Here's a question for fellow gunnies...

Several times now in recent months, I've had different counter-jockeys hesitate to let me dry-fire a piece I'm looking at, to try the trigger.  (I always make a point of explicitly asking for permission to try a trigger, just as a courtesy.)  I've even had a couple of people now try to tell me that it will damage the firearm.  (It's always a centerfire that I ask about.)

Is this craziness now happening everywhere?  And for how long?

Okay, so the people that seem to do this are almost always young enough that maybe they just don't know.  Okay, maybe.  But still--this isn't something that they're going to come up with on their own.  Someone has to be telling them this, else they probably wouldn't say anything at all.

So: who is that?  Is it maybe the same corporate brainiacs that won't allow you to do so much as remove a bolt from a bolt rifle to look down the bore?  Is it gungrabbers, wanting to plant the seed that guns will fall apart if you use them?

Any wisdom there?

Did a direct compare of Shield and XDS...

...and results were a bit surprising.

At least for the two examples I happened to pick up, both trigger pull quality and reset quality favored the Shield.  I had remembered both a crisper trigger and shorter reset when I first met an XDS, but not so on this one.  (I may now make it a point to try out every one I see, just to have a sense of how variable each one can be.)

The Shield's trigger is indeed the partial-cocking striker-fire variety, and I was impressed.  At least on this example, it was superb--it reminded me very much of the impression I'd got the first time I saw an XDS.  :-)

Other variables went back and forth.  The trigger guard on the XDS is better for gloves than the Shield's...  The Shield actually felt slightly slimmer in the grip than the XDS, but recall that the Shield's magazines have a slight stagger that make them noticeably thicker than the XDS' true single-column tubes...  There's the whole 6+1 .40 versus 5+1 .45 comparison...  The Shield has the potential for a manual safety, but without a 1911-esque thumb extension, I might actually prefer the sans-lever model...  The XDS is very slightly smaller in height when both guns use their short magazines, but it's very much taller when the long magazines are used...

Really, it's kind of a wash, with all things considered.

And if I'm honest, I can also compare both the Springfield and the Smith to my Kahr CW40, which is 6+1 .40, 0.94" wide, 4.6" tall and 6.3" long (read:  effectively the same), and realize that its only real disadvantage is the revolver-length reset, which frankly only matters to me because of the (potential) glove problem.  The Kahr's trigger pull quality is better than either of the other pistols, it's lighter, and its grip frame is one length, rather than "extensible" by a longer magazine that also tries to replace grip space.  The grip is also large enough to get the whole hand on comfortably.

All duly noted.  I suspect that one would be well-served by any of these three choices.

I admit I'm still intrigued by the idea of the XDS 4 playing the role of LW Commander, with the ability to suddenly become a subcompact in grip profile, as a newbie's first and most-flexible piece.  .45ACP is pretty forgiving for a general purpose cartridge--moreso than .40--and in the end that might what sways a recommendation.

Looking forward to my first range experience with either of these newer designs.  :-)

Gunsmoke projects may be completed soon!

As it happens I had several fairly exciting phone calls today.  Of those, the one I was not expecting was the one from Gunsmoke in Denver, and boy, was that an exciting call.  It seems that my last two 'smithing projects--the ones I left when we moved to Alaska nearly six years ago now--have now come up for completion, and I wound up talking with the smith actually working on each piece.

Want to get me giddy with excitement?  Discuss the details of a 1911 or scout rifle construction project.

Heh...how about a twofer?

