The book that you simply MUST
have!
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Filed in: Techniques & TrainingFiled in: Permalink
I'm surprised how many people
still haven't read - let alone own a copy of - the best work on
shooting a revolver that has ever been written! Ed McGivern's "Fast
& Fancy Revolver Shooting" is, after 70 years, still the
standard reference work on the subject of revolver shooting.
McGivern, who set the first revolver speed shooting records, was a phenomenal shot. Not only could he shoot very quickly, he was also accurate and excelled at shooting from odd positions, at aerial targets, and using two guns simultaneously. Jerry Miculek, this generation's equivalent to McGivern, has repeatedly referenced this book as being his inspiration and instructional manual. If it's good enough for Jerry, it ought to be good enough for the rest of us!
You can order it through Amazon by going to my store and clicking the link to the book.
Read it, practice it, and maybe someday you can beat Jerry!
-=[ Grant ]=-
McGivern, who set the first revolver speed shooting records, was a phenomenal shot. Not only could he shoot very quickly, he was also accurate and excelled at shooting from odd positions, at aerial targets, and using two guns simultaneously. Jerry Miculek, this generation's equivalent to McGivern, has repeatedly referenced this book as being his inspiration and instructional manual. If it's good enough for Jerry, it ought to be good enough for the rest of us!
You can order it through Amazon by going to my store and clicking the link to the book.
Read it, practice it, and maybe someday you can beat Jerry!
-=[ Grant ]=-
|
Update to last Friday's Surprise:
Nessmuk online!
Monday, January 29, 2007 Filed in: Random
StuffFiled in:
Permalink
A regular reader informs me that
the Nessmuk classic, "Woodcraft and Camping", is available online
as a .pdf file - completely FREE!
"Woodcraft and Camping" at Outdoors-Magazine.com
If you haven't yet gotten a copy, you now have no excuse!
-=[ Grant ]=-
"Woodcraft and Camping" at Outdoors-Magazine.com
If you haven't yet gotten a copy, you now have no excuse!
-=[ Grant ]=-
It's time for someone else to make
revolvers
Monday, January 29, 2007 Filed in: Revolvers/other gunsFiled in: Permalink
Well, it's more precise to say
that it's time for someone else to make double-action
revolvers!
With Colt out of the revolver business, Taurus showing no signs of moving past the low end of the market, Dan Wesson functionally deceased, and Smith & Wesson producing mere shadows of their former greatness, it's time for someone else to step up to the plate. It's time for someone to take over the badly-served upper end of the revolver market.
It's time for Freedom Arms to branch out from making the best single actions to making the best double actions.
Why Freedom Arms? Because they've already proven their ability to make a high-grade revolver. They're used to producing and selling high-end guns, and they know how to make those guns both superbly accurate and incredibly durable. They have a well-regarded brand name, and an established dealer network.
They have everything it would take to introduce a top-flight double action revolver.
It is, admittedly, a small market. The best of anything is always a small market. That doesn't seem to stop Rolls Royce or Patek Philippe, and I don't think it would stop Freedom Arms. There are a lot of people who would have purchased Pythons were they still being made to their former standards, and those would be Freedom Arms' customers.
How about it, FA?
-=[ Grant ]=-
With Colt out of the revolver business, Taurus showing no signs of moving past the low end of the market, Dan Wