The more you can adjust things, the more you can screw them up

Tweaking is for the experienced, for those who don't really need what is being tweaked all that much; or for those who have enough time and money on their hands to fix things (or have a professional fix things) when they inevitably screw them up.

General rule of thumb for almost everything...

The more things there are to adjust on a rig, the more things that:

1. Can be misadjusted
2. Can drift out of adjustment
3. Will go wrong

This can also be expressed as "there more there is to tweak, the more there is to fuck up".

It's not that you don't want adjustability; it's just that the more adjustable something is, the more you're going to need to adjust it... pretty much universally.

It doesn't matter what it is; guns, cars, stereo equipment, cameras, airplanes, motorcycles, bikes... anything mechanical, electrical, or in any way technical; the more there is to adjust, the more there is to screw up.

That's why stuff for amateurs usually offers limited adjustable bits, and limited ranges of adjustment; while stuff for professionals usually makes as much adjustable, with as wide a range of adjustment, as possible.

Professionals have the time, knowledge, and experience to adjust things properly, and monitor their adjustments. Amateurs don't, unless they are expert amateurs at that particular thing.

Admittedly, some expert amateurs are actually better at whatever thing they're expert at, than the professionals. Professionals often don't have the time or energy to explore the outer limits and weird capabilities or fringes of the thing they are working in, focusing mostly on their day to day work.

However, becoming an expert amateur requires even more time, effort, training, education, money, and resources than doing something professionally (and you don't generally get paid for it).

So, if you're not prepared to take the time, money, and effort to become either a professional, or an expert amateur at something, DON'T FUCK WITH IT.

Thank you, that is all.

Improperly prohibited from exercising my rights, and from conducting my business

I operate a small, independent gunsmithing shop. I am also a firearms instructor. I write a gun blog, and run a gun forum. I have written for many other gun web sites. Firearms are a huge part of my life every day. They're a big part of my work, a big part of my play, just a big part of me.

A couple months back, in preparation for opening up Crispin Arms, I applied for my 01, 06, and 07 FFLs; to become a dealer in and manufacturer of, firearms other than destructive devices, and ammunition for firearms other than destructive devices (I'll be applying to be an SOT for Class III items after the FFL comes through). All of these are licenses and certifications I have held before, but not in several years so I couldn't simply renew them.

That's the basic FFL status required to build, sell, and repair firearms and ammunition; and it's about $400 in fees (non refundable fees by the way).

The Class III fees work out to about $1000 to start (on top of the other fees); and as a low volume dealer, about $500 a year after that(under $500k gross they cut the $1k fee in half); but I won't be paying those for a few more months.

Just after I announced Crispin Arms, I tried to buy a new firearm, and I was denied on my NICS check.

This has happened before, as my father is a convicted felon with the same name as me; and I was able to correct it with a phone call each time; so I wasn't worried. I figured I'd have it sorted in a few days.

Coincidentally, the next day, I got a letter from the ATF (the ATF doesn't handle NICS, the FBI does) saying that I was denied in the standard NICS check they run on FFL applicants; and that I would need to reapply after appealing my denial and correcting any condition which caused it (oh and they were keeping my fees).

This time I made my phone call to the NICS bureau, and they told me I'd need to go through the written process; they couldn't clear up the problem over the phone (or of course, tell me what the problem was).

Thankfully, they've set up a web page to submit the form now, so you can submit the forms directly, and not have to go get your forms certified by a local law enforcement official then mail them off into the bowels of the federal beast (you still need to do that if they need your prints to verify your identity. In this case they didn't).

Ok, so I sent in my appeal form and letter, which I will copy (redacted) here:

Sirs,

I am not a prohibited person, but was improperly denied permission to proceed with a firearms transfer on a NICS check, transaction id number XXXXXXX.

I am a natural born U.S. citizen. I have never been dishonorably discharged from the military; indicted, charged, or convicted, of any offense classified as a felony; or involving substance abuse, or domestic violence, or punishable by more than one year in prison. I have never  been committed, or judged mentally ill, or incompetent. I am not a fugitive from justice. I am not an addict or illegal user of controlled substances.

I am a concealed weapons permit holder in ID, UT, and AZ (licensing me to carry concealed weapons in 38 states). I also undergo full background checks several times annually as part of my employment; most recently eight weeks ago.

When I was denied, I paid a professional service to conduct a full background check; including a full court records search, federally and for all my previous states of residence. I also had my local sheriff  (Bonner county Idaho) conduct a criminal background, and "wants and warrants" check. I found no information to cause me to be denied.

I can think of three possible reasons for having been denied:

1. Prior to 1993 I used my mothers maiden name, Dinsmore. My SSN XXX-XX-XXX was issued under Dinsmore, but has been corrected to Byrne (I included it on the form 4473). Since 1993 I have had serious problems with multiple incidents of identity theft, under both names.

2. My father, Christopher Byrne III, is a convicted felon. I have been denied before because of this, several times over the past 15 years; but each time I have been able to resolve the problem over the phone.

3. My wife and I have been involved in a custody case; during which her ex-husband has committed fraud and perjury; and filed false reports of child neglect, abuse, and kidnapping against us (we were fully cleared). I have never been served with a restraining order, nor to my knowledge has one ever been issued against me; however he (or someone involved with him) may have done so fraudulently.

Thank you,

Christopher J. Byrne IV

A few days later, I received a letter from the FBI; with the reason for my denial, the record identifiers associated with the denial (3 of them); and the process for appealing my denial further, or for correcting the records which caused my denial, at which time I can re-apply.

The reason...

According to the FBI, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is reporting me to them as a fugitive from justice!

Oh... It gets better...

They are, in theory, reporting me as a fugitive, over three unpaid civil traffic violations, from 1999.

Not even misdemeanors, civil traffic violations.... or rather, failure to appear citations, on bench warrants, issued for not paying the fines on those civil traffic violations.

Now the thing is, I knew about all of that. I have attempted to resolve this several times over the past twelve years, and it's caused me no end of trouble.

The most irritating part of that is, the fines aren't even valid. They are for unpaid violations which occurred while I wasn't even in the state; and then all the fines, fees, hearings, orders, court costs etc.... that piled on because I was never notified of these fines, for these traffic violations I didn't commit.

It made the state of Arizona repeatedly suspend and/or cancel my drivers license for example, because every 6 months Masachusetts would report that I had a Massachusetts license that was suspended.

I ended up having to go to court over this several times, and have spent thousands of dollars fixing it; but I thought that I finally had it fixed. My driving record is now clean and clear; and I haven't had a problem with my Idaho drivers license at all.

Apparently, I was wrong.

You see, Massachusetts has stopped screwing with my drivers license; but now they're screwing with my livelihood directly... but not intentionally because...

According to MASSACHUSETTS, they are NOT reporting me as a fugitive!

I contacted the the state DOJ, the three courts associated with the records, and the Massachusetts state police the day I got the letter from the FBI. According to every law enforcement agency and relevant court in MA, I am not a fugitive.

In fact, according to all their computer systems, searching by name and by SSN; I don't even have any current, outstanding, active indictments, charges, warrants, orders, or fines. That's why I came up clear on the criminal background check I had done in MA after I was denied.

The three courts in question did have paper records of the original issues from 12 years ago; but they were all in the "dead" files. The only thing in the active computer records was a pointer under the case record number where to find the record.

So, obviously, I'm not a fugitive from justice. I am not a criminal, I haven't been charged or convicted of anything; and I've passed a couple dozen criminal background checks (including a top secret security clearance renewal) since 1999.

In fact, after I talked with Massachusetts, I went back to the FBI and the ATF; and both acknowledged that I am not a prohibited person under the law; only that I need to correct an improperly categorized record.

Seriously, why in the hell does the FBI have me listed as a fugitive?

In 2001, after 2 years of not paying the fines associated with these civil infractions (at which time I lived in Ireland by the way), three different courts in Massachusetts, issued three bench warrants. Then after 90 days, those courts cited me for failure to appear on the bench warrants.

Oh... It gets better...

Any lawyers reading this, or anyone who has dealt with warrants, or fugitive retrieval, or is a cop... I'm sure you're all scratching your heads right now, because this shouldn't be happening.

Now technically, there is a legal definition of "fugitive from justice". The federal fugitive database (part of the NCIC) is only supposed to accept a report of you as a fugitive if you meet that definition, which boils down to:

1. If you are actively fleeing a felony trial, indictment, charge, prosecution, warrant, or arrest (some states handle things a bit differently from others, thus the laundry list).
   
   
2. If you are actively fleeing from criminal trial, indictment, charge, etc... (as above) on certain categories of misdemeanor (mostly domestic violence, mental health, drugs, alcohol, and financial fraud stuff).
   