Sounds like the 1911 project (LW Officer's frame, Commander slide) is already nearly completed, and the smith felt the existing barrel should be replaced (locking lugs were worn), as long as we were doing all the extra work.  This certainly should not hurt the accuracy of the piece, which is already probably better than I am, and as the saying goes I have never regretted an investment in quality in Things Gun.  So, in addition to the frame slimlining (a feature I have become a firm believer in), improved sights, and general smoothing things up, this piece will now come with a handfitted barrel.  Yeah, I'm looking forward to confirming that it runs;  after that it will probably only rarely measure much below body temperature.  :-)

That news was awesome enough by itself, but then I got handed over to the fella working on my 03 Springfield, which I'm having done up as a "Springfield scout" as the late Col. Cooper would have called it.  After all this time it's almost hard to believe it's actually happening.  The rifle was my grandfather's, and I wanted to turn it into something that I would reach for frequently--which is not a trivial consideration, given that my stable also contains the magnificent Marlin 45/70 (another Gunsmoke project from some years back) and a Steyr Scout.  I had a definite image of what I was after here...and in the end it looks like we may do even better than that.

I'd requested an improved trigger and a more ergonomic safety than the 03's original swing-over design;  I hadn't realized that the replacement trigger unit actually incorporates its own Remington M700-style safety, solving both problems at the same time with just a little fitting.  The smith discussed how to feng shui the '03's bulky cockingpiece and removal of the original safety lever, and I think the result should both be very aesthetically pleasing and highly ergonomic.  (I was impressed in listening to his eye for design--which sounds counterintuitive but it came through nonetheless.)  We discussed the barrelband front and ghost-ring rear reserve iron sights, and the mount for the forward glass.  After discussing it a bit, I think I will indeed have him acquire and mount one of the new Leapers glasses out there, and will revert to a standard Leupold scout scope if for some reason the Leapers doesn't work.  He wanted to confirm that I really did want a short length of pull on my stock (I requested 12.5" even though I'm a pretty big guy;  I became a fan of short stocks years ago and see no reason to change that now...), and we set the barrel and Ching Sling specifics.

Then he made a suggestion that I'm still squee-ing over a bit:  he suggested that he might be able to incorporate a detachable magazine not just on the rifle, but in the buttstock as well, a la the Steyr.  Oy vey!  I'd figured I'd stick with the 03's standard, blind, 5-round magazine, which features the very clever cut-off system that permits single-loading above a full magazine, and simply use the 5-round buttstock cuff as the reserve ammunition supply.  But hold the phones, now...a 5- or 10-round magazine in the rifle, and a 5- or 10-rounder in the buttstock as backup...that would indeed be quite a nifty feature.  He asked me if I would consider converting to .308, since he might be able to adapt it to M14 magazines, and if I didn't already have the Steyr I'd be tempted to do that.  But I want this to remain a .30/06, mostly because I want to run 200-grain bullets for hunting large critters, and while the .308 is essentially the same for most loadings, with bullets of 200+ grains the '06 really does have a measurable advantage...and critters up here do tend to run on the extra-large side.

I told him I'd mull that magazine idea, and he's going to get me an estimate of how much extra that would add to the cost of an already extensive project.  I'm sure it will not be cheap, but again, I've never regretted spending for function, and if a detachable 10-round magazine can be done well, then...daang.  I admit I'll then have something I've never seen before.

But the prospect here is so exciting, I may have to start loading for '06 starting, like...now...just to keep from getting overheated.  :-)

Okay, I admit, I find this significant.

Recently, quite by accident, I ran across my first reference to the new Springfield XD-S 4-inch .45.

My first thought wasn't all that kind.  "Wait, they took an outstanding tiny .45 and made it bigger?  WTF?

But then my brain said "Hang on a moment, and take a fresh look at what we have here."  A 7+1 .45ACP, 5.4" high, 7" long with 4" barrel, 24.5 ounces, and only 0.9" wide.  Excellent ergonomics.  Quality short-reset trigger.  Good sights.  Multiple passive safety systems designed around the opening (safe) and closing (bang) of the human hand.

That's essentially a Colt Commander, in dimensions and concept.  (!!!)

And the promise goes farther.  The trigger guard is conspicuously more glove-friendly than the 1911's is.  The overall length is at least half an inch shorter than the Commander's, for those who rely on the length of the cover garment for concealment, but barrel length is still a service-length 4".  It's several ounces lighter than even the aluminum-framed 1911s.  It's flatter even than my deliberately "slim-lined" 1911 frames.  There are interchangeable backstraps to adjust for different hand sizes.  With a two-sided magazine release and no manual thumb safety, the gun itself is ambi-friendly right out of the box.  The feed system was designed from the beginning for high-performance hollowpoints.  Takedown is simpler.  And simply by changing magazines, the gun changes from 7+1 and 5.4" high, to 5+1 and 4.4" high, which makes a huge difference for concealed carry.

And it's cheaper than a good Commander.  Even before considering the idea of two-guns-in-one for the price of a magazine change.

Well now.  That does seem significant.

Cons?  Well, I admit I'm still a little leery of the idea of using the magazine as a grip length extender.  I would think that this must somehow affect the practice of magazine changes, but I have not run such a gun to see how it holds up in actual use, and who knows, maybe it's not a problem at all.  As well, as nice as the XD-S trigger is...it's just not the same as a good 1911, because nothing else is.

But really, that's about it. 

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that this might be the way to go for someone starting out.  A single gun that could serve both as a full-sized service sidearm and a very viable concealment piece (with one full-sized reload, one would have 13 rounds available).  Provided it runs (and I'll assume that with Springfield's reputation, it will), it's like a modernized Colt Lightweight Commander, but with some useful extras, and less expensive to boot.  The trigger is good enough to do nearly anything you'd want to do with such a weapon, and up here at least the glove-friendly trigger guard is not a trivial consideration.

And for someone who can afford a second piece as well, having both an XD-S 4" and the shorter XD-S 3.3" (for those times when another 3/4" shorter would make a difference), sharing the same magazines and leather, would represent quite an efficient overall system to cover all the bases.

Now I need to try one, to find out.  If the concept is viable, I'd want to recommend with confidence, and that would seem to be an important recommendation for noobs, who do tend to ask.

__________________
While I'm daydreaming, I do wonder how viable the XD-S system might be to a .460 Rowland conversion, which would add mid-level .44 Magnum power to the same platform.  :-)

Perhaps I'll just start calling her "Blue" now.

One of the completed projects I was able to pick up at Gunsmoke Guns in Denver, on our recent trip Outside, was my Browning P35 (the "Hi-Power" as some insist).  Among the work to be done, I requested she be blued.  So imagine my amusement when she came back...blue.

Hi there!

Hee.  Well, I'm sure it's a fine, modern finish, and I don't anticipate getting any further work done, so we'll leave it.  Hell, it'll be something to talk about, especially since this piece is perfect for a "barbecue gun". 

It's good to have her back;  The P35 was the very first gun I ever lusted after, and the very first gun I bought.  If I'm going to carry a full-sized 9x19mm, this is the one.  And when I work with noobs, this is the one gun that everyone loves.  As you might imagine, the work done (trigger/hammer, upgraded sights, extended safety, and ducktail tang) turns a great base gun into a pure joy to shoot.

Click to embiggenate.

So, cool!  Now I'm looking forward to getting some range time with my neighbor;  we've got several things we'd like to wring out, and I can now add my P35 to the mix.  With age I seem to grow more and more fond of bestowing names on things, and I think I may just start calling her "Blue".

The postmodern world.

I can't remember exactly when I first caught wind of the new lawsuit by Seattle cops, that, as I understand it, argues that their new use-of-force policy is too restrictive, because it--get this--runs afoul of the Second Amendment.  (Apparently they also says it violates their "rights" in re the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments as well.)

I know, you threw up a little in your mouth too, at that.

What I do remember, having seen that blurb, is an instantaneous thought:  I wonder how long it will be before Grigg is on that story?

Answer:  not long at all.

He starts it with an image that would make Oleg proud:

And then, as usual, he just nails it, culminating with the following:

Most people believe that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect citizens against abuses of their rights by government officials. The incurably self-preoccupied people behind the Seattle police lawsuit apparently believe that the Bill of Rights exists to emancipate law enforcement officers from restrictions on the use of lethal force, and immunize them against legal, civil, and professional accountability when they kill people without legal justification.

