... I doubt they'd get 100 votes in the house if it went to a floor vote.

They might do it if they could... but they just don't have the votes.

Every left wing political show, talking head, blog, columnist etc... has been talking all day long about how they don't think anything is actually going to happen. That the politicians will talk big, and do nothing. 

There's a reason for that. 

But the biggest reason I'm sure this is all noise? A nice distraction for Obama and the democrats from the upcoming "fiscal cliff"?

Obamas special blue ribbon action committee on gun control, is chartered to "come back with advisory recommendations by the end of January"... and Joe Biden will be in charge of it. 

Seriously... If they actually meant to do anything, would they have appointed BIDEN to run the effort?

Seriously...

Oh Great, Another one... And Another One... And Another One...

Looks like along with Smith and Wesson adding a piston model to their three year old AR line, SIG is getting into the piston AR game.

From American Rifleman and The Firearms Blog:

...The Sig 516 is the new AR. Here's a picture for you, but don't tell anyone because it doesn't exist.

Since we're talking about a new gun, here's what you need to know:

1. It's piston operated and has an adjustable gas regulator similar to the Ruger 556.
2. It has an ambidextrous safety.
3. Comes with Yankee Hill folding rear and front sights.
4. It's an AR.
...

It had been previously announced (see the firearms blog post above) that they would be producing select fire versions, it wasn't clear that they'd be selling complete civilian legal rifles. Now the NRA is unofficially saying they've confirmed it, with a December order date.

Looks like they're following the SR-556 mold, in adding premium parts to commodity forgings etc... I see at the least flip down front and rear sights (looks like Sampson, or Yankee Hill. NRA says Yankee Hill, but I can't find confirmation) , a decent rail system, ambidextrous safety, an ergo-grip with plug, a Crane SOPMOD clone stock, and Magpul mags.

Given the relative market failure of their home designed piston 5.5.6 rifle entry (they've sold as many as they've put together, but compared to AR's...) I wonder if this is them throwing in the towel on the SG-556... Of course, they actually share many parts and pieces, so maybe they'll keep them both going.

Better pics here at the M4 forums: http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=37970

In the promo poster on M4carbine you can see an ambi mag release as well, and looking closer, the sights may be from Troy, contrary to the NRA report. I think the rails are (or at least licensed), and they may have sourced or licensed both from the same. Of course they may not have, just to avoid being too close to the SR-556.

Oh and the firearms blog just today posted that Stag Arms is popping out a piston AR as well.

Not much detail yet, but it seems primarily notable in that the list price is $1185, only a few dollars more than their non piston models of equivalent configuration; and several hundred dollars below the list price of every other piston AR I know of.

Piston Slap

Got a question on a forum this morning, and I thought I'd share it, and my answer, here.

"I'm thinking about buying a piston AR, specifically the Ruger 556. Anyone know anything about them?"

Well, I haven't shot one, but I got a good chance to handle it; plus I got about a 20 minute interview with the chief designer, and the head of the production line on the project; at the NRA convention earlier this year (unfortunately my recorder had a mic malf, and I could barely hear them over the crowd noise on the recording, so I couldn't run a transcript).

My take, is that it's pretty much like every other piston AR, but less expensive. They're sourcing all their standard parts, from the standard manufacturers; they took the time to get the non-standard engineering right; and it looks well made, to a higher standard of fit and finish than most other Rugers.

I also got to talk with Michael Bane a while about the gun. He had taken it out and tested it a couple days earlier; and they put 1500 rounds through it without a malf. It shot well, but like all piston AR's the recoil felt different, and it wasn't QUITE as accurate as a conventional AR would be (a couple percentage points difference).

If you want a piston AR, and don't feel like paying Leitner-Weise (or later this year HK) their rather significant premium, then it should be a good choice; but as was said, wait a couple months and see how they shakeout in the field. Ruger has had some issues with early production run guns lately and it would be wise to let other people experience those problems before you jump in.

Two years ago I would have also thrown POF into the mix, but reports are that they are having some production issues right now, and may be having some cracking and failures in action. Until those settle out, I'd stay away.

POF is actually local to me, and I know a couple of the POF guys read my blog on occaison, so if y'all feel like commenting, go for it. I'd love to hear that you're sorted out.

Of course there's a larger question you have to ask: Are you sure you want to pay the premium at all for a piston AR?

No evidence has shown that a piston AR is any more reliable than a conventional AR of equivalent quality, fit, and finish. The only real improvement is that they are easier to detail clean, and you don't necessarily have to do it as often.

You all know how I feel about cleaning a service rifle. You shoot, you clean. You move, you clean. You breath funny, you clean. So increased cleaning intervals don't mean much to me; but there is a slight advantage there in being easier to clean.

Lord knows I would be happy to have a rifle where I can get a pipe cleaner through the gas port without risking getting something jammed in the gas tube an buggering the whole thing up; and if I never have to clean carbon out of a gas key or bolt recess again, that would be great.

On the minus side, they are much more expensive, considerably more mechanically complex (which is a REDUCTION in reliability. More moving parts to fail), and somewhat less inherently accurate (more moving parts means more reciprocating mass, more vibrations, more disturbances etc...)...

Oh and they're all a bit heavier than an equivalent conventional AR, and most of them get a LOT hotter under the handguards a lot faster (and don't dissipate that heat as fast) in rapid fire than conventional ARs do (hot enough to induce failures in some cases).

'Course I've had a gas tube disintegrate on me before as well, so it's not like conventional AR's are without fault in that department.

Actually, there is one other point in favor of the piston systems: If they have an adjustable gas regulator, you can adjust the timing better for your conditions and configurations (direct impingement systems can sue adjustable gas regulators as well, but to lesser effect).

Because of that, they'll tend to function better in extremely dusty environments, or with extremely dirty or inconsistent ammo; and you can adjust to compensate for barrel length, your load (high pressure 77gr vs subsonic loads for suppressors for example), or if you're going to use a suppressor (suppressors foul gas systems very easily, and often do not cycle gas actions reliably).

That point right there could make them worth it all by themselves.

Unfortunately, not all piston ARs HAVE an adjustable gas system, and some of those that do (including the SR-556) have it as "open, 50%, closed"; which is still an advantage, but less of one than a fully adjustable system would be.

Of course, in a field rifle, you don't want something fiddly, or prone to backing out, or difficult to adjust in the dark, with gloves on... so it's a tradeoff. On balance, it's still useful to have.

Overall, I'd call the SR-556 a good rifle buy, once it's been in the market for a while, and the kinks have been worked out. Oh and I'd like to see more options and more configurations like other AR makers offer. This being Ruger though, I think they may be going for simplicity of production more than tactical Barbie.

At the $1500 to $1700 price point the SR-556 is at (or will be at once full production capacity is reached, initial demand lessens, and the Obama hoarding is completely over), I think it's probably worth buying over a conventional AR of similar configuration. Realistically, you're only paying, at most, a $400 premium (and generally, much less than that) over a similarly configured conventional AR, when you count the rail system, sights etc...

As far as the other piston rifles go, I just think they're too expensive for what you're getting. LWRC, POF, and HK all make very good rifles (yes, really, even with the current problems the POF's have in general been very good); but to me, not good enough to justify their premium pricing (all $2000 or more, fully equipped), now that a lower cost alternative is available.

Honestly, if I'm going to spend LWRC kind of money, I would rather spend it on a Wilson or a Noveske, or something similar; and get a much better conventional AR.

Oh my god, it's a $2000 Ruger

Actually, when it finally gets down to street prices, and production capacity and panic buying have settled out, I'd expect it to retail somewhere around $1700.

UPDATE: Distributor pricing was released, at $1350; so I'll revise my estimate down to "between $1600 and $1675", instead of $1700.

The gun in question is the newly announced Ruger SR-556, Rugers first entry into the AR market; and their first entry into the "assault weapon" world, since transferable AC-556s stopped being made in '86 (which is only half evil... after all, the A-Team used them, and they were the good guys... who couldn't hit anything).

The first thing most folks are going to notice, and most likely dislike, is the price. $2000 list is by far Rugers most expensive non-presentation grade gun (some of their shotguns get up there though).

I'm not one of those people. As I said, I expect that the eventual street price will hit around $1600; and for a piston AR, especially one configured as it is, that's a decent value.

Given that it's got the Troy sights, and Troy rail system on it, and that's $300 and $350 respectively if bought separately (plus the rail covers and Hogue grip, another $80 or so); it's actually a pretty damn good deal. Most other piston ARs start at $1800-$2400, without those things.

Oh and coming with 3 PMags is a great idea as well, and a usable soft case is gravy. There's another $120 you don't have to worry about spending.

... of course for some people, the whole reason they buy an AR is for the accessories... it's like tactical Barbie for them; but let's face it, they'd never buy a Ruger anyway.

From a purely political perspective, having Ruger in the AR camp is an unambiguously good thing. Do you really think the largest civilian firearms manufacturer in the world is 1.) going to get into manufacturing an AR if they think it's going to be banned shortly thereafter and 2.) going to allow their millions of dollars in tooling and marketing expenses to go down the drain without a fight?

Oh and another political plus; now every major firearms manufacturer makes an AR: Ruger, S&W, FN, Colt, and Cerberus (with Remington, Bushmaster, Cobb, and DPMS).

So, how do I think it will be received?

Well, with a certain percentage of the community, scorn. Ruger is forever poison to them after the actions and comments of the late founder surrounding "assault weapon" bans, and standard capacity magazines.

Also, this is not going to appeal to the tacticool at all; which is the usual market for higher end AR platform rifles. I mean, it IS a Ruger, even if it is a superneatohighspeedlowdrag Ruger; and you can't claim it's the "same gun as SEAL Team Six uses" or some other such nonsense.

Plus I'd assume it's cast (that is Rugers core business after all), and as "everyone knows" cast receivers and uppers are "just no good".... yeah, you can tell my opinion on that one.

UPDATE: Nope, it uses a forged (and outsourced from a major name) upper and lower.

So that's a fair portion of the potential market left right out.

For the rest of the shooting world... It's probably going to be seen as too expensive. Ruger is the biggest, because they sell decent guns cheaper than any other gun of comparable quality.

While this gun represents a much lower cost option than other piston ARs, and is a good value in the configuration it's sold in, the rifle is most certainly not inexpensive. The traditional Ruger customer is probably not going to appreciate the differentiation of a piston operating system, troy rails, Hogue grips etc... when they compare the $1700+ Ruger to a $900 Olympic.

Rugers traditional markets and customers are very cost sensitive, and they're going to have to work to convince folks either to stretch into that price range; or to convince premium firearms customers to consider a Ruger.

Personally, I think it will be a big hit at first; but will sell modestly well, once the initial buying surge passes, and the AR market stabilizes (well... ok, IF the AR market stabilizes).

I did get a chance to talk with Michael Bane about the gun; and he's put a few hundred rounds through one. He was favorably impressed with it, likes the gas system, and that the quality just "felt sturdier" than POF or LW. We talked about the relative value of the gun, with the premium parts and accessories; and he also thought that Ruger was going to have a little trouble finding acceptance at that price point.

The Quinns over at gunblast were also quite pleased with the sample they reviewed; though they didn't talk about the price (I've rarely seen Jeff and Boge talk about price in a review though).

Am I interested? Not really. Give me an 18" model with a real stock and I MIGHT be. I'mna try and take a closer look tomorrow (we didn't make it to the exhibit hall today).

UPDATE: Got a great interview with the chief engineer on the project, and the production manager for the Newport plant where it's assembled, as well as handling, and field stripping the rifle. More in a followup post.

Brownells has AR mags back in stock

Our friends at Brownells have let me know they've got about 8000 of their 30 rounders back in stock... Which should last for at least a day or so anyway at current ordering rates.

The Unintentional Straight Pull Bolt Action Rifle

So it seems like Ambulance Driver is having a little trouble with his AR. It'll run for 30-100 rounds, then it becomes a straight pull bolt action.

Well, we've all been there at one time or another. Hell, I had it happen to me at a rifle event once (bad ammo).

Thank god it never happened when I actually NEEDED the rifle for serious social purposes (which is why I always have known good ammo and magazines, and clean and lubricate properly).

Since the rifle in question is a decent quality piece (a Bushmaster), the problem gets progressively worse the more he shoots, and he doesn't mention having problems with his magazines (the usual culprit when ANY semi-auto isn't cycling properly); I'm guessing it's one of two problems:

1. Cheap nasty steel cased ammo
   
   
2. Overlubrication

Seriously folks, I don't care how cheap you are, or how expensive ammo is, AR's are not designed to function with anything other than brass cased ammo.

Brass and steel cases expand to seal the chamber (called obturation) differently, and retract from that seal differently. This alters the timing of the weapon and causes unreliable extraction. This is especially true of M4's with their shorter, higher pressure gas system; which is much more sensitive to proper timing.

Also, steel rims, combined with that different timing, work the extractor of an AR MUCH harder than designed; and can detension an extractor spring in as little as 500 rounds instead of the 5000 or so (or 20,000 if you have the machine gun spring buffer, and an o or d ring in) you'll get with brass.

Also, the powders they tend to use in steel cased ammo are nastydirty; and will gum up the gas system and bolt, and blowback more residue into the receiver, coating everything with FAR more carbon than in higher quality ammmo.

Additionally, that difference in obturation causes firing residue to blow back into the chamber, progressively coating it with more hot sticky stuff; until extraction and even feeding become difficult. If the extraction get's sticky enough, it can actually chip the extractor, or tear the head off a cartridge leaving you with a not every effective club.

Again, these issues are exacerbated in shorter length carbines.

It doesn't matter whether it's polymer or Lacquer coated; steel is just generally not great for ARs. It will have problems with extraction over time, I guarantee it to you.

Seriously, that's just more to clean, and less reliability; don't use it.

I suspect the biggest problem he's having though, is that he's overlubing the weapon.

Almost everyone does.

Even better, most folks don't recognize overlubricating for what it is, think they're UNDER lubricating the weapon, and make the problem worse by squirting even more goop in there.

Then when that fails, they make it yet worse by switching to another product incompatible with the first that has suspended nano super slip lube in it or somesuch crap; and they might as well squirt superglue into their action.

