After a bit of research which had given me some cause for concern, I finally had a chance to take my new Remington 597 rifle to the range and put it through its paces.



As noted previously, the Remington 597 had originally acquired a somewhat "mixed" reputation for operational reliability, owing largely to the original magazine design, which proved to be woefully defective. Reviews of recent model 597s, which incorporate a substantially revised magazine design, have been decidedly more positive. Never content to rely on the third-hand reports of strangers, my goal was to hit the range and run through a 500-round box of ammo, in order to determine for myself whether the Remington 597 was truly worthy of the "Remington" name.

I used Federal Champion High Velocity, 40 gr solid, which set me back about ten bucks for a brick of 500. After running this first brick of ammo through the rifle, I'm happy to report only a handful of minor operational issues, all of which occurred in the first 200 rounds. I'm willing to give a gun a certain amount of slack during the "break in" period. A malfunction on the 2000th round through the gun gives me much more cause for concern than a malfunction on the 20th round through the gun.

In this case, all of the malfunctions occurred early on in the test. There were 2 or 3 failures to feed within the first 200 rounds. Once I got through the first couple hundred, though, it was all smooth sailing. There was not a single malfunction in the last 300 rounds out of 500.


Hands-on Impressions of the 597

I found the rifle comfortable and enjoyable to shoot. The synthetic stock is a full-size adult stock. The rifle is well-balanced front-to-back. The scope is clear and relatively bright. The controls are well-placed and intuitive. The rifle sights in on target quickly. Operation is smooth and precise. The trigger pull is a bit stiff, but not uncomfortable. Overall, this is a well-designed and well-built gun.

As far as accuracy, I can tell you that the accuracy of the gun is beyond my abilities. Granted, that may not be saying a whole lot, but take it for what it's worth. The Remington 597 has come under a fair amount of criticism for its operational reliability, but its superior accuracy has never, to my knowledge, ever been in question.


Operation of the Remington 597

The Remington 597 has a fairly conventional magazine release, designed to be operated by the trigger finger:

I've been wanting to get another .22 plinker ever since my Ruger 10/22 got stolen a while back. I was never really that happy with my 10/22, but I'm pretty big on classics and "industry standards," and the Ruger 10/22 is pretty much the "industry standard" when it comes to .22 rifles.

Truth be told, the stock Ruger 10/22 is really more of a "youth" size gun, and my own prior unit had a habit of failing to feed reliably, so I wasn't necessarily sold on the 10/22 as the ultimate .22 rifle. Nonetheless, when I went down to the store the other day, I was more or less planning on picking up a 10/22. Oddly enough, they didn't have a single 10/22 in the store.

The fellow behind the counter directed my attention to a nice-looking Remington on the rack, a scoped model 597 in .22 LR. This one:

Not that this is any big surprise, but every day brings more evidence that Barack Obama's track record as a gun-grabber is far from his pro-gun rhetoric:

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.

But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.

The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”

Full article here.

When my home was broken into a while back, one of the losses was my beloved Remington 870 Express pump-action 12-gauge. I've been wanting to replace it for a while now. I just feel naked without a shotgun. I mean, how stupid would I feel if the zombie hordes showed up unexpectedly, and here I am without a reliable scattergun? 100% stupid.

So, after doing a little research of comparable offerings, I settled on the 870 Express Synthetic a while back. This model is, in many respects, a less-expensive civilian version of Remington's popular 870P (Police) model, with an 18" barrel and a "six plus one" capacity (six rounds in the tubular magazine plus one in the chamber). Like the 870P model, the 870 Express Synthetic also has a parkerized finish and synthetic furniture.

It really doesn't surprise me at all that leftists like Barack Obama and George Lakoff have conversations about "the great unwashed masses," and how they might somehow succeed in communicating with us using sounds and images our primitive brains might understand.

They continue to believe, against all available evidence, that deep down we are just like them--albeit with lower intelligence and less sophistication. They continue to believe that we would embrace their socialist vision of the world with both arms if they could just manage to break it down into simple terms our simple minds could grasp. So, they talk about "pie." Even the mentally retarded understand PIE, right? Michelle Obama's sales pitch for socialism has gotten to this level. It goes something like this:

"See, the problem with the world is that the rich have all the pie. Barack will take the pie from the rich and give a big piece of it to you! Doesn't that sound tasty?"

Apparently, they really think this is going to work.

I guess I wish I could say it surprises me that they have these conversations on broadcast television, as if we don't have televisions or we can't understand the multi-syllable words they use. Sadly, that's not even surprising anymore.

Let me spell it out for you leftists in the simple language we common folks use:

We don't want you to "fix the economy." We want you to leave it the hell alone. Ever heard the term "laissez nous faire?" It's French. (If you don't know French, ask your buddy John F'n Kerry to translate.) The term comes from a time when French businessmen had their heads screwed on a bit straighter. Please write this down: we're not waiting for you to "save" us. We don't want you to go steal some pie for us. If you would pretty much forget we existed, that would be just fine with us. You really wanna help? Just get out of our lives and let us live them. We'll bake our own pie.

We don't need freedom of speech so that we can make art exhibits out of urine and used tampons. We need freedom of speech so that we can remind our neighbors how shitty you leftist elites are and how much socialism sucks.

We don't need freedom of religion out of some need to have some kind of drug we can take in to remove ourselves from the realities of our sorry lives. Marx and Nietzsche didn't understand this fact, but why would anyone expect them to? If you truly understood and embraced Christianity, as so many of you claim to, you would understand this, and you wouldn't recycle German atheist talking points as a substitute for genuine comprehension of what is going on in the mind of a conservative Christian.

We don't need the Second Amendment so that we can forget our sad lives by going shooting at squirrels with our kinfolk. We "cling" to our weapons because there may come a time when we'll need those weapons to protect ourselves from an out-of-control government. Leftist icons Huey Newton, William Ayers and Mumia Abu-Jamal seem to grasp the general concept of guns vs. "the man." Now, these particular men may very well have taken to arms because the government didn't give them enough stolen pie. Let me suggest that the motivations of William Ayers don't tell you a whole lot about the motivations of your normal Republican voter in rural Pensylvania. You keep your pie. We'll keep our guns.

Contrary to your claims, most of those of us who oppose amnesty don't harbor "anti-immigrant" sentiment. Many of our most outspoken members are immigrants. Most of us have friends who are immigrants, and the rest of us are only a few generations away from our proud immigrant ancestors. Most of us "cling" deeply to the idea of America as, in the words of John Winthrop, "A shining city upon a hill." Most of us believe that America should continue to be a place where people who want to be Americans and embrace American values can come and make their lives. If you think the debate over amnesty is a debate over these basic principles, that only goes to show how very much out of touch you are. The debate over amnesty is a debate over whether we can even have meaningful borders. It is a debate over whether we can even have meaningful immigration laws. You start from the basic assumption that we can have neither borders nor laws, and then you call us racists and bigots when we refuse to accept this ridiculous proposition. What we "cling" to is belief in the rule of law and of national sovereignty. If you think some stolen pie is going to cure us of that characteristic, good luck with that.

It's not that complicated. We don't want your help. We don't want your stolen pie. We already ARE voting our interests, and we'll be keeping our guns, our God and our respect for law and order whether you like it or not. Thanks for your concern. Now please go away.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners" - Charlton Heston
We all think of Charlton Heston as a larger-than-life actor and a champion of the right to keep and bear arms. He definitely was both. With his passing, our movement loses a powerful and eloquent leader. Thankfully, we are blessed with many good leaders in our movement, but this fact does not diminish the loss that Charlton Heston's passage represents.



It is sometimes forgotten that Charlton Heston was one of the first Hollywood actors to speak out forcefully against racism and that he was very active in the civil rights movement. Heston helped the civil rights cause, in his own words, "long before Hollywood found it fashionable." He joined a picket line of a segregated movie theatre as early as 1961. He marched with Martin Luther King during the march on Washington in 1963.

There are great men and there are good men. Charlton Heston was both.

Via Amanda Carpenter at Townhall.com:

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

If you work for Pizza Hut, the answer may be 'yes':

A Des Moines pizza driver who was suspended from his job after he shot an armed robber said today he has been overwhelmed by support from people who cheered what happened.

“But no one had contacted me directly about a job offer,” said James William Spiers III, 38, who was sent home by Pizza Hut managers after he fired multiple shots at a man who put a gun to his head Thursday and demanded money outside the Sutton Hill Apartments, 2100 S.E. King Ave....

Spiers, who has a valid handgun permit, said he’s been “pretty much in the dark” about his job since the incident. Vonnie Walbert, vice president of human resources at Pizza Hut’s corporate offices in Dallas, said last week that employees are not allowed to carry guns “because we believe that that is the safest for everybody.”

I don't know about y'all, but this story pisses me off.

Should you feel inclined to ask Pizza Hut corporation why they would prevent their employees from having the means to lawfully defend themselves from violence, you can reach them here:

Pizza Hut, Inc.
14841 Dallas Parkway
Dallas, TX 75254
Customer Feedback Phone: 1-800-948-8488
All Other Inquiries Phone: 1-972-338-7700

h/t : HotAir.

It should be glaringly apparent, to anyone taking even a passing look, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, and not some "collective right" of the type suggested by the anti-gun, bed-wetting hippies. By all accounts, a majority of the Supreme Court concurs:

Because the current members of the Court had never taken part in a case testing the scope of the right laid out in the Second Amendment, it was not clear, going into the argument, where any of them (with the possible exception of Justices Scalia and Thomas) would stand on the question. But the Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia moved in, in the very earliest stages of the argument, to lay out clear positions — at least on the collective vs. individual rights dispute.

Within seconds after the defender of the District law, Washington lawyer Walter Dellinger, laid out his general theory that the Amendment only guaranteed a “militia-related” right, the Chief Justice focused on the text of the Amendment and said “If it is limited to state militias, why would they say ‘the right of the people. In other words, why wouldn’t they say ’state militias have the right to keep arms.’”

During the argument, Chief Justice Roberts asked "What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Of course, we could probably have expected that Roberts, along with Scalia, Alito and Thomas, would weigh in on the individual rights view. It takes five votes to get a majority, though, and that's only four. The case could come down, as a number of recent cases have, to the opinion of Justice Kennedy. In this case, there's cause for optimism. During oral argument, Kennedy explained his view as follows: "In my view, (the Second Amendment is) saying there is a general right to bear arms, quite without reference to a militia." Works for me.

Based on everything I've read, it sounds like yesterday was a good day not only for gun owners, but for all Americans who believe in the principles of personal liberty and the right to self-defense.

Follow-up questions:

What standard of review, if any, will the Supreme Court set out?

Given that members of the liberal wing have previously expressed support for the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, is there any chance of unanimity on that point?

How frickin' sweet would that be?

I'm in the market for a couple new magazines for my DPMS Panther. I'm leaning toward the Magpul PMAGs. They've gotten good reviews on the forums from (alleged) law enforcement and military customers. If the videos below can be believed, PMAGs appear to be the Timex watches of AR mags. Reliable ammo feed even busted in half? With half the spring gone? Looks like some good stuff to me.

Here are some GI's in Iraq putting the PMAG through a torture test, which involves running it over with a Hummer and packing it with Iraqi sand:



MORE VIDS BELOW THE FOLD

I raised some hackles over at The Jawa Report this morning when I posted a story about the Iraqi Army and police adopting AR-style rifles in place of the durable and reliable Kalashnikovs they're more familiar with.

As noted in my post, I believe this is a serious mistake owing to the chronic reliability issues that have plagued the AR-style rifles since their introduction.

This isn't to say, of course, that AR's are some kinds of pieces of junk. Far from it. I'm far from some kind of an "AR hater" (see, e.g., the banner graphic for this blog). I own a DPMS Panther that is most definitely a very high-quality, world-class weapon. It is great for the environment in which I operate. It spends the vast majority of its life in a rifle case in my humidity and temperature-controlled house. When I want to use it, I take it to the gun range in its protective case. Despite the fact that the gun range is a relatively clean environment, I field strip, clean and lubricate my AR after every trip to the range. In this controlled environment, my AR works just fine, shoots very accurately, and rarely fails to cycle properly.

Although the AR performs well in a controlled environment, experience has shown that ARs have more trouble in harsh environments than other military rifles, particularly as compared to Kalashnikov-style weapons.

Here's the thing: there's not necessarily a trade-off between reliability and accuracy. Sure, a lot of AKs are complete junk, unlikely to hit the broad side of a barn, while ARs have a reputation for "reaching out and touching" jihadis from a considerable distance. For the same money being spent on the ARs, though, the Iraqi military could be purchasing weapons that are equal to the ARs in accuracy and equal to the Kalashnikovs in reliability. A wide variety of Kalashnikov variants have been produced over the years. The Israeli-made Galil...



...is a good example. Though a gun built by Jews would probably be off the table as an option (for political reasons,) there have been similar designs available from more "politically-acceptable" sources. The Finnish-made Valmet, for example:



Or the Russian-made VEPR:



Or the American-made Arsenal SLR:



All of these weapons rely on tried-and-true principles of firearm design and have proven track records of rock-solid reliability.

The AR-style rifles, in contrast, have been controversial from the beginning:

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara [was presented with] two conflicting views [on the AR-15]: the ARPA report favoring the AR-15 and the Pentagon's position on the M14. Even President John F. Kennedy expressed concern, so McNamara ordered Secretary of the Army Cyrus Vance to test the M14, the AR-15 and the AK-47. The Army's test report stated only the M14 was suitable for Army use, but Vance wondered about the impartiality of those conducting the tests. He ordered the Army Inspector General to investigate the testing methods used, who reported that the testers showed favor to the M14.

Secretary Robert McNamara ordered a halt to M14 production in January 1964, after receiving reports that M14 production was insufficient to meet the needs of the armed forces. Secretary McNamara had long been a proponent of weapons program consolidation among the armed services. At the time, the AR-15 was the only rifle that could remotely fulfill a requirement of a 'universal' infantry weapon for issue to all services. McNamara ordered the weapon be adopted unmodified, in its current configuration, for immediate issue to all services, despite receiving reports noting several deficiencies with the M16 as a service rifle, including the lack of a chrome-lined bore and chamber, the 5.56 mm projectile's instability under Arctic conditions, and the fact that large quantities of 5.56 mm ammunition required for immediate service were not available....

When the XM16E1 reached Vietnam with U.S. troops in 1966, reports of jamming and malfunctions in combat immediately began to surface. Although the M14 had a chrome-lined barrel and chamber to resist corrosion in combat conditions (a danger learned from WWII Pacific theatre combat experience), the M16/XM16E1 had no chrome-lined bore or chamber. Several documented accounts of troops killed by enemy fire with jammed rifles broken-down for cleaning eventually brought a Congressional investigation. Later investigations also cast doubt on the veracity of the original 1962 reports of the alleged stopping effectiveness of the 5.56 mm bullet, as well as criticism of inadequate penetration (in comparison to the Soviet 7.62x39mm round) when firing at enemy personnel through light cover.

Although a rush to production plagued ARs in the early days, a mature production cycle and numerous technical enhancements over the years have never been able to overcome the built-in limitations of the AR design:

The primary criticism of direct impingement is that fouling and debris from expended gunpowder is blown directly into the breech. As the superheated combustion gas travels down the tube, it expands and cools, not unlike an aerosol can cool when depressurized. This cooling causes vaporized matter to condense as it cools depositing a much greater volume of solids into the operating components of the action. The increased fouling can cause malfunctions if the rifle is not cleaned as frequently as should be. The amount of sooting deposits tends to vary with powder specification, caliber, and gas port design. Conversely, gas-piston operation has the gases acting on a separate piston, which actuates a linkage that in turn cycles the weapon; this minimizes the amount of debris that accumulates in the breech. This sooting characteristic had not been found to be a significant hindrance to reliability with ArmaLite's earlier AR-10 in 7.62 mm caliber, which had a different gas port. Because of this sooting, the M16 rifle requires more frequent cleaning and lubrication for reliable operation compared to most gas piston rifle designs.

While the military services have never been completely happy with the M16, they have yet to develop a suitable replacement:

Replacement of the M16 family has been proposed at various points, and its longevity is in part due to a series of failures in projects meant to replace it, driven largely by the requirement for a significant improvement. Immediately after the introduction of the M16, the Marine Corps sought to adopt the Stoner 63. Although they found it superior in most ways, it was still at an early stage of development; the Marines chose the technically inferior but mature M16.

As noted below, I decided, after much research, to go with the Springfield XD. Although my decision to go with the XD wasn't based solely on info from any single source, Springfield's 20,000-round XD Torture Test (see below) was pretty damned convincing.

My critical item is reliability. Accuracy is important, of course, but accuracy isn't really in question for any of the major handgun models. Variations in accuracy show up for highly skilled shooters shooting from sandbag rests. For most shooters, though, shooting from a standing position, the biggest variable in hitting the target is going to be the shooter rather than the gun. When and if I'm capable of shooting 2" groups from a standing position, I'll start worrying about whether my handgun can keep up. Now, none of this is to infer that the XD isn't accurate. From everything I've read, it's equal to or better than most of its competitors on that score. For me personally, though, discussion of handgun accuracy is largely academic. Now, about that XD Torture Test:

The Ice Test. We filled a tub with water, dropped in the XD with a magazine and put it in the freezer for a week. Breaking it free by dropping the "gunsicle" onto concrete, we let it thaw out on the way to the Oak Tree Gun Club, our favorite outdoor handgun range. Upon arrival, we inserted a fresh magazine into the XD and fired. We fired about 150 rounds before wiping it down and lubricating it. Result: zero malfunctions.

The Dirt Test. Following the lead of the Glock tests, the XD was "caked, covered and buried alive in soils of varying consistencies." We used everything from dust and ash to moist dirt and sand. We fired 100 rounds after subjecting the XD to each of the five kinds of dirt, for a total of 500 rounds. Predictably, sand proved the most challenging to its mechanism. After burying the gun in sand, then stepping on it to grind it in, we took it out to shoot. The slide cycled noticeably slower, but the gun never jammed. Result: zero malfunctions.