As always, worth the RTWT.

The only thing I'd add to any of this is that the ethics are actually pretty damn clear here.  As private citizens, acting in the capacity of private citizens, even cops should enjoy the protections of the US Second Amendment.  (And, of course, like the rest of us, be held accountable for their actions.)  But when they put on the badge, and become agents of the state, they lose those protections completely.  They like to say they are "held to a higher standard" than we are, which is precisely the way things should be, but aren't.  The "higher standard" is that in order to protect us from them, they have to give up their rights as free people.  To paraphrase L. Neil Smith, each and every one of them should be absolutely terrified of violating the rights of even one of the mass of human beings that they "work for"--lest they be run out on a rail by the entire town...

Dang.  Caught myself dreaming again.

Grooming another Neil Heslin.

Remember Neil Heslin?  Sure you do.  Well, the disarmament crowd is hard at work grooming its  next batch of Personal Tragedy Activists.  And so here we have one Richard Martinez.

I've certainly seen several commentators openly wonder why it is that The Hive Mind has such an interest in this Isla Vista incident, and I don't have an answer for that, other than my nearly standard wonder at how the machine seems to grind into action almost before the incident is concluded.  But it seems clear that the hive does have a fair fixation, despite the inconvenient details of both the action and its perpetrator.

No matter.  These are crusaders, here.

This is how I was informed of the piety of Mr. Martinez, via my Facebook feed:

This author is learning from his daughter. May others join him.

"This author" is the Salon writer who fawns over the "hero" Martinez, who "turn[ed] his despair into advocacy", therein showing Us The Unwashed the path to our salvation.  (Canna gitta ayy-men?)

I gagged, and restrained myself to the following, which seemed worth documenting here.

Ah yes, the unassailable moral authority of using one's personal tragedy to stump for the "legal" prior-restraint violation of everyone who didn't do it. Classy.

(Grieving is one thing--an entirely human need. But using the political system as a weapon against people who have harmed and will harm no one, is as pure an act of aggression as there can be. You celebrate this?)

By all means, ignore the continued failure of law to protect the innocent. The only "acceptable" answer is to crusade for more law. (Hey, man, politicians say so! This time for sure!)

And above all, continue to insist on disarming the victims. After all, my goodness, someone might get hurt! And we all know that plebes are too effin' stupid to be trusted to take care of themselves anyway. (Empowerment is fine and good for trivial things, peasant, but the actual disposition of your life is far too...uh...important, to be left simply to your own unwashed judgment.)

___________________

The most frustrating part of all this is not that I might simply observe a different reality than others. Hell, that seems healthy to me. What's irreconcilable is that the one, the only thing I require--to be left in peace unless and until I aggress against someone else--is the one thing that the modern political crusader absolutely, positively refuses to do.

There is another irony here, as well. The disarmament crusaders are notoriously uninterested in understanding those they seek to dominate by politics. Their general ignorance of the objects of their hatred is legendary and breathtaking enough, but their relentless dehumanization of the people who own and identify with those objects may exceed even that. "Gee, why won't you cousin-humping rednecks ever vote for us?" (The subsequent bewailing of the lack of a "conversation" could serve as a dictionary definition of chutzpah.)

See what's going on here? Personify the object and objectify the person, both in service of the same goal of not having to actually deal with either...

It's the same story as it is everywhere else, where what is missing is empathy and what's present is politics. There is no interest at all in respecting "the other" as (s)he is--only an insistence on domination, using the political system as the "legitimate" weapon.

Maybe tomorrow I'll be smart enough just not to look at my Facebook feed at all.

UPDATE:  Not smart enough, apparently.  I got the following playbook responses:

Kevin, I'm not sure you read the article. It's largely about misogyny and the fear all women live with and the harassment/danger we are taught to expect and accept.