Overlubing will gum up your rifle in a magazine or three pretty easily; even if you're using clean ammo, and you're not in a dusty environment. Add in dirty ammo or dust, and again, you might as well be using superglue for lube.

So, what is the proper lubrication for an AR (this applies to an M16 as well; you just need an additional drop or two for the auto sear mechanism)

Alright first things first, you need to undo the damage.... actually you should do this when you first get your AR, and every 1500 to 5000 rounds (depending on conditions and ammunition) or every six months anyway.

For this you will need your normal cleaning supplies, CLP (or something similar), original Militec (or something similar), and a non-chlorinated degreaser/cleaner that doesn't attack ABS plastic (I use M-Pro 7, Slip, or Hoppes elite; all essentially the same thing); and you may need a carbon solvent (I use Hoppes elite).

1. Detail strip and clean the rifle, paying special attention to your bolt and carrier, trigger mechanism, and your chamber and chamber extension. Clean them to bare metal, with a degreaser, and if necessary a carbon solvent (especially the internal passages of the bolt and carrier). Use a chamber brush and barrel extension brush to make sure they are really properly clean.
   
   
2. Spray your trigger mechanism, the internal surfaces of your receiver, your barrel extension, and your receiver pin bosses, LIGHTLY with CLP. Then cycle the trigger a few times to distribute, and let sit to dry.
   
   
3. After a few minutes, wipe every surface you can reach clean and dry. If you happen to have some compressed air, you can let it sit a few minutes then blow it off; but lightly means lightly, so that shouldn't be necessary.
   
   
4. If you reassembled them after cleaning, disassemble your bolt and carrier mechanism; then coat your bolt and carrier mechanism and all components thereof (including the internal passages, using a q-tip if necessary) liberally with CLP.
   
   
5. Let sit for a few minutes, and wipe all the parts down til completely dry. Remember to pass a Q tip through the firing pin passage in the bolt and carrier to wipe them dry.
   
   
6. Then let it sit for a few more minutes, and wipe them all down again.
   
   
7. Put a single drop of militec or something similar on each trigger pin.
   
   
8. Put single drop of militec into the trigger and sear, and smear a bit into the hammer hooks and disconnector, then cycle the trigger a few times to distribute. If this is an M16/M4, also put a single drop on the auto hooks, and a single drop on the auto sear pin.
   
   
9. Put a single drop of militec on the safety or selector, and smear it around with a q-tip; then cycle the safety a few times to distribute.
   
   
10. Wipe everything you can reach with your fingers or a qtip, to distribute the lube. Nothing should look "wet" or greasy.
    

That may seem like it's a bit fussy, or a lot of work; but remember this isn't your general clean and lube procedure. You only need to do this every few thousand rounds.

Also, it sounds a lot more fussy than it really is. It took me longer to write it up than it does to actually do it.

What you're doing there is cleaning off all the pre-existing or built up residue and lubricant; then establishing a coat of protectant and baseline lubrication level on all surfaces.

Now, when you reassemble from your detail strip, and again every time you clean the rifle:

1. Put a single drop of militec on both of the bolt rails, then spread up and down the rails.
   
   
2. Put a single drop smeared evenly around the body of the bolt and a little into the cam slot and onto the cam. DO NOT put any lubricant into the gas rings, the firing pin passage, or under the extractor; enough will be there from the CLP earlier, or will migrate there during use.
   
   
3. Fit the bolt and cam back into the bolt carrier, then work them back and forth a bit to distribute the lube, and disassemble again.
   
   
4. Put single drop on a q tip wiped around the entirety of the bolt ears; then wipe it off with your finger tip to spread it out a bit, and a dry q-tip to make sure no lube builds up in the corners. DO NOT LUBRICATE THE BOLT FACE, EJECTOR, OR EXTRACTOR; they will get enough lubrication from the initial CLP coat, and through surface migration.
   
   
5. Wipe all the bolt and carrier parts down with your fingers to spread the lube evenly; and so none of the parts or surfaces are actually "wet".
   
   
6. You generally don't want to re-lube the trigger mechanism with every cleaning; because you don't detail clean the trigger every cleaning, and it can cause lubricant and residue to build up. If however you're feeling any drag or grit in the trigger or selector mechanism and don't have time for a detail cleaning, re-lube the trigger and selector as above.
   
   
7. Reassemble taking care to ensure the gas ring gaps are not aligned; then cycle the weapon and dry fire a few times to distribute the lubricant.
   
   
8. Finally, wipe down every visible surface you can get to with a clean dry cloth.
   

When you're done, no surface on the rifle should look "wet", and if you wipe any part with a clean white cloth you should come back with a slight oily residue, but no heavy smear of oil and no carbon.

