Many moons ago, we tested the Charter Arms Pitbull revolvers, which fire rimless cartridges. We tested both the .40S&W and 9mm versions:
Well, Charter recently announced that they were redesigning the Pitbull to reduce capacity from 6 rounds to 5, in the interest of improving spent case extraction, which was one of the problems we encountered when we tested them.
While that would remedy one of the problems that we identified with the Pitbull, it won’t address the others.
What the hell is going on here?
Dumbo Zumbo shoots his career in the foot by going full-Fudd.
Then Dickless Metcalf starts carrying the anti-gunners’ water for them, and his mealy-mouthed editor at Guns & Ammo helps him do it.
Now Bob Owens of BearingArms.com has joined their illustrious company on the anti-gun side. This, after Owens took Metcalf to task for acting as a puppet for the anti-gun cultists!
In an op-ed for the anti-gun liberal L.A. Times, Owens badmouths Glock because of a rash of police accidental shootings due to what he claims to be an overly-light trigger pull & too-short trigger travel distance (and a lack of a manual safety) on Glock handguns.
“For more than 35 years, officer-involved accidental discharges with Glocks and Glock-like weapons have been blamed on a lack of training or negligence on the part of the individual cops. What critics should be addressing instead is the brutal reality that short trigger pulls and natural human reflexes are a deadly combination.”
So, all of a sudden the minimal firearms training requirements (partly budgetary in nature) for police are absolved of guilt for these officers’ negligence?
And the Glock trigger (which is longer and heavier than a 1911) is suddenly a problem, despite this rash of police-initiated incidents that has not been mirrored by a commensurate increase in civilian negligent discharges? And the police Glocks use an even heavier trigger than civilian Glocks (the “New York Trigger”).
Owens talks about going back to issuing police guns that have long DAO (double-action only) triggers. Which will make the already abysmal track record of police firearms accuracy even worse.
Owens tried to deflect & defuse the controversy on his own blog:
“Mechanically, Glocks and similar pistols are incredibly solid and reliable designs. What they aren’t is forgiving…Unfortunately, until they start manufacturing failure-proof people, Glocks and other short trigger pull guns are going to be a bad choice for professions where high stress is a constant.”
There isn’t anything I can think of that has higher stress than a self-defense situation. And by Owens’ standard, the 1911 (with its lighter and shorter trigger) is even worse than a Glock for such situations. The Walther PPS and PPQ have lighter, shorter triggers than a Glock. My Springfield XDM has a shorter, lighter trigger than a Glock. Haven’t shot a S&W M&P lately but its entirely possible that their triggers are comparable or lighter/shorter than a Glock. Owens tries to suggest that the Beretta 92/96 design (which has proven to be prone to breakage in military service) is the answer. He also suggests the Ruger SR series…which has a Glock-like trigger. And the discontinued 1st-3rd gen S&W pistols. Hey, Bob, how about a Nagant M1895 revolver? Is that a heavy enough trigger for you?
Some have claimed that Owens has a relationship with a rival firearms manufacturer, and this is what is driving his sudden attack of foot-in-mouth disease. Or maybe he just needed to get some attention, like an infant throwing his pacifier on the floor and crying.
Regardless of his motivation, Owens proved himself to be a willing tool of the anti-gun crowd, and an ignoramus.
Enjoy your infamy, you chinless hayseed.
Buying a scope for a hunting rifle is pretty straightforward: determine the terrain you will be hunting in, and the distance that you typically take your shot at, and buy a scope of suitable magnification.
Hunting prairie dogs across an uncluttered plain calls out for very high magnification. Hunting whitetail in the Northeast probably means dense forest among the hills, and the shots that present themselves to a hunter will be much closer; less magnification is better for that. Variable magnification scopes give hunters extra versatility, but even with modern technology there are real and practical limits to what a scope can do. Shooting in low light (when hunting coyotes, for instance) calls out for an illuminated reticle, which is a more common feature in the last 10 years.
A scope for combat has different requirements, because there are so many different kinds of combat.
Everybody likes new things. And the advertising practices of the past 50 years have deepened and solidified our hunger for new things beyond the limits of common sense.
How else to explain the mad dash to ditch a perfectly good smartphone when a new model (that is functionally 97% identical to the old model, and light-years better than the phones of 5 years ago) is released? IT managers were not hallucinating when they observed an increase in broken phones when a new iPhone was released. You can’t have bread & circuses without the bread.
Guns are not immune to this trend. When something bigger/smaller/faster/shinier comes out, we all salivate a little. Senator Phil Gramm once described the size of his arsenal as “more than I need, but not as many as I want”. A smart consumer should mitigate his/her urge to acquire new hardware with the knowledge of: budget priorities, how easy it will be to get ammo/parts/accessories, reliability of warranty coverage, and whether or not the gun is chambered for a caliber that he/she already supports. No one is saying that those are rules to adhere to at all times. But you need to weigh all the factors against your personal situation before deciding. Bullets without a gun to shoot them are as useless as a gun with no bullets.
If you are going to do any long-range hunting, or if you want to improve your marksmanship beyond 50 yards, you need a spotting scope. You can’t learn & grow your skills if you can’t see what your current performance is. Not knowing where your last bullet hit will hold back your development as a shooter. And running downrange to examine your target repeatedly is going to tire you out and piss off your fellow marksmen.
A binocular is fine out to 50 yards, but beyond that distance the lack of magnification is a problem.
And, no, the scope on your rifle is not “good enough”, even if it is a fancy German brand. It doesn’t have enough magnification, and you don’t want to get into the habit of aiming your gun at everything that you want a closer look at.
If you want to improve your skills with a long gun, and get your guns sighted in correctly, you need a spotting scope. In optics, you generally get the quality that you pay for. Below, I will address some of the considerations that you need to think about before choosing a spotting scope.