Regarding your comment, Kevin, you mention the "continued failure of the law to protect the innocent" and scoff at the desire for more law. I'm confused by the idea that because existing law doesn't accomplish something, then new laws won't either. With that logic, we might have said 'speed limits on highways fail to protect the innocent from drunk drivers,' so why bother instituting DUO laws?

Current laws can't protect the innocent from first-time shooters, as most of these young mass-murderers are. This guy bought multiple assault weapons legally! What do you think is the way to prevent this (and Sandy Hook, and Columbine, etc etc)? Do you really want everybody to walk around armed and ready to 'take down' an attacker? I teach college, and I have thought about what would happen if there were a shooter in my classroom. I can say that one nightmare scenario is multiple other students leaping up to shoot back. Chaos!

Also, I had a (un-named) family member with a clinically paranoid and irrational husband who kept several guns around the house despite small kids. He wouldn't keep them locked because 'there wouldn't be time to get them when the bad guys came.' When my relative divorced him, she was petrified of him 'snapping' and shooting her or the kids. She hid his guns off site for a while, but was scared he'd discover that and be so mad that he would go buy another one and come after her. Of course, this was perfectly legal as he had no criminal record. In fact, he was another 'ultimate gentleman.' He even worked for Corrections and had security clearances.

And have you heard about the retired police officer who shot his own grown son at the back door? The guy had stepped outside and the dad, with early dementia, thought he was an intruder. Family had wondered about his mental state, but nobody could hurt his dignity by taking away the guns from this old police officer. How could that have been prevented?

Finally, you suggest that liberals think the public can be trusted to take care of themselves in the small things but don't trust the people to defend their own lives. Well, right! I think people should have freedom in many things, but not things that endanger other peoples' lives. Again, should we not have speed limits or DUI laws? Do you want every single college (and HS?) student and teacher to walk around armed? You say we 'insist on disarming the victims.' But those those sorority girls and Sandy Hook kids were never armed and their guns weren't taken away by Big Government. Should I be forced to carry a weapon in the classroom and on campus? When I go to the movies or the corner store? And what about all the kids who accidentally shoot their friends and siblings when they find daddy's gun in the house? Should those victims in diapers be armed?

Who are you so scared of that you need guns? I live in a pretty dicey neighborhood and hear gunshots several times a week, sometimes close enough that I hit the floor. But does that make me want a gun? No. It makes me wish we 'd get all the guns off the street so my teenage neighbors might get to grow up without becoming either victims or murderers. Because before the first time, they were innocent. Nobody's born a bad guy. How can you tell who is a bad guy? If my relative had been shot by her husband, people would have said, 'he seemed like such a nice guy.' Yeah. Should that potential victim carry a gun with her around the house to guard the 'disposition of her own life'? Or might we look to gun restrictions to not be swimming in a sea of deadly weapons?

Once again, I attempted restraint.  Given the amount of PSH crammed into the above, this was by no means easy, but I think the following is restrained.  (Which, of course, may be much of my problem.)

Colors, as above, added for simple readability.

[Y]ou may have perhaps noticed that I said nothing about the horrors of misogyny. Yes, I noticed that the article discusses that. But this "conclusion" is pretty damn clear:

“Organizing for tougher gun control laws is really the only option,” I responded.

I chose to respond to that.

Personally, I cannot imagine--cannot imagine--a greater misogyny than the demand that millions of regular, everyday women, who have harmed no one, must beg and quibble over their own empowerment. I can't decide whether this is a greater insult coming from men or women, but limiting or removing a woman's choice to arrange for her own security seems morally indefensible to anyone who actually values the concept of empowerment.

As to a few of the other things:

"...I'm confused by the idea that because existing law doesn't accomplish something, then new laws won't either."

Yes, it seems that you are. And I cannot help you with that. You appear unwilling or unable to recognize that no new law is in any meaningful way different than the hundreds or thousands that have come before it. Their mechanisms are the same, their enforcers are the same, and their effect is the same. As commentator Tamara Keel just recently put it, "people get shanked in prisons all the time".

Do you really believe that any new law will somehow perform as the politicians selling it to you advertise? Really?

"...What do you think is the way to prevent this (and Sandy Hook, and Columbine, etc etc)? Do you really want everybody to walk around armed and ready to 'take down' an attacker?"

No, not "everybody". Just those willing to take on the responsibility and accountability for their potential actions. (Many are not, and in the absence of agitating to force others to do the same, that is a peaceable choice that should be respected.)

The initiation of these sorts of incidents cannot be prevented. Everyone seems to agree on this. It is also unambiguous how these sorts of incidents conclude.

"...I teach college, and I have thought about what would happen if there were a shooter in my classroom. I can say that one nightmare scenario is multiple other students leaping up to shoot back. Chaos!"

In carefully crafting your "nightmare scenario" for its maximum effect upon yourself and others, do you completely fail to recognize that the same risk attends outside the classroom, as well? (I taught college too, for a time.  The classroom does not have magic properties.) Notwithstanding the specific appeal of a "gun-free zone" to an attacker not interested in resistance, which does rather distinguish the classroom from the street, the risk of disaster is present everywhere, all the time. (I don't know about you, but if I could make an appointment with my emergency, I'd just put a seat belt on right before I knew I was going to crash.)

Yes, "chaos". The singular organizing principle of the entire natural world. If that is a personal bogeyman that must be avoided at all costs, you are in for a very anxious, fearful life.

"... a clinically paranoid and irrational husband ... even worked for Corrections and had security clearances ... the retired police officer who shot his own grown son at the back door ..."

Um, the examples you use here are enforcement class--agents of the state--not regular people. And this is very much the norm. There is a critical difference between the enforcement class and the plebes: accountability. Regular people are held accountable for every round they fire, from when it starts until it comes to rest. Enforcers are almost invariably cleared of any wrongdoing no matter how awful their actions may be.

And this difference shows itself on the street. Mundanes protecting themselves hold their fire more, fire fewer rounds, hit more accurately, and stop shooting sooner than enforcers do. They also mis-identify their targets far less. This isn't news, it's been that way for generations now. And it's unsurprising: when actions have consequences, most people will not act unless they must. By contrast, officialdom is so regularly excused for anything that they do, that there is no incentive for them to restrain themselves.

Do not make the mistake of projecting the behaviors of police and military upon regular people. The peasantry is demonstrably better than that.

"...Well, right! I think people should have freedom in many things, but not things that endanger other peoples' lives."

How dare you suggest that millions of people "endanger other peoples' lives" simply by making different choices than you do? You project the worst expectations onto a gigantic mass of people you clearly do not understand, and call for their prior restraint before they've done anyone harm? How is this not pre-crime in its full Philip K. Dick glory?

"...Should I be forced to carry a weapon in the classroom and on campus? "

See, you understand nothing about me. I am not willing to use force to get the things I want. You have the right to choose, for yourself, what your own response to disaster should be. You do not have the right to make that choice for anyone else who has done no harm.

"....Who are you so scared of that you need guns?"

Well, that seems obvious:  you.  The people who actually threaten me with violence if I do not do what they want me to do.

And don't mistake simple defiance for fear. (There is a great deal of simple defiance going on lately.) As George Carlin or Frank Zappa might have put it, if someone who doesn't know me tells me without my asking that something is bad for me...well, I'll take two, thanks.

"...It makes me wish we 'd get all the guns off the street..."

Wish all you want. Enact all the law you want.  Subjugate everyone who didn't do it all you want.  Then act surprised and indignant next time, when the next failure of the same mindset occurs, and more people die.

To which I'd now, looking at it all again, append:

You do understand there will be a "next time", right?  Isla Vista was a "next time".  Sandy Hook was a "next time".  Virginia Tech was a "next time"...

Learn, jackass.