Again, this sounds a lot more fussy than it really is. It takes less than five minutes, and no tools; and even the q-tips are optional (you can spread lube into small spaces with the firing pin and your fingers; it's just not as easy or convenient as a q-tip).

That's it. Everything else is overlubing and will attract residue, dirt, and grit like a magnet.

UPDATE: Reposting with some edits on a Monday, because there's a lot of AR owners who really need to read this; and nobody ever reads anything posted on a Saturday.

Also, I have heard several supposedly knowledgeable "authorities" stat that it is "impossible to overlubricate an AR". Those people are on crack.

Actually, I'd guess they are overgeneralizing from their own personal experience; which is limited to environments where overlubrication isn't a problem. They are most likely people who never shoot anywhere but on a clean range with clean commercial ammo; or they are garrison or fleet marines who never served in a desert environment.

Seriously, I think sailors and fleet marines believe lubricant is best applied with a firehose. Also someone should teach them yes, it is actually possible to clean your weapon too much. When you're wearing off the hard anodizing, that's a sign you've gone too far.

Most airmen on the other hand (outside of those who have served in combat support of course), if they even remember what an M16 looks like, think lubricant is something purchased with their other Class VI "critical supplies".

All the worlds gear queers spontaneously orgasm...

Behold, the high cap mag for your high cap mags:

MUCH more on this at Mil-Spec Monkey.

Honestly, I don't think I'd trust my life to the thing in a firefight; I certainly have reliability concerns; but I bet threegunners everywhere are drooling right now.

Also, it's clearly significantly bulkier than the three mags it holds... in fact I'd guess its total bulk is around that of six mags (though not the weight).

Yes, there is at least some speed advantage there, and it's nice to be able to always index your hand back to the same place; but I'd bet that rangerplates or magpuls cut that speed advantage way down; and they add very little to the bulk of your kit.

The reloading motion from that indexed position is probably better in cramped quarters, but it's probably worse prone, so it kinda cancels out.

Oh and can you say battle rattle?

I bet it'd be spectacular vehicle mounted in a firing position on a bird, or light armor etc...

How to feed your PoodleShooter

So, I've talked a LOT about what types of ammunition to use in ARs, what bullets work best, what barrel twist works with what ammo... why the AR exist in the first place and uses the ammo that it does...

Somehow I never managed to get around to talking much about magazines; except to note they are the single biggest point of failure for the AR platform, and the first thing to consider when things go wrong.

Well they ARE. I harp on it for a reason.

Somehow though I never managed to talk about what magazines to buy, or not to buy, and how to pick'em.

Well, a friend of mine was heading to the gunshow this past weekend, and he asked for advice on mags; so I wrote this up for him, and I thought I'd share it with the rest of you.

Ok, let's break it down.

First things first, don't buy mags at the gun show (or at the gun shop for that matter), unless they're a spectacular bargain... or a reasonable price, but new in the plastic with the original manufacturers imprint on them, and/or in a sealed crate with a trademark you can read.

I don't trust mags bought at gunshows very much, and unfortunately most gunshops are only one step above that... after all most of the guys selling dodgy, mismarked, clearly fraudulent crap mags at gunshows, are gunshops.

Honestly, if they aren't 100% quality and cheaper than $20 don't bother, just order from Brownells. In fact I'd say cheaper than $15; and that's for brand new.

Second, what to buy and what to avoid.

Let's piss some people off shall we?

For aluminum commercial mags, Brownells mags are excellent; and are available straight from Brownells with an upgraded follower, spring and baseplate for $2-$6 extra. They are both the best value in commercial magazines, and the best quality. I recommend them over all other commercial magazines.

Bushmasters all metal mags are good, but avoid the ones with the plastic baseplates (they are reliable, but can't be rebuilt).

HK mags are also excellent, and actually worth a couple extra bucks, but not the $40+ that they charge for them (remember "HK, because you suck, and we hate you"). In that same vein, Colt commercial mags are good, but they try to charge a large premium for them just because of the name, and they aren't worth it.

C-products mags are generally very good, and they are the only manufacturer I know who sells new mag bodies only, in bulk, to the general public (convenient if you want to use your own spring, baseplate, and follower). They're also VERY reasonably priced.

Cammenga makes a new "speedloader" type magazine, that actually splits apart (the front of the mag slides down), to let you rapidly load them. Reports on them are good so far; but they're only a couple years old and havent seen much hard use yet. I'd be worried about fine dust and the like jamming them up... but for a range mag it seems like a great idea.

The Beta C-mag from Betaco is a heck of a beast. It's the only reliable drum magazine for the AR (and most other 5.56 rifles, and the M14 and others by the by) on the market, and it's great fun... but I don't know that I'd trust my life to one exclusively. Also, REALLY expensive.

That said, I do have one, and I love it. If you can afford one, it's the perfect companion for a heavy barreled AR on a bipod. You can just sit their and pick targets off all day long.

Aluminum USGI mags... a mixed bunch to be honest. First of all, frauds abound. Second, honestly, some of them just aren't that great, even though they are "mil spec".

Also it is VERY IMPORTANT to remember that a lot of the USGI magazines that end up on the commercial market are there because they were rejected by the Gov't (it's illegal to sell rejected USGI mags, but it happens all the time anyway). They may be generally good with a small flaw, or they may be unreliable POSes.

I have never seen Brownells USGI mags for sale commercially, but as I said, they are the best.

Sabre are excellent (their commercial and gov't contract mags are the same).

Bushmaster USGI mags are excellent (better than their commercial).

FN mags are generally good, but their springs are iffy on their USGI mags. I personally have seen failures in their springs, baseplates tabs, and feed lips to a higher extent than other manufacturers; but anecdote != data.

Colt mil-spec mags, if real, are excellent, as are Okay industries/OK, Universal Industries, Simmonds Precision, Knights armament, and original Armalite. They should be, they are all from the same manufacturer (OK). Again though, watch out because frauds are everywhere (usually made in Taiwan or Singapore).

LaBelle mags are excellent, in fact probably the best older USGI mags (Brownells and HK are the best commercial, and better than LaBelle by a small amount). DPMS labeled mags are from LaBelle, as are newer Armalite, Knights, Stoner, Smith and Wesson, General Stamping, Eagle Arms (not Eagle or American Eagle) and some others.

If your AR is from a reputable manufacturer other than Bushmaster, FN, Colt, or Sabre (who all make their own) and it came with an own brand stamped magazine; it's probably a LaBelle... or rather NOW a "General Stamping" as they bought LaBelle some years ago; though I believe they continue to use BOTH imprints.

Adventure Arms, Adventure Line, Center Industries and Parsons, are all also the same manufacturer, and pretty good.

Take this as you will, but as of today, there are only three certified providers of contract USGI AR magazines, Brownells, Center Industries, and OK industries.

Everybody elses aluminum mags , I'd stay away from.

Sanchez mags are not very good. Cooper mags are horrible.

Remember, all legitimate USGI mags, and U.S. commercial mags will have the manufacturer clearly stamped on the baseplate; however with used mags, it's entirely likely the baseplate won't reflect the original manufacturer of the other components, as things get mixed around with cleanign etc...

The Singapore and UK steel mags are excellent if you don't mind the weight, but the lips can gall and bind on steel ammo. Other then c-products, I haven't seen any good commercial steel mags.

For polymer mags, Magpuls pmags are excellent. Thermold and Orlite mags are also very good. In any polymer mag though (even new ones), be very careful about cracks and warping.

The REAL israeli milspec polymer (Orlite, but may not be labled as such) and milspec metal mags are very good, but fakes are everywhere. Same thing for the South African mags.

USA mags, Triple K mags, Promags, National, Eagle, American Eagle, (but not Eagle Arms) and American Magazine are all horrible.

Any magazine with a finish other than than phosphated (parkerized), teflon coated, or epoxy coated, should be avoided as well; as no matter what the markings are, they are either cheap foreign made crap, refinished by god knows who concealing god knows what problems, or a fake.

For ANY of the above magazine, commercial or USGI, I'd change the followers to magpul followers. They're about $2 a piece. You can also buy Brownells mags with them installed already, and of course all magpul mags have them. Oh and HK has a direct ripoff of the magpul follower that they refused to license (they do that sort of thing).

What about used, or mag kits?

You can pick up mags with perfectly good bodies but with the older black follower design very cheap, as people read "green follower" on the net, and all of a sudden black follower mags are anathema. Well, the green follower isn't very good either, and for $2 you can change the follower to magpul, and get a real bargain in the process.

All USGI mag springs prior to the late 80s are suspect. I change them out for Wolff and Brownells springs as a matter of course. I would also recommend replacing the springs and followers of any used magazines you by as a matter of course (you just don't know where they've been so to speak).

Magpul and Brownells both sell rebuild kits that include a new spring and follower for around $5. Baseplates are cheap. If you can get a deal on good USGI, or good qaulity commercial (you'll have to look for proofmarks) mag bodies, you might want to consider it.

What to look for (and hopefully not find).

When you're evaluating a mag, the first place to look is the feed lips. They should be free of ripples, dings, gouges, nicks or burrs, and they should be even and smooth.

The feed lips are the second most common failure point on the AR mags behind the springs. A bad spring is fixable though; if you have bad feedlips, you've got a bad mag.

Then look at the base plate and see if it's secure. Are the body tabs good, does the plate move without too much binding, but not so loosely that it will vibrate out? Does the base plate bend and stay bent (bad. The mag is either old and abused, or a forgery. The plate should spring back)? Is there any discoloration, cracks, or burrs in the tabs, and do the tabs bend easily under finger pressure (they shouldn't)?