   
3. If you have escaped or absconded from or failed to report for parole, probation, incarceration, or other judicially ordered custody, detention, or supervision (including non-custodial detention like house arrest)
   
   
4. If you are CURRENTLY in violation of an ACTIVE court order requiring your presence at a certain time or date (summons, subpoena to appear, material witness order etc...).

Moving out of a jurisdiction is not the same as fleeing by the way. Fleeing prosecution or arrest is a crime in and of itself, and requires intent, and deliberate action to avoid.

At this point I feel it's important to note, a failure to appear citation on a 12 year old bench warrant for an unpaid civil fine is not any of those things.

Interstate non-felony warrants are only supposed to be active for 24 months (technically it's a "reasonable time"; but that is conventionally presumed to be within the statute of limitations or maximum term of imprisonment for the offense in question; which for a misdemeanor is presumed to be 24 months), unless there is an outstanding active indictment, or the warrants are reissued; or there is specific cause to believe the offender fled the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution (leaving the jurisdiction lawfully is not fleeing the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution).

I have never been indicted or charged with a crime (other than failure to appear), and these warrants have never been reissued.

Since none of those things apply, every law enforcement agency in the country OUTSIDE of Massachusetts considers me to have a clean and clear criminal record. I've had my local sheriff do a wants and warrants check on me, and nothing shows up, even from Massachusetts. As far as he's concerned I'm clear.

Not only that, but because the bench warrants are on civil fines and failure to appear for a civil hearing, even in Massachusetts I would not be subject to criminal detention on warrant service. Technically the failure to apear is a criminal offense, so I could be arrested (optionally at the law enforcement agencies discretion); but on arrest I would be booked, criminally cited for failure to appear, and released on either a payment of the citation ($500 fine plus $80 in fees) or ROR with a promise to appear (at the discretion of the duty magistrate); and a new summons for another hearing date (I verified this with the MA state police).

Basically, it's only slightly more serious than a glorified speeding ticket; and as I said, even the Massachusetts state police doesn't list me as having any active warrants.

But it gets better...

There's three quirks of Massachusetts law that make this so screwed up:

1. Massachusetts law makes no distinction between felonies and misdemeanors; and therefore there is no difference between a felony warrant and a misdemeanor warrant.
   
   
2. Bench warrants in Massachusetts never expire (even for misdemeanors and civil infractions); the warrant must be discharged, or a judge has to vacate it. In many states, non-felony bench warrants expire after 2 or 3 years, and need to be reissued to remain active.
   
   
3. In 2010, Massachusetts changed their criminal records privacy regulations and reporting policies, in response to some MA supreme court decisions from 2004-2009. As a result of these changes, they do not include detailed offense or charge information (or even the date of offense, or the date of the warrant) in their reporting to other organizations or agencies, except under certain conditions. They require a court order; a specific, signed and approved record request by an authorized individual or agency; or a certified request in person, or with notarized and LEO agency signed off proof of identity, of the individual whose record it is (or their legal guardian, spouse, child, or next of kin). Without such a request, the record has no detail; only that it exists, the type of record (only 10 types: criminal charge, criminal indictment, criminal conviction, criminal commitment, criminal warrant, custodial order, probation order, parole order, medical/psychiatric order, or order of protection)  and a CJIS record number (not even a case number; though the court, year, and case number, are actually embedded in the CJIS number). 

As the fedgov doesn't consider a non-felony warrant active after 24 months unless the warrant is reissued, this still shouldn't be an issue. It should have been reported in 2001, and by 2003 the warrant would have been classified as inactive, and not popped up in the system (and again, most misdemeanors, are not disabling, and no civil infraction is disabling).

And from 2003-2010 that was the case. I hadn't been denied on a NICS check in years; and as I said, I have always been able to correct the problem over the phone.

But, because Massachusetts doesn't report any distinction between felony and misdemeanor, or any charge or offense date, or even a date of warrant or date of offense; any warrant reported from Massachusetts is counted as if it was an active felony warrant, by the FBI system (because it may be, and they have to treat every warrant as if it were, since they don't know any better).

But it gets better...

A few years ago, Massachusetts basically went broke (or rather, they had to admit they were broker than they could easily cook the books to cover); and they went through a desperate revenue drive. During this drive, they resurrected all the old fines and fees, all the old child support and uncollectable back taxes, all the old summons and old bench warrants etc... they could find; basically to maximize the fines and fees they could collect.

At the same time, the state was centralizing and computerizing their court records, warrant records etc... into something they call the "Massachusetts Criminal Justice Information System", or CJIS (most states have built a CJIS at this point, in order to exchange information with the FBI, NCIC, Homeland Security etc... Many got funding from the fedgov to do so).

The CJIS processed years of back warrants and fines as a result of this funding drive; and they now automatically report all "active" records to the FBI databases every 180 days. Since in MA a bench warrant never expires, they consider it an active warrant.

It was the CJIS that improperly reported me to the FBI as a fugitive, with three active warrants.

Their system makes no distinction between a 12 year old bench warrant for a civil fine, and a felony fugitive warrant; and because their system makes no distinction, when they report it to the FBI, the NICS makes no distinction.

From 2003 to 2010 this wasn't an issue; because the warrants aged out of the federal system. Now that Massachusetts is re-reporting them every six months though; they appear in the FBI automated system to be active, valid, current, felony fugitive warrants (though a 90 second look from a human being will show that is incorrect).

The NICS is supposed to have a records of all ACTIVE warrants, indictments, convictions, orders of commitment and protection, and active pending charges only; along with the charges and offense dates associated with any such records. Part of the NICS is correct for me: it doesn't show any active felony or misdemeanor arrest warrants, charges, or indictments etc... But because Massachusetts reports a failure to appear bench warrant on a civil traffic violation the same way it reports a felony murder warrant; the NICs can't tell that I'm not on the damn 10 most wanted list.

Now, if you do a wants and warrants or criminal record check on me in any state INCLUDING Massachusetts, I come up clean. I've never been charged with, or convicted of, anything more serious than a traffic violation. I've passed multiple criminal background checks for employment purposes, I have multiple CCW permits, I've been buying and selling firearms for years...

I am NOT a prohibited person. During this process, the FBI has acknowledged that I am not a prohibited person. The ATF has acknowledged that I am not a prohibited person. However because one state is reporting me as a fugitive in their systems, they cannot simply correct the record and process my paperwork.

Oh, they could; but unless I go through "the process", they won't.

But it gets better...

At this point, I can either get Massachusetts to correct their record and re-apply, or I can go through the secondary appeal process with the NICS bureau.

I called the Massachusetts CJIS and they said that they can't correct the records without a court order. Their position is, as far as they're concerned the records are correct. I have an undischarged bench warrant, that has not been vacated, and there is no such thing as a felony or misdemeanor warrant in Massachusetts; so they can't exactly report a difference between the two. It's not their fault the FBI interprets them as they do.

Because MA is so screwed up, so desperate for money, and because they recently changed the way they report warrants; I can't be an FFL until I fix their BS.

Said BS is spread across three different courts, in three different cities by the way...

...and here's the crowning glory...

As I mentioned above, I didn't actually commit these violations. I was never cited, given a ticket, or given a summons. I wasn't even in the state when they happened, nor was I in the state when the bench warrants were issued, or when the failure to appear cites were issued.

In fact, I wasn't even in the country when the warrants and cites were issued; and I certainly wasn't served with anything.

If I get in front of a judge, with a lawyer, and they actually decide to listen and not just rubber stamp the states fines and fees (usually they don't listen, no matter what your proof is); then all this should just be dismissed immediately.

Of course, they'd still make me pay all the "costs" and "fees", including a fee just to have a hearing instead of them rubberstamping the fine. That "fee" by the way, is as much as the fine for the violation, PLUS the court costs and fees; and for some things there's even a bond that you have to put up, and that you forfeit if you lose.

Yes, the ACLU is actually suing Massachusetts over this practice by the way; as it is rather clearly a denial of due process. Unfortunately, a denial that many states have emulated, as they try to resolve their own budget issues, and overcrowded courts.

But it gets better...

Because they are bench warrants, with a failure to appear cite; I can't resolve the issue from home, unless a judge specifically decides I can have a lawyer act for me in absentia. Which means I need to pay a lawyer to go to court for me, ask the judge to allow him to appear for me in absentia, and hope the judge agrees (they usually don't).

I've been through this before by the way, on the bogus suspended license issue. It cost me $2500 in fines and fees, and another $3500 in legal fees, but I was finally able to get a lawyer to act for me.

If not, I'll have to go to Massachusetts, be arrested in three different jurisdictions, be processed in three different jurisdictions, pay three citation fines and fees ($1740 worth), get three new summons for a date some time in the future (usually 30-90 days; but almost certainly on different days) and go home; then 30-90 days later come back for the hearings, just so I can have the judge vacate the warrants.

Oh and of course, I have to pay the court costs, fees, fines etc to have the warrants vacated, no matter what. Then I have to go through the second hearing on the fines and fees; which,  if I am lucky, they will have right then; but most likely they won't, because the attorney representing the agency which issued the fine wont be there, with their records, and another hearing will be set for another 30-90 days after that.

In the best possible case, I can be arrested and processed in one jurisdiction the day before they are holding traffic hearings, then come back the next day and ask to have my hearing that day at the convenience of the court; wait all day to see if they hear me; get heard, and have the warrants vacated, then ask to be heard on the fines that day, or the next morning, or the next day they are holding traffic hearings.

Then I would repeat that two more times over the course of two or three weeks (since each one would take at least two days, maybe three, even if the judge did decide to expedite the hearings; and the courts may have conflicting schedules), hoping the judges all agree to hear me on a walk in, and then agree to hear the fine the same day or the next day.

And, as I said above; even if I can get them to do that, they're still going to charge me costs and fees at least equal to what the fines were anyway.

Frankly, I just don't have that money. Not even close to it.

Ok... so as I said above, I can appeal for a supplementary hearing from the NICS bureau, get them to purge that record from the NICS database "permanently",  add a note to my record, and give me a unique ID number to keep me from being denied again because of it.

If I go that route, because there is a "valid" record being reported by a state, and the state won't correct it; I have to pay for a federal investigation, then pay for a federal hearing, get that hearing, argue my case that the MA records should be purged as non-disabling (as they clearly are not), and have the presiding official decide that is what they should do.

Oh and the time to do that is anywhere from 9 months to 2 years by the way; and thousands of dollars

Yeah... I don't have that money either; or that time.

Oh and if I go that way, and MA changes how they report the records at any time, I'll have to go through the whole thing all over again...

So, to Massachusetts it is.

For now, a lawyer friend of the family (my attorney in Massachusetts recently retired) is looking into trying to get all this sorted for me remotely, and for as little money as possible. Otherwise, it could be six months or more before I get my FFL.

Now, let's be clear; both the FBI and the ATF acknowledge that I am not a prohibited person; that this is just a paperwork problem, and that I am legal to own and possess firearms. I'm legal to obtain a firearm through a private intrastate transfer.

I'm even legal to repair and customize firearms, under someone else's FFL, because you don't have to actually permanently transfer a firearm to an FFL or gunsmith who is repairing or servicing it (including modifications, but not "remanufacturing" or manufacturing a new firearm). I have a partnership arrangement with a local FFL until my own FFL comes through; and I am never transferred a firearm to perform gunsmithing work on it. The FFL receives the firearm for repair or service, and writes it into their bound book as such. I take the firearm offsite for repair or service without transfer, which is allowed, under the auspices of the FFL holder. When I'm done, the FFL writes the firearm back out to the original owner, without a permanent transfer occurring (I simply cannot manufacture a new firearm, until my FFL comes through. I can assemble an AR from already manufactured components, but I can't make a new custom 1911).

And yes, I have confirmed all that with the local ATF inspector; it was necessary for my deal with the local FFL.

...But they won't fix the NICS without going through the official process; and because the NICS is "the system" for an FFL to obtain clearance to transfer a firearm, even though I am not a prohibited person, no FFL can transfer a firearm to me right now, and I can't be granted my FFL.

You might have noticed, the whole thing is pretty much arbitrary and capricious, from start to finish.

I have been improperly denied the exercise of my constitutionally guaranteed rights. Rights which the supreme court acknowledges pre-exist our nation and our constitution.

I have the right to obtain a firearm for any lawful purpose. That right is independent of our constitution, and our government; and is supposed to be legally protected by both. However, because of a paperwork issue, which everyone acknowledges is just that, a paperwork issue, not an actual condition of disability or prohibition; I am prevented from acquiring a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer.

This, is why background checks are always going to be a problematic issue with gun rights. The idea of a background check to prevent prohibited persons from having firearms transferred to them is OK; but what happens when the background check is wrong?

Is it ever acceptable to deny someone the legitimate and lawful exercise of their rights, simply because others may be prohibited? Or because of a computer error? Or because of a dispute between the way one agency keeps records, and another agency interprets them?

Those who strongly defend free speech will say "Of course not", when they're talking about speech...

Funny enough though... most of those same folks change their tune when we're talking about guns...

Project Hal - Part 2: Space

This is the second post (the first post was the introduction and announcement, here) in my series on setting up the shop for Crispin Arms and Crispin Fabrication (an endeavor that I have decided to call Project Hal; a Shakespearean pun).

The first step in setting up any shop, is acquiring, and readying, your shop space. Depending on where you live, this can actually be a difficult, and potentially expensive; proposition.

Thankfully, when we chose our home here in north Idaho, we were thinking ahead. We chose a home in an area that is zoned multi-use (residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural use are all allowed in my zoning area; within certain, fairly loose, limits). Not only that, but we chose a home with fairly large pre-existing shop space.

On the lower right of this picture, is my house. On the upper left, my shop:

My office/mancave/hobby/electronics/fine work/computer work space is about 3/4 of the bottom floor of the house by the way (the main living floor of the house is the second row of sliding glass doors, with the elevated deck running around two sides).

I've got about 800 square feet of space down there (under 8 foot suspended ceilings. Convenient for the wiring). My wife has her own 256sq foot craft room, with a bunch of worktable and storage space; separate from my workspace.

My main space is split into about half workspace, with desks, benches, bookcases and shelving, a water cooler, and a beverage fridge; about half "lounge" area, with a large "8 person" sectional sleeper sofa/double recliner, coffee tables, big screen TV, stereo, PS3 etc... I've also got a private 3/4 bath, a kitchenette (microwave, toaster oven, small flattop griddle, hot plate, small food fridge, electric tea kettle, and a french press) and a 64sq ft "secure" gun room. Honestly, the only reason to go into the rest of my house, is to be with my family.

At 28 foot wide by 32 foot deep (interior floor space),  the shop is a pretty decent overall size of just about 900sq feet; but it has some... eccentricities...

As you can see from the picture, it has an extra-wide (24 foot x 8 foot) garage door on the main floor. There are also a decent sized windows on each wall (large windows on the side walls, small windows upstairs and down, on the back walls), and a side entry door on the left side of the building.

Oddly, on the second floor, there's a sliding glass door opening out onto 10 feet of air. It was intended to allow for large items to be passed in (reminiscent of the classic hay loft door for a barn), as well as to provide a lot of natural light (the original owner used the space as a painting studio).

Out of that 28x32, it only has a 26x26 fully clear square. There's a 36" wide stairway, with a 36"x36" 90 degree landing at 36" off the floor; descending to a 36"x72"x12" concrete footing/concrete steps in the back right corner; taking up about 1/4 of the width of the back wall, to 72" depth (and restricting the height of another 1/4).  There are also built in 2 foot deep workbenches and cabinets along the full length of the left wall; and it's got 9 foot ceilings (8 foot clear of the garage door hardware and lights).

Basically, it's not quite a 3 car garage, but it's a lot bigger than a standard two car garage.

A note: This "two car garage" thing is actually a small point of irritation for me.

The American standard 2 car garage has a "minimum" size of 18x20 (by home appraisal standards); but in the age of the SUV, 24x24 has become the convention. There is no standard for a 3 car garage, but by convention, it would have around 36 feet of clear interior width. 

At 28 feet wide, my shop would technically be wide enough (though a bit of a squeeze by conventional standards) for a 3 car garage; with only 26 feet of clear width though, it would be a bit tight.  

Why do I say that though, when most cars are less than 6 feet wide? Or, put another way, why has the convention become 24x24 for a two car garage?

Even my bigger than full size pickup (Dodge megacab 2500), including the mirrors, is only 79.4" wide (6 feet 7.4 inches) unless I unfold the built in towing mirrors at which point it expands to 96" wide (8 feet). Its also one of the longest production vehicles in the world at just over 22 feet (including the stinger on the receiver hitch), and one of the tallest at almost 7 feet tall (It's 8" taller than a "standard" half ton pickup. That includes a 2" factory lift for being a 2500 with the heavy duty towing package; 4" more for being a 4x4; and a 1.5" lift from upgrading to 35" tires).

I personally don't think my HUGE truck should be what the "standard" is based on; but even if it were, my truck is longer and wider than any SUV currently sold, and you could still fit three of them in a 24x24 "standard" 2 car garage. A Chevy suburban is 19 feet long and 6'7" wide, and the same three would fit in the "standard" garage.

My actual passenger car (a Cadillac STS) is only 72.4" (6'0.4") wide and 196.3" (16'4") long; and it's a bigger than "average" car.