The Mud Test. The XD was covered with thick, gritty mud. After a quick shaking off, it was fired 100 times. Mud went everywhere from the recoil, mostly on the shooters, some on bystanders--it was amazing how much sprayed off the gun. Still, the gun kept working. Result: zero malfunctions.

And then there was the Water Test, the Degreaser Test, the Tire Test, the "Throw it off a Mountain" Test, etc., etc. On top of this, there was the little matter of 20,000 rounds pumped through the gun along the way. Through all this abuse, the weapon never skipped a beat.

The manufacturer has also demonstrated a plugged barrel firing test (yikes!), and another torture test involving a 48-hour saltwater test, a sand test and a truck and bulldozer test, all with no malfunctions.




I understand most Glocks are able to withstand the same or similar torture tests. The Glocks are the weapons I've seen most commonly compared to the Springfield XDs. I probably would've been just fine with a Glock--though I found a number of reviewers who never liked the Glocks but love the XDs.

I headed over to the local gun show today still undecided between the XD40 and the XD45acp. I've never bought into the idea that caliber is critical. Everyone's heard the anecdotes about PCP-crazed psychos who can take on 50 rounds of 9mm and just keep coming, but the truth is that 99.9% of mortal humans hit in the middle of the chest at close range with a 9mm hollowpoint are going down PDQ--no ifs ands or buts. On the other hand, you can blow someone's arm off with an elephant gun and still fail to incapacitate him.

My prior semi-auto pistols have all been 9mm, because of magazine capacity and ammo expense as much as anything else. These days, magazine capacity is not as much of an issue. The XD-45acp magazine holds 13 rounds, vs. 16 for the XD9 and 12 for the XD40. My interest in the .40 or the 45 as compared to the 9mm had more to do with variety than anything else. In any event, I was planning to go with the 5" Tactical model either way. After having a look at the guns being offered at the various booths, I decided on an XD-45acp Service model (4") in black:



For my money, I think the Tactical model is a better-looking unit (image HERE), but it's also bigger, heavier and more expensive. After considering that this gun's going to spend most of its life stashed in my glove compartment, compact practicality won out over cool looks.

If there's any question as to whether the Springfield XD was the right option, Jawa Report commenter "LC Guido Cabrone" shared the following for consideration:

Our rentals have been through more abuse and more rounds fired than any personally owned weapons ever will. (Well, with one exception I can think of, but most of us can't afford to dump 45,000 rounds downrange in a month and a half... (Yes, that guy is a serious shooter and was getting ready for a competition.))

We have had four total malfunctions with our XD rentals. Our four inch nine lost it's cocking indicator, (the little silver pin that sticks out of the back of the slide), and the four inch forty lost a cocking indicator, (no biggie, it's more of a convenience than anything else), broke the tip off of the ejector, (dunno when it happened, it just started tossing the brass back over the shooter's shoulder, again, no biggie), and, finally, broke a locking block at about 25,000 rounds. That tied it up, but, since Springfield told us it was one of the first ones built, and had been to half the gun mags in the country before we got it, there was no telling how many rounds were fired beforehand.

And Springfield didn't quibble about any of the repairs.

And I don't want to start any flame wars here, but we don't tend to keep Sig or HK for rentals.

They break too much. (Yes, that includes the MP-5...)

Thanks for all the input. Based on the feedback, and other research I've done on the web, I'm planning to go with the Springfield Armory XD.

I'm pretty old school, and I've always had a soft spot in my heart for the classic Beretta/Taurus lines and the feel of a metal frame gun. That said, there are times when you just have to "step into the future," and this may be one of those times.

There's a gun show this weekend, and if I come across one of these at the right price, I may just have to pick one up.

Of course, there remains the age-old question: WHICH CALIBER? I'm leaning toward .40 S&W, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

Thoughts?

Back when I was in pirate training, I had a Taurus PT-99 9mm, and was pretty happy with it, but it was a bit "rough around the edges"--a bit like yours truly. I'm now in the market for a new handgun. I'm thinking something in the $500 range.

I just recently became aware of "double stack" 45s, which give you the magazine capacity of a 9mm in the larger caliber. That's a nice combo, but the guns I've come across so far weren't mass-production items. Limited-run guns come with limited-run prices--and more importantly, limited-run availability of spare parts.

Your thoughts on good sidearms are appreciated--unless your thoughts are stupid, in which case you will likely be savaged mercilessly.