Use something to depress the follower as far as it will go. Make sure you're pressing down in the center as you push, and check to make sure it doesn't bind excessively (a very little bit is normal), or tilt excessively (again a little bit is normal).

Check the entire body for dings or gouges. Even if the finish is worn off it could be a good mag, so long as the body is sound.

Check the welds. They should be clean, neat, and evenly spaced. There should be a minimum of 4 of them front and back, and as many as 7 (different manufacturers at different times, have used different numbers of welds). Some earlier (or cheaper made) USGI and commercial magazines only had 3 welds and should be avoided. Current Milspec is 6 welds, front and back.

Try to twist the top and base of the mag in different directions; you shouldn't be able to or at least not to any significant degree. If you can, the welds are bad, the aluminum sheet is too thin, the aluminum alloy used is wrong, or it hasn't been properly heat treated (or possibly not at all).

Remember, AR mags are essentially disposable.

Excepting HK (remember, HK because you suck and we hate you) and the Beta-C mag, they sell for $10 to $20, and a slight structural defect is not worth trying to fix or work around.

If you start thinking of them as something other than disposable, you'll be tempted to keep them when they malfunction.

The HK mags are a special case here, in that HK may charge more for them, but they really take the disposable aspect seriously. HK mags are designed to be absolutely reliable, for 100 reloads. After that, HK doesn't care; and they have done their metallurgy to reflect this. They are known to develop feeding problems with extended use because of spring wear, and mag lip deformation.

AR mags always have been designed to be disposable, and you should treat them as such. You can replace springs and followers, but once the feed lips or the baseplate tabs go wonky, they cannot be recovered. You MAY use them as a range mag, but I just crushem or use them as targets.

Most "unreliable" ARs (from reputable manufacturers anyway) are just fine; they're just using bad mags (and usually bad ammo too. Cheap out on one thing, they're probably cheaping out on another).

It's very cathartic packing a bad magazine full of reactive explosives and blowing it up. Just stay at least 50 yards away, those aluminum bits can fly pretty far.

Oh and just on a note of personal preference, may I suggest 20 round mags over 30 rounders. I personally think they work better in general, and they're a lot easier to deal with at the range,
prone, on the bench etc... I prefer the straight bodied ones myself.

For more, and more detailed info, check out Troys Mag FAQ.

Feather Fire

So, I've mentioned feather firing several times here before. It's a trigger technique that allows you to fire semiautomatic rifles very rapidly, while still using the sights (unlike bumpfiring).

Well, I mentioned it again at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous in Reno this past weekend; but I didn't get a chance to demonstrate, so Unc dropped me a line and asked me to explain it.

The basic concept is simple. It's a paintball technique that can be applied to any semi-automatic firearm with light to moderated recoil, and a relatively light, fast resetting trigger.

An AR with a decent trigger job fits the bill nicely; but just about any semi with a light, short, crisp trigger, with a fast reset will do it.

1. Socket the weapon tightly in to your shoulder; preferably slung up on your support arm, but in any case very firmly supported.

2. Place your thumb, or the heel of your hand on the off side of the receiver (on an AR, the through hole for the safety is a good spot); and place the pads of your support fingers on the pistol grip, firmly squeezing or pinching. It's important to keep the base of your hand solidly planted.

3. Find the trigger with your index finger. Some find it easier to do this with their middle finger, or both their middle and index fingers simultaneously (this is one reason why the double finger paintball trigger became popular by the way).

4. Start from 1/4" to 1/2" off the trigger, and rapidly flick your finger(s) straight back and forth from the base knuckle, feeling THROUGH the trigger; actuating the trigger repeatedly.

5. It's best to keep to short bursts; both for control, and to properly reset your finger position. It is difficult to feather through more than a half dozen without resetting.

Remember, in this mode, your weak hand and shoulder are providing all the support for the weapon. Your strong hand is just there to pull the trigger; and all it's strength and co-ordination are expended on doing so.

Although this technique isn't as fast as bumpfiring, you CAN empty an entire 20 or 30rd mag in just a few seconds; and more importantly you can keep it in the kill zone on a man at 50 or even 100 yards pretty easily.

Oh and this technique DOES work on some pistols, if you maintain a support hand grip thats sufficient; and if the weapon recoils very lightly. I can empty my HI-Power so fast that the magazine springs don't keep up (yes, seriously).

At the very least, it's a fun way to turn money into noise.

I just hope the ATF don't issue a memorandum of understanding declaring these instructions an unlicensed machine gun...

The AR, the A-Max, and the Defender

Well, since the second day of the Texas shoot was cancelled, the first chance I had to take out the now complete AR was this past weekend.

I mounted up a relatively cheap Bushnell Sportsman 4-12x40 scope on sale for $60 from wally world (until I can decide on and acquire the permanent optics), and I grabbed the rest of my 75gr A-Max experimental loads... the ones that were loaded with 24.5gr of Varget, with no crimp... and this time I didn't let them sit out in the sun for an hour before shooting.