In fact, of the top 20 best selling passenger cars in America, the Chevy Impala is both the longest at 200" and the widest at 73" (The Camry is 190" long and 71" wide. The Accord is 195" long and also 73" wide). So ALL of the best selling passenger cars are under 17 feet long (and all but one is under 16 feet long), and all but two are 6 feet wide or under.

At 28x32 I could fit 8 "average" cars  in my floor space. Even in my 26x26 clear square space, or in the 24x24 American "standard" 2 car garage; you could still fit six "average" cars. 

Of course, no-one would be able to park, get out of, and unload a car, without a few feet of clearance to the sides and rear; but the idea that a two car garage needs to be 24x24 is ridiculous. You don't need six feet of space between two cars, three feet to either side of the two cars, and 8 feet behind their trunks.

My personal opinion, is that the two car garage "standard" should be a clear floor space of about 22x22; which still gives plenty of clear space between and around your vehicles, and room for cabinets and wall hanging storage. I think you could comfortably get away with 18x20 and still have more space than you do parking at the mall. The three car garage "standard" should be a clear floor space of about 32x22, and you could get away with 26x20.

What the "standard" really reflects, is that our garages aren't used for vehicles. Mostly, they're used for workshops and storage space; and the vehicles are an afterthought...

Frankly, even in cold states, most people I know with a "two car garage", don't use their garage for cars at all. Most of the time, if there's a vehicle in the garage, its a motorcycle or a quad.

The shop also has about half the main floors usable space (with 6 foot or higher ceilings) on the second floor, with  a very large amount of storage space under the rafters (behind the six foot walls).

Really, it was never built as a garage, and was always intended to be a shop, and office/work space on the second floor. As I noted above, the original owners even built in cabinets and work tables along one wall; and they deliberately built the stairs very wide, with a wide landing and clear entry zone, to allow for large items to be brought up and down.

Even with the eccentricities though, I've got enough space for all my shop tools, workflow and walkaround room, materials storage etc... Particularly since all my shop tools are on mobile bases.  I can just reconfigure things as I need, for the project that I am working on.

It's not ideal; but ideally I'd have 10000sqft of climate controlled space, with 24 foot ceilings (to fit a tall tail on a plane) a 48 foot hangar door (to fit wings), and my own landing strip.

Ideally, I'd also have an unlimited budget. This shop is included in my house payment. It'll do.

The bigger issue, was that, by the time I actually started this project; we'd had over 18 months of crap accumulating in the shop.

I started cleaning it out a couple months back; but up 'til a few days before the announcement, about half the clear floor space was taken up with "crap".

A few weeks ago, this is what the shop looked like:

It's not clear from this angle, but basically, there's about 200 square feet, piled a solid 5 foot high (some spots 7 foot), of nothing but (mostly flattened) cardboard boxes:

This was MOST OF the first load (we closed the tailgate and packed some more in):

And what was still left after the first load... probably two more loads:

Again, it's not really clear from the pic, but that pile is STILL 5 foot or more high, 10 foot deep, and probably 14ft wide.

That would be most of the boxes we moved with, plus most of the MANY MANY boxes we get from mail order (probably 1/2 our monthly shopping comes from Amazon. Thank god for Prime); and of course, a large percentage of the boxes from all the tools bought for the shop.

I'mna leave you hangin here though; because I'm not going to be showing pics of the whole shop, until I'm ready for some of the tool and storage posts.

Firearms mythbusting part... I can't remember at this point... Why 4lbs?

Rob Allen just put up a post on using the Apex Competition trigger (which gives the gun an appx 3lb trigger pull) in his carry M&P40.

In comments, several people said that they weren't comfortable with the idea; because their general concept of a "safe" carry trigger, is a 4lb trigger weight; and Apex themselves (basically for liability reasons) insist the trigger kit is for competition use only.

A four pound or heavier trigger pull for carry guns is the conventional wisdom around the gun world; but it seems everyone has a different explanation as to why... if they have an explanation at all, other than received wisdom.

The "lore" is that 4lbs is the point where you won't accidentally trip the sear if you put your finger on the trigger when gripping the weapon, or moving around.

Unfortunately, that's a myth; and a dangerous one.

In actuality, the trigger weight that will prevent most negligent discharges under normal conditions (never mind under great stress) is MUCH higher. Something like 12lb to 16lb in fact (several studies have been done over the years, and their conclusions have varied, from under 10lb under "normal" conditions, to well over 20lb under high stress).

Under high stress, reflexive or sympathetic gripping, can be extremely powerful.

Let me explain what that means.

Reflexive motions, are motions that happen involuntarily, in response to stimulus. They are "reflexes".

Sympathetic motions are a particular type of reflexive motion that occurs in one part of the body, when we move or perform an action with another part.

Our grip (the relevant bodily function to handling and actuating the trigger on a firearm), is subject to both sympathetic motion, and other types of reflexive motion.

When you squeeze something with your left hand, your right hand will tend to squeeze slightly, involuntarily, in response (actually, if you are left handed, the right hand will tend to respond quite strongly, and vice verse. The dominant hand more strongly influences the off hand). Unless you are actively looking out for this and attempting to stop it, you simply can't... and even then, you often can't stop it entirely. It's a twitch response.

That's called a sympathetic contraction, and it's the proximate cause of a lot of folks negligently discharging their firearms (the true cause is poor trigger discipline; but even very well trained people can and do screw up sometimes, through complacency, or under great stress... I speak from experience). 

Unfortunately, a lot of people develop the very bad habit of lightly resting their finger on the side, or face, of the trigger; or of putting their finger inside the trigger guard. Even if your finger isn't on the trigger, if it's inside the trigger guard, sympathetic (or other reflexive) motion can cause you to actuate the trigger unintentionally, causing a negligent discharge.

The other type of reflexive motion I'm going to address is also the proximate cause of a lot of negligent discharges... In particular, a lot of cops have shot themselves while chasing suspects because of it.

If you stumble, lose your balance, or fall, while holding something in your hand, you WILL grip that object VERY hard, with all your fingers; and you will tend to try to bring the object in close to your body. It's called reflexive contraction, and you CAN NOT STOP IT.

Literally thousands of tests have been done on this; and even if you are prepared to fall, it's simply not possible to prevent yourself from gripping hard when you fall with something gripped in your hand; unless, as you notice you are falling (IF you notice you are falling), you deliberately discard the item in your hand (or unless you train to do so for tens of thousands of repetitions, creating new muscle memory. No-one sane is going to do that).

How many people are going to deliberately toss their gun out of their hands when they fall?

Unless your finger is indexed firmly outside the trigger guard, and unable to slip into the trigger guard under strong reflexive motion; there's a pretty good chance that you're going to unintentionally actuate the trigger when these reflexive motions come into play.

Studies have been done many times over the years, and the results are inconsistent; but the general consensus is that an "average" subject will tend to grip with a range of between 20lb and 40lbs of force when reflexive motion under stress comes into play; and the higher the stress they are under at the time, the more force they will grip with.

I think we can agree, having to draw your firearm defensively would qualify as a high stress situation.

That said, no-one would accept a 40lb trigger pull on any normal gun. Hell, most people wouldn't even be able to pull it unless they WERE under extreme stress (I am a very large man, who regularly does grip exercises as physical therapy; and although I CAN pull 40lb with my index finger, I wouldn't want to do it very often. Or 20lb for that matter).

You design for the common case, not for the extreme edges; and you design to balance considerations. One consideration in trigger pull weight is comfort, another is accuracy; and unfortunately, these days the one given the most weight, is legal liability.

In the common case, a 10lb to 20lb trigger, will keep someone with poor trigger discipline, from negligently discharging their weapon during the draw cycle, or while moving about with the weapon on the range.

Sadly, this will not keep the firearms manufacturer or police department from being sued; but it will generally mean the manufacturer or police department won't lose because they had too light a trigger.

This liability issue is why the Glock New York II trigger (designed for the NYPD) is a nominal 11.5-12lb weight.

An aside: Actually, in most guns, it isn't; or even close to it. It varies from between 10lb and 14lb at the face of the trigger; because of inconsistencies in spring tension, pistol wear, slight differences in the connector angles, and differences in friction of the mating surfaces.

Also, trigger weight measurement will vary based on where on the trigger the measurement is taken, and the design of the trigger. Tilting triggers like those in Glocks and S&W revolvers, have much more leverage at the trigger tip than the face; but people squeeze the trigger from the face).

The New York trigger was designed in response to officers (many of them transitioning from S&W revolvers), not being used to the much lighter weight of the standard Glock trigger, and negligently discharging their firearms. In response, Glock just made their triggers as heavy as the DA trigger pull of the departments old S&W revolvers; which were nominally between 11 and 12lbs.

The negligent discharge issue is also why "traditional" double action revolver trigger pulls are at around a 12lb standard (lately they've been going up. Current S&W production revolvers run something like 16-18lbs), and why military arms were often designed to have 12lb triggers etc...

In fact, I believe that number was arrived at during the adoption of a modified version of the Smith & Wesson model 1889 hand ejector, as the S&W military and police revolver, in 1899; but I believe the 11-12lb nominal DA trigger pull of the revolver, was simply the result of a series of manufacturing decision, that had the happy accident of reducing the impact of private dumbass's bad firearms habits.

At any rate, like most things, it became the "Traditional" revolver trigger weight by an accidental and coincidental combination of factors; but once that was established as the standard, people resisted or rejected any variation from it. Millions of soldiers and policemen were trained on revolvers with 12lb double action trigger pulls for decades; and that's the way they "should" be.

The 4lb carry trigger on semi-auto handguns has a similar story.

Really, the 4lb number came about because of 1911s, small metal trigger parts, gunsmiths, and bubbas.

4lbs, is about the lowest you can take the trigger pull on a stock 30s through 70s manufacture 1911, without having to replace the trigger parts with higher quality, lighter weight, better heat treated pieces that have never had any stoning done on them; and still have the gun be "safe" (actually, a safe and clean 4lbs is pushing it on a lot of guns, but 4.5lbs is doable on almost any 1911).

By "safe", I mean that the pistol won't have hammer pushoff (where you can push the hammer forward off the sear), hammer follow (where the hammer follows the slide forward, or falls forward off the sear when the slide locks into battery), trigger doubling (where the inertia of the trigger -or the trigger and your finger- under recoil causes the sear to trip), or runaway (where the disconnector fails to cause the sear to reset); under heavy recoil.

4lbs is also about the lightest a "bubba", without the proper tools and fixtures, can get a 1911 trigger with freehand stoning; and not have it be TOO dangerous. Frankly, part of the whole 4lbs thing, is what one might consider "defensive disinformation"; in that if the bubbas got the received wisdom that they could get to 4lbs but anything lower was likely to kill somebody, maybe they wouldn't be so stupid and screw up their (and other peoples) guns so much trying to go lighter (in which, it had mixed success).

An important note: As I have said here many times before, never let someone who isn't an expert, with proper tools, training, and experience, work on your firearms, ESPECIALLY your triggers; including yourself. No-one who doesn't know exactly what they are doing, and have the right tools to do it, should ever work on a firearms trigger.

With an ultralight trigger, ultralight hammer, good springs, and good high quality trigger parts; that are properly fitted, properly stoned and polished, and properly heat treated; it's certainly possible to get a much lighter trigger in a 1911 and still be mechanically safe.

You can actually get down to less than 2lbs (if you use VERY high quality parts, and replace them frequently) and be mechanically safe; but that discounts human factors (also, the parts will have a much shorter service life). 

Anything under 3lbs on a short pull single stage trigger (like a 1911), and I worry about inertia and reflexive motion causing doubling under heavy recoil; even if you are extremely well trained in resetting and getting off the trigger (I speak from experience).

Some competitive shooters have their race guns set up with as light as 1.2lb triggers, but those are highly tuned guns, highly trained shooters, and they replace the parts of the gun LONG before they wear out.... and frankly, I still think it's a silly idea.

There are some folks who brag about 12oz triggers on 1911s; but for one, I've never see a 1911 trigger lighter than 18oz that I would consider safe, and honestly, I really don't see the point.

Anything less than about 3lbs or so isn't going to make a bit of difference in competitive accuracy (it's basically a bragging rights issue). It's really the clean break, without any stacking or creep that's more important, and going so light actually makes it harder to get that break perfect. I'd rather have a 6lb trigger with a perfect break, than a 2lb trigger with anything less than a perfect break (and honestly, with a perfect break, that 6lb pull is going to feel, subjectively, lighter than the 2lb without it).

Plus, the parts wear out so much faster (particularly for a competitive shooter, who may shoot 50,000 rounds a year), you're having to constantly do new triggers; and you're always carrying extra risk of getting a procedural or technical (because, as I said, even a well trained shooter can screw up).

Other firearms designs have their own limitations.

An N-Frame Smith and Wesson revolver, with a good smith, can get down to about a 7lb DA trigger pull and still be reliable with most ammo (though a trigger under 8lbs may have a problem with hard primers). 

That same gun can be tuned down to an under 1lb single action trigger; but I recommend against it because the trigger parts will wear down very quickly, and the hammer may push off if hit hard, or dropped. My personal 625 has an SA pull of just under 2lbs, and it breaks with a hard wish.

With a Glock, the limits are determined by the geometry of the transfer bar, striker, trigger connector, the springs in the trigger system, and overall friction in the trigger system.

The practical limit on a 100% safe and reliable, and reasonably crisp, trigger for a Glock is about 2.5-3lbs or just a bit under (every gun is a little bit different); and most other striker fired auto pistols are somewhere around there as well.

Because the Glock in particular has a long travel trigger, with a semi-cocked striker (with the trigger in its neutral position, the striker doesn't have enough energy to ignite a primer, even if it falls without a trigger pull); the weight of the trigger itself isn't much of a safety factor.

The important thing is to have sufficient engagement between the components, and sufficient spring pressure; that inertia, metal fatigue, or small pieces of grit, wouldn't cause doubling (or worse, a runaway) under heavy recoil.

Also, with Glocks (and again, most other striker fired auto pistols), very light trigger weights can actually feel worse than heavier weights; because the very light springs required, make the trigger feel "soft", "mushy", or "spongy" rather than crisp. This can actually hurt accuracy (as I said above, the break is more important than the weight). 

My personal opinion, is that any trigger that is mechanically safe and reliable; is TECHNICALLY suitable for carry.

The real problem though, isn't technical, it's legal.

A 4lb or higher trigger weight, is the conventional wisdom and "industry standard" for a carry trigger.

If you deliberately act to carry a firearm with a trigger lighter than that (particularly if it's against the manufacturers strict recommendation), then you are taking on a huge potential legal liability in the event you have to use your firearm defensively.

First of course, is being portrayed as having an "unsafe" modification, or "hair trigger" in the event of a jury trial.

As to how much impact this will have... Ask Harold Fish. He carried a modified 10mm, and the prosecutors successfully argued that because he did so (both the light trigger, and the fact that he carried such a powerful round) he was "looking to shoot someone".

Most of the time, juries aren't that stupid (prosecutors on the other hand...), but sometimes... That said, it doesn't stop me from carrying my 10mm 1911 (with a 3lb 12oz trigger by the by).

Second, most shooters are not used to such light triggers. If another shooter picks up your gun, and has poor trigger discipline; with a very light trigger, even when you warn them, it's entirely possible they may ND during draw or presentation.

I've had this happen with several different shooters, and several of my guns (including those with over 4lb triggers); mostly Glock shooters who weren't used to 1911s.

Finally, there's you. Are YOU, personally, safe with a 4lb or lighter trigger.

If you aren't well trained, and well practiced (or, even if you are, and your fingers just aren't that sensitive), it can be VERY easy to unintentionally trip a very light trigger.

A lot of folks assume that 5lbs is a fair bit of weight; after all lots of people exercise with 5lb dumbbells. With your grip though, it's different.

I'm a guitar player and a bass player. Finger strength is rather important to folks who do that. I use a 50lb whole hand grip exerciser, and an "extra heavy" Gripmaster pro five finger exerciser, with 11lb of tension on each finger; and I feel barely any resistance to my index finger squeeze.

Even my wife, who has comparatively little grip strength, can squeeze the 11lb index finger pad easily enough, and she has no problem with the trigger pull on my J-Frame 340pd ( so it's not actually a matter of trigger finger strength.

Some folks can't feel any difference between a 2lb trigger, and a 6lbs trigger, simply because their proprioceptive sense just isn't fine enough, or isn't trained enough.

And of course, there's simply a matter of what you're used to, and what you're comfortable with. 4lbs of trigger weight seems EXTREMELY light, when you're used to 6 or 7 or 12lbs; never mind 3lbs. Also, most people are used to some takeup, some creep, and some stacking in their triggers. When presented with a trigger that has none of these things (or very little), even if the trigger is hev peoples "surprise break" can be more like a "whoa, how the hell did that thing go off" trigger break.

So, if you want a lighter than a 4lb trigger, I'm perfectly OK with it, and it's most likely perfectly mechanically safe; so long as you are personally safe, and comfortable with it, and so long as you accept the potential liability issue.

Project Hal

This little 400lb crate:

Is what I was waiting for to arrive, before I made the announcement.

Inside said 400lb crate, is a Seig SuperX3 Mill drill; the best of the Chinese made benchtop mills, here in the guise of the Grizzly G0619 "small mill drill" (it's also available from Jet, and from Shop Fox):

It's one step up from the "mini mills" and "hobby mills" out there, and one step down from a freestanding vertical mill. I've got a power feed for it, and it's got a built in DRO on the quill, and for the spindle RPM. I just need to put a multi-axis DRO on the table and head (and I may CNC it. There's a number of CNC conversion kits out there for it).

Significantly though, it's the smallest mill I would consider adequate for general gunsmithing; with a 1hp motor, a 21"x6" table,  16"x6" table travel, and a no-retram 90 degree rotating millhead. With a 6" rotary table, a 6" cross slide vise, a 6" tilting vise, and a full set of clamps and blocks (all of which I've also purchased) that's enough mill capacity and capability for any gunsmithing operation I can think of short of milling a full stock, or an entire precision shooting fixture.

With this, and the 26" metal lathe (and other tools of course) I've acquired; I feel that I can make my announcement.

I have set up a full machine shop, and wood shop; and I am becoming a full time (or at least most of the time) gunsmith, metal fabricator, and woodwright.

I'm an engineer by nature and by education; with degrees in aerospace engineering, and computer science. I've got almost 20 years employment in some type of engineering work (mostly in IT), and more than 10 years in technical management. I also build and repair computer systems, storage, and networking equipment.

What most don't know (though I have mentioned it here before several times), is that I'm also a trained and experienced metal fabricator, finish carpenter, cabinet maker, and furniture restorer and refinisher (both by interest, and by former employment).

I've been fabricating in wood and metal both professionally, and as a hobby, since I was a teenager.  I've also been working professionally with computers and networks since I was a teenager.

I started my first business while I was in high school, building computers and networks for doctors and lawyers offices etc... I've been working in IT ever since.

From the age of 13, I was also employed part time (and occasionally full time) at my uncles furniture restoration and refinishing shop; where I learned fine carpentry, cabinet making, and furniture finishing and restoration. On the side, I built and finished a couple of boats, more than a couple of guitars, a lot of furniture... basically anything in wood that I felt like messing with.

Other jobs I had as a teenager and during college included an apprentice fabricator at a custom bicycle shop, where I learned to weld and braze (including aluminum and titanium), and where I first learned machinework; and as an auto and motorcycle mechanic.

I've been making knives and swords since I was 17; when a friend of mine in the SCA introduced me to forging, and stock removal knife making. Right now I have several knives that I either made, or heavily modified from stock blades (regrind, reshape, refinish, new grip scales etc...); and I have given several as gifts over the years.

I started gunsmithing... (or more accurately, armorer work since I at the time I didn't do any firearms machine work. Just fitting and filing) when I was 21; working mostly on ARs, AKs, SKS's, and 1911s.

Again, I've never stopped doing that, both as a hobby, and periodically as a business. Over the past 15 years or so, I've done hundreds of trigger jobs and action jobs, and a lot of parts fitting; on Glocks, SIGs, 1911s, and various rifles; and built dozens of ARs, and Remington 700 type rifles (as well as a few other types of guns here and there).  I've also been a firearms trainer (I was NRA certified), and a shop armorer and class III armorer, for several different businesses.

Recently, I've built a number of full custom 1911s, and several precision long range rifles, on the TC Encore, Remington 700, and Winchester model 70 platforms. I've also done a few Saiga conversions, and some rebuilding and refinishing work.

The reason I haven't referred to myself as a professional gunsmith before, was because as far as I'm concerned, you aren't a gunsmith if you don't have the shop and tools necessary to build a gun from bare metal (minus rifling the barrel, which almost no-one has the machines for anymore); and I haven't ever had the space, time, and cash, all at the same time, to have such a shop.

This is the same reason why I haven't referred to myself as a cabinetmaker or furniture restorer. Without a shop to work with, you're just another carpenter.

I've done gunsmithing work for years, using other peoples gear, and using hand tools and light power tools (the dremel tool can be your friend, as well as your enemy); but I haven't been able to do the kind of work I wanted to do.

I've been doing light finish carpentry, making furniture, and restoring antiques for years, using whatever home grade tools I had at the time. Again, I haven't been able to do the work I wanted to do.

As of now, that is no longer true. Now I have the tools, and the space, to do what I want to do.

I have spent the last few months, and about $30,000; building a custom wood and metal fabrication shop, here on my property in Sagle Idaho.

The last tools to purchase were the mill, and the metal lathe (I've had a wood lathe since last year). I ordered them a few weeks ago, and the Mill arrived today (the lathe hasn't shown up yet, but it was supposed to be here today as well).

So, in this post, I am formally announcing the formation of Crispin Arms, and Crispin Fabrication; joining Crispin Press and Crispin Consulting, as subsidiaries of Crispin Enterprises.

Crispin Arms - 

Crispin Arms is a small gunsmithing shop, FFL dealer, Class 3 SOT, manufacturer of firearms and class III items (paperwork is filed and pending on all of those requiring federal licensing); maker of custom knives; and manufacturer of high precision, custom loaded ammunition.

We specialize in custom gunsmithing, ammosmithing, bladesmithing, custom fabrication in metal and wood, and firearms repair; including repair of class III items, and fabrication and fitting of hard to find and out of production parts for firearms and class III items.

Crispin Arms has particular expertise in 1911 type pistols, and long range rifles.

Crispin Fabrication -

Crispin Fabrication is a fabrication, repair, restoration, and finishing shop for wood and metal.

Services including custom machining, custom sheetmetal work, welding, custom electronics and electronics repair, wood and metal finishing and refinishing (including spray and chemical finishes, but not plating or heart cured finishes), wood and metal repair and restoration, and antique repair and restoration.

Crispin Fabrication has particular expertise in automotive, powersport and motorsport applications; aviation applications; boating and marine applications; guitar repair and fabrication; and furniture repair and restoration.

We also manufacture specialty tools and fixtures, and custom and reproduction parts, for all of the industries and interests above.

So, what's next?

Well, I've got the tools, and I've got the building.

I have a 32' x 32' fully insulated and heated shop space; with a second floor, heated, clean air, spray booth (I have both HVLP and high pressure systems. I spend the money to get a Japanese made professional turbine; because you can't cheap out on HVLP setups) , and a storage loft.

I've also got a dedicated 400 square feet in my finished and climate controlled basement; for office work, clean work, and benchwork, and for a secure storage space.

It's small, but with the way I've got things set up (everything is either on a wall, or on rolling stands) it's enough, and it's cheap to run.

The only thing space wise I don't have, that I'd really like, is a space for a vehicle lift (I have a bike lift, and an overhead hoist, and enough clear space to get a truck up on stands; but not enough for a lift), and a loading dock for truck deliveries. Frankly, I can live without them.

Now I need to finish putting the shop together, setting the tools up, setup the storage and organization etc... That's going to take me a few weeks.

I have local resources arranged for plating, anodizing, powdercoating, engraving, and anything else I can't do in my shop (including whatever machining or welding I can't do on my own).

I'm already setup to do stock removal knife making; excepting that I haven't built a heat treating oven yet (and yes, I'm going to build one, not buy one. You can build one for a hell of a lot less than the $2500 they charge for even a small 1500 degree setup).

I will also be building a forge, and hand forging implements, tools, and blades; but that is a ways down the road. 

I've got the paperwork in on my dealers and manufacturers FFL right now. That will take anywhere from a few weeks, to a couple months to clear. I don't plan on focusing on sales of new or used firearms ( I want local shops to send me business, not see me as a competitor); but I will conduct transfers, group buys, and other FFL type stuff. In the mean time, I have an arrangement with a local gun shop to do transfers, to sell my custom guns, and to act as their shop gunsmith. 

Once my FFL comes through, I will file as a Class III SOT; which will take another couple months.

I'm hoping that within the next six months, I'll be able to manufacture, customize, and repair, any kind of firearm I choose, or my customers choose to send me.

Not only that, I'm creative, and I'm skilled mechanically and in materials. I don't just copy and fix, I design new things; and new ways of doing things. I can create original designs, and I can execute them. I plan on doing any type of custom fabricating people want to pay for, and I have the skills to execute.

I'm currently taking advanced machining and advanced welding classes locally, to refresh and expand my skills. I know how to do both, but I am by no means a master at either; and I can always use more practice time, and new skills and techniques. I may become a certified welder, and get a machinists certificate in the process, simply to have as points on my resume. 

Of course, I'll be working locally, through the blog, and through my contacts in the gun world, to generate business. There are a lot of folks out there who have seen my work on 1911s and precision rifles; and a lot of people who have felt my trigger work. I am willing to bet you that many of them would say they've never felt a better trigger than on one of my 1911s, or on my S&W 625.

There's also a few folks who have seen (or own) my custom furniture and wood working pieces; and they'll tell you they've never seen a better piece, with a better finish, than I make.

Tomorrow, I'm going to post an example of a product I intend to sell, made by hand, in wood and metal; and that I can make and sell many of, with relatively low overhead.

As I mentioned in the other post, we've got a few months worth of living expenses banked; but until I can get the shop in full swing, I'm going to be taking IT contracts, and possibly a full time position locally if I can find one worthwhile. I'm actively looking as of now.

Frankly, getting out of debt and then setting up the shop were both FAR more expensive than I thought they would be, totalling almost $80,000 altogether. After the IRS took its share of my severance,  I paid off our debt, and I paid for the shop; there is a lot less left over than I am happy with (I originally intended to have a full years worth of bills and expenses banked).

The fact is, until I can book between $5,000 and $7,000 a month in revenue, I'm not going to be able to do this full time.  In fact, I may never be able to drop IT consulting entirely; but I see the value in having the tools, and keeping up the skills, for these pursuits.

Every good gunsmith I know has a multimonth (or in some cases multi-year) backlog of work of course; but it took them years to get to that point. I expect it will take me some time to get to the point where I have as much gunsmithing and fabricating work as I can handle; if I ever get to that point. 

Over the next few years, I think it's going to be very valuable, to have the skills and tools to work locally, on things that need to be built and repaired locally.  I think having those skills, tools and equipment, will, long term; provide at least as much value as I could provide with the much higher revenue I would be generating in IT consulting.

Plus, it's just something I want to do.

Over the next few weeks, I'm going to be doing a number of posts about setting up the shop, the tools, the costs, the services well be offering etc...

Oh and of course, I need to setup the web sites for Crispin Arms and Crispin Fabrication. Haven't done that yet. 

I'll also be doing tool reviews, and posts about building the shop fixtures, furniture, some of the projects I've done lately, and items I'm offering for sale.

Also, I'm going to get back to real gun blogging. I have a lot of content queued up and ready to go; with a bunch more partially written waiting for me to finish. I plan on having at least three major updates or substantive posts every week; and I'd like to get one out every day if I can.


So... why am I doing this, AND computer work, AND publishing?

The fact is, it's tough for a small business owner out there.

The only single one of these businesses that could (at least for now) provide enough revenue on it's own to be self sustaining, and to provide my family with the standard of living I want (at least without working more hours a week than I'm happy with) is the IT consulting; so that's what I've spent most of my time and effort on over the past 15 years.

Even under the best of circumstances, I don't think I could provide for my family with nothing but gunsmithing and gun sales revenue, or publishing revenue, or local computer systems building and repair; or even all of them combined.

It's just not viable at my scale.

To keep the lights on here, costs us about $4500 a month; between rent, utilities, bills, food, and gas. That's a net income requirement, just to pay the bills, of about $54,000 a year. That doesn't account for any savings, any vacations, any recreation etc... That's just paying the bills for the house and shop, two cars, and eating.

If we add in say, 20% on top of that to account for "extras" such as savings, retirement, emergencies, eating out occasionally etc... that's another $10,800 or about $65k a year total net, to maintain our standard of living.

In a normal salaried job, that means something like an $85k a year salary; which isn't exactly nothing, but I've been making far more than that working in IT for the past 15 years (at least 50% more than that most years, double that in some years).

 I'm just not going to be able to make that much, or anything near it; in the other businesses.

For the fabricating and gunsmithing; at an $85/hour shop rate, and $65 per hour bench rate (presume 1920 hours per year to account for sick time and vacations), if I presume I can maintain 50% billable hours in a year (a very big assumption) at 3/4 bench and 1/4 shop time, thats a gross of $67,200. Net... maybe half that after taxes and expenses.  I would have to maintain something between 1200 and 1400 billable hours a year to reach the income levels we need. I can ever get to that point, it will be years from now.

The same goes for publishing. If we were lucky, and managed to attract say, six reasonable selling books a year, and another six contract publishing jobs, we MIGHT manage to GROSS $60k a year. Net... half that or less (materials costs are much higher as a percentage than in gunsmithing).

I don't know if this is going to work. I know I can do it, but it's also a huge risk, and there may be no payoff... but I'm working at it as hard and as smart, as I know how; and I'm going to do my damndedst to make this a success.

Because I want to build things, and make things again; and because I want control of my own destiny.

Five Years Later - Why bullpups aren't a great solution

In my ongoing series revisiting posts from five (or six) years ago, I thought I'd update one of my most read and linked posts, the one on bullpups.

In this case, I'm not doing a new post, but I've completely re-written (and corrected all the typos and dead links in) the old post. In particular I greatly simplified it, pulling out a bunch of wonkish detail on human mechanics and ergonomics which just about everyone ignored.

Oh and I renamed it; since I don't actually thing they're a BAD idea, but they aren't an optimal solution:

For some reason, the the bullpup rifle keeps being put forward as a good idea.

...Really, for the most part, they are not.

I'm an engineer and a firearms expert; by training, inclination, experience, and employment. I'm a veteran, a former security contractor, a former firearms trainer, and a class III armorer and light duty gunsmith (I don't have a barrel lathe or mill at the moment, and I don't want to be an FFL again; so I don't offer full gunsmithing).

I have a great appreciation for good engineering. Bullpups are, in general, not good engineering.

The bullpup rifle has one real advantage: bullpup designs allow for a shorter overall weapon, for a given length of barrel (typically between 4" and 7" shorter than a conventional rifle).

That's not an insignificant advantage. In some missions it's even a huge asset (particularly in urban combat, or infantry dismounted from armored vehicles).

In most missions though, that 4-7 inches isn't much of a plus.

On the other hand, the bullpup configuration has a number of disadvantages:

• Bullpup designs are mechanically more complex, requiring a long trigger linkage, and control system linkages. This seriously degrades both control feel, and reliability, and increases bulk and weight (there may be engineering solutions to this problem).
  
  If current munitions infrastructure and laws allowed for electronic trigger, feed, and ignition systems, this would be a non issue, and the bullpups advantage may outweigh it's several disadvantages; but for now, that's not an option (also, electronic systems have their own issues).
  
  
• If a bullpup has a catastrophic failure, instead of the explosion being six or eight inches in front of your eyes, it's right at your eyesocket, or touching your cheekbone or ear. The only good thing is, if the bolt flys back, it doesn't end up in your eye socket.
  
  Most bullpups also eject hot brass, and vent hot gasses in the vicinity of your eyes and ears (some eject downward or forward, which is a better solution for a bullpup, if it's engineered properly).
  
  
• Mag changes on most bullpups are slower (sometimes much slower) because they require more repositioning, that positioning can be awkward, and can be difficult to see (if necessary) without fully dismounting the rifle.
  
  A conventional rifle allows you to see your mag changes, and is more easily maneuvered with your dominant hand, which makes mag changes easier in general.
  
  More importantly a human being can naturally bring their hands together in the dark. As a basic design guideline, magwells should either be in your dominant hand, or just in front of it; because it is far more difficult to manipulate anything dexterously that is located behind your dominant hand.
  
• Because of the positioning of the magazine (usually the part of a gun extending lowest) close to your shoulder when the weapon is mounted, bullpups can be difficult to fire while prone (though this is common with some other rifle designs as well).
  
  Note in the pictures below, the magazine is by far the lowest point of the rifle; and being located behind the dominant hand and close to your shoulder; when you drop prone it will tend to strike the ground forcing the muzzle downward.
  
  This can also cause problems with mags being warped, ripped out of the magwell, having the baseplate broken off, or the rifle itself being ripped out of the users hand when hitting the deck.
  
  A conventional rifle with a long magazine can have issues with dropping prone as well, but because the mag is positioned forward of the dominant hand, instead of forcing the muzzle down, it will tend to force the muzzle up; and though it's not advisable to use the magazine as a monopod, it's possible. With a bullpup, it isn't.
  
  This isn't an issue for rifles that are generally fired off bipods, so in an SAW or LMG role, the bullpup may be an appropriate solution (though having the feed system in such tight quarters with your shoulder and cheek is its own issue).
  
  
• Charging the rifle and manipulating the operating handle is often more difficult, and sometimes can't be done without dismounting the rifle, or reaching over the rifle with your support hand (again, some conventional rifles do share this weakness; and this is a problem that can easily be solved with proper engineering).
  
  
• Bullpups are naturally balanced in a non-instinctive way.
  
  This is really the biggest problem, and the one that is hardest to solve with engineering.
  
  The balance point on most bullpups is in between your hand and your shoulder when mounted, which is unnatural. We have a natural tendency to try to balance things between our hands, not between our hand and shoulder.
  
  The only way to correct this is to put heavy things in front of your dominant hand, or to make the weapon short and light enough that this won't make a difference (and even then it will still be more awkward and less instinctive to point; but several modern bullpups have taken the second approach).
  
  This balance will tend to make a bullpup tend to shift its butt under recoil, unless it is very tightly mounted to your shoulder; particularly during rapid fire. This tendency is somewhat countered by the position of your support hand so far forward on the barrel,  by the fact that the overall leverage moment of the muzzle is lower (the muzzle isn't as far from either your shoulder, or your dominant hand), and by the fact that most bullpups have straightline recoil.
  
  A conventional rifle is balanced in between your dominant and support hands, and there are good reasons for that. A human being naturally handles things that balance in the palm, or in front of your dominant hand, better, because we naturally want to balance things between our hands.
  
  Under recoil, the muzzle of a conventional rifle rises, but just from gravity will fall into you support hand again without actually holding or pulling it down, because the fulcrum of the lever is in your dominant hand, and the balance point is in front of the fulcrum. 

Some of these issues can be solved, or mitigated with engineering (and most modern bullpup designs do resolve, or at least reduce, many of those issues). Also, a lot of this can be worked around with training.

What it comes down to though, is that bullpups are ergonomically incorrect for human beings. When you have the option, you don't train someone to do something ergonomically incorrect, you redesign the equipment to fit human ergonomics.

The only good thing about a bullpup is the short overall length in relation to their barrel length; and that is not advantage enough to outweigh the disadvantages for most missions.

Well, that and the fact that they look cool, which is the real reason so many people are enamored of them.

A lot of folks have watched a lot of stargate (or played a lot of stealth shooter video games). They use the FN-P90 PDW which isn't exactly a bullpup, but follows a similar concept; and they do just look kind of futuristic.

The Steyr AUG was designed in 1976, and it still looks like a space gun:

Several countries have adopted bullpup designes as their primary service arm, notably Austria, and Australia (the AUG above), France (the FAMAS),

and the UK (the SA80 system, now in the L85-A2 variant):

The reasons cited are usually overall length, the extra accuracy and velocity afforded by the longer barrels allowed by the configuration, and some medical or efficiency studies showing that the bullpup was actually ergonomically correct.

Here's the thing: every study that the British did showing that the SA80 design was ergonomically correct, or that the reliability issue was solved, has over the past few years been proven to have been "Unjustifiably optimistic", or some other such euphemism for fraud.

The SA80 has  proven to be ridiculously unreliable , though at least it is SA80 is quite accurate when it functions properly (also the HK refit and remanufacture of the A2 variant has dramatically improved reliability... Though it's still not great).

The SA80 in fact is so poorly designed, that firing it from your left shoulder will give you a black eye (and can even break your cheekbone) and send hot brass and gasses flying into your eyes. You also can't fire the thing from the left side of cover without exposing your whole head and torso.

I have tried the P90, the SA80, the Steyr AUG, the Bushmaster M17, the FAMAS, and the IMI Tavor (the latter two held and played with, but not shot), and I haven't found any of them but the P90 to be remotely comfortable, or anything but awkward. I've tried a couple of bullpup conversions from other weapons as well, same thing (excepting several bullpup sniper rifles, that I quite liked, and as I said, the P90 which is only sort of a bullpup... it's quite handy and nice to shoot).

UPDATE: Since I first wrote this, I've had a chance to shoot with the FN F/S2000 in both semi and full auto variants: 

While it looks like a heavy and awkward spacegun, it's actually very light, well balanced, and comfortable. Reports from the field are that it is generally reliable, but there aren't a lot out there yet to establish a useful sample.  

Mag changes are still less than ideal, and the trigger is still poor; but the handling of the gun is good, and it is reasonably accurate for an assault rifle. I do worry however about the forward ejection system. It seems to me like it would be easy to jam up in the field. 

Also, since I originally wrote this, Kel-Tec has introduced their RFB forward ejecting bullpup in 7.62x51: 

Unfortunately, not many of them are out in the world yet, so I haven't had a chance to fire one; but the design seems to address some of the issues above.  I have real concerns about the forward and up ejection system, and the inability to clear a jam without field stripping the weapon however. 

Until someone has shot thousands of rounds through them, had to change mags in the dark, and in cramped conditions, had to clear jams under combat conditions etc... they can't know how unsuitable bullpups are as anything other than a niche weapon, to be used only where OAL is the most critical factor (but where SMGs are not an appropriate choice).

For example, bullpup sniper rifles make a lot of sense, particularly in .50bmg and other anti-materiel chamberings. In fact, any weapon that you would normally fire off a bipod makes sense as a bullpup, because the ergonomic issues around balance, and lying prone don't really apply.

People say "Well the designs just aren't good enough yet, I'm sure as they mature they'll get better, isn't it the natural way to go eventually?"

First of all, why would it be?

Other than the fact that the Sci-Fi network likes featuring bullpups in their television shows, there is no reason why bullpups should be "the future". They have one design advantage, shorter length, and many design disadvantages.

Now, when we use caseless ammmo loaded in 1000 round blocks, and using electronic ignition systems... sure, bullpups make sense. At that point, all the basic engineering weaknesses are compensated for, and the advantage of a longer barrel for length of weapon offsets the balance issues... if they even exist then, given progress in materials.

But for now, so long as we are using relatively "conventional" ammunition and firing mechanisms, those engineering problems outweight the one real advantage; and the ergonomic issues simply compound the problem.

Engineers aren't miracle workers. We can refine a design until it's mechanically perfect within its design parameters; but the point I'm trying to make, is that at our current level of cartridge firing weapons development, there is no way to design an ergonomic bullpup.

So, bullpups are only slightly shorter than their conventional counterparts (maybe 7" in the case of an assault rifle), nothing to sneeze at, but not a huge advantage in most cases considering the missions they are intended for; they are less reliable and more mechanically complex than conventional designs, they are ergonomically incorrect, and they are more likely to injure their user.

I'm not denying there are missions where a bullpup is appropriate (as I said above), but I can't see any conventional situation where a bullpup assault rifle is the right tradeoff to make; even urban warfare and infantry dismounted from armor.

But they look cool...

Anyone heard of this possible Glock safety issue?

A few weeks back I got this comment on my "Glocks and Safety" post:

BH1218 - 2 weeks ago

I almost agree with you but there have been reports from Glock that some model .40 can discharge when first chambering a round do to design issues of part of the extractor touching the primer. check it out.

Hmmm....

It would not be possible for the extractor on a Glock to touch the primer under almost any circumstances; and even if it did, its too broad and blunt to set a primer off.

I wonder if he meant the ejector? As in the ejector was bent too far over towards the center of the round and was hitting the primer and making a round blow up out of battery when someone was racking the slide to eject an unfired round?

Not sure how that could happen either, because there shouldn't be enough force from pulling the slide back to pop a primer no matter how hard you're pulling... and even if there was, the extractor should act as a pivot point and the round should just pivot on the ejector and fly out as normal.

In order for that to happen, the cartridge would have to be jammed between the slide and the extractor (which shouldn't happen given how large the ejection port is, but it's possible with certain bullet weights and profiles).

This would put the primer further over to the ejector side of the gun than it should be, such that it may conceivably be possible, that an ejector that was bent over towards the center of the gun as far as possible and still be functional (it CAN happen, I have actually seen that) might strike the primer, and the cartridge might jam between the slide hood and the ejector, and you might be racking with enough force to pop the primer...

Maybe...

At that angle, bent over like that, as thin as the ejector is, the alloy it is, as brittle as it gets like that... I'd think it would just bend over further, or break off. It'd have to be in a perfect position, with a soft primer etc...

Maybe...

I kinda doubt it.

UPDATE: The consensus around the gunblog world, is that what this guy is talking about, is a known issue, but not what he thinks it is.

If you eject a live round with force, while the objection port is obstructed, you are covering it with your hand etc... (for example, trying to catch the ejected round in your hand); the round can rebound off your hand, and end up in a position where it can be set off by the ejector.

Not only is this a known issue by anyone who spends much time in the competitive shooting world (where doing so is generally a procedural violation); but it's not an issue just for Glocks. Most rimfire and centerfire semi-auto pistols have this particular potential problem to some degree or another.

The way to solve the problem is either to not cover the ejection port, or to eject a live round slowly, or both (I generally recommend both; though some pistols will jam a case or live round up if you don't eject smartly).

So it has nothing to do with the pistol being a Glock, or a .40. Though, I'll grant this may happen easier with the Glock design, given it has a very small and pointy ejector tip that is slightly closer to the firing pin than in some other designs; that doesn't make this a design flaw or safety problem for Glocks.