The last trip I had some overpressure problems, even with the Federal commercial loads never mind my max pressure A-Max loads using 2230. The overpressure made the loads inconsistent, and the powder was pretty dirty... and I had wanted to use Varget anyway (they were all out of stock locally) so I was happy enough to switch over.

The first news was the functioning. For the first 20 rounds everything was great, but then I got one failure to feed after another. Finally I got really irritated and looked at the mag lips... well, the cheap national mags I bought as a stopgap (Brownells was out of stock of everything else) were completely out of spec, with the mag lips flexing and bending; and galling against the bolt.

SO, I unloaded those mags, and loaded into some good mags JohnOC brought with him, and we were golden; not a single problem for the remaining 60 rounds.

I will say though, even in a 10lb AR, you definitely feel the max pressure 75gr loads a LOT more than a 55 or 62gr standard .223. It's by no means unpleasant, in fact it's a lot like a .243; which is appropriate considering that it's performing at about the same level.

So, how well did it shoot?

How does 5 shots into one ragged hole at 50 yards, and one slightly larger ragged hole at 100 yards sound?

We only had 100 yards where we were shooting so I didn't get to try anything at longer ranges, but the gun was quite literally putting down 1/2 moa or better groups at 50 and 100 yards; making one big hole in a lot of cases.

Even better though; not only was I getting one hole groups, but so were JohnOC (who will tell you he's no great shakes as a rifle shooter), and Mel; and this was only the third time she'd ever fired an AR.


At this point I'm very confident the gun is going to make the 1/4 moa mark, at least out to 300 yards; and hopefully with the right tuning at least 1/2 moa at 600.

Yeah, I think they liked it; and so do I.

Next up, my 75gr hornady BTHP Match loads, hopefully at 300 yards. Oh, and my new progressive press arrives tomorrow; so I can crank out some bulk loads for plinking.... time to place that powder valley order.

This was also the first time I'd been able to take out my new Defender; and I also have to say, I'm VERY happy with it. It groups well, shoots well, and even with my hottest loads it's still controllable; something I couldn't say when I had a G36.

Here's an amazing, but HUGE pic of Mel in a rapid fire string; where I managed to catch some brass in the air. Seriously, it's cool, but its 1.3 megs so don't click unless you're prepared to wait.
Oh, and jsut for the hell of it, here's a pic of my small collection of the designs of John Moses Browning (not including Mel's - she has a Llama, which is a 1911 clone; and an Ithaca model 37, a modification of a Browning shotgun design):

The Damn Thing Is Almost Done - Damn Thing Number Two

Said "Damn Thing" being my heavy barreled AR.

Sorry about the lighting, these were jsut some quick and dirty shots for the web tonight.

A front quarter view:

I've covered this before, but lets go over it again.

The Gun is a DPMS forged lower, and a Wilson upper, with a 24" long, 1.25" thick under the forearm, 1" from gas block to muzzle 1-in-7 air gaged matched barrel with an 11 degree target crown; and a match bolt, lapped to the barrel extension (and with a D-Ringed extractor).

I've got a Harris collapsible swivel bipod, and a DPI first generation natural finish carbon fiber free float forend (it keeps the heat away from your hand very well) on it. I don't care for the new DPI forends, but this first gen is great. I've had it sitting around my shop for a while, waiting to use it on jsut such a rifle as this.

I've got a Magpul MIAD grip with the enhanced trigger guard built int, and a Chip McCormack single stage curved supermatch trigger, with about a 2.25lb pull on it.

The stock is an Ace tubular, with QD sling swivel points on both sides, and a 1" extended butt pad. The Ace stock is already 1/2" longer LOP than the A2 without the butt pad, and with it gives me a total of 1.5" longer LOP.

Inside that stock is an Olympic arms pneumatic buffer; which delays unlock and slows cycle time, as well as eliminating that annoying "sproooooing" sound on cycling.

It's ALMOST done, because I still need to pick up a David Tubb carrier weight system, an ambi safety and mag catch, an extended bolt catch, and of course my optics. Oh and I dont like my curent BUIS setup, so I'm looking to replace that as well.

I've got about $1500 into the rifle so far, plus about $300 in parts scrounged from my shop, and about $300 or so left to go on parts; and then the optics which could run me up to about the same as the rifle (including rings, and maybe a QD base).

...BUT, it will be ready enough for Texas this weekend, and that is the important part.

So, the obvious question is, how much does it weigh?

I don't know... but it's heavy. The upper alone weighs more than my whole Bushie superlight used to weigh.

I dunno how it shoots yet either; I haven't had it out in this configuration yet; but I'm expecting better than .5 moa with the right ammo.

Wish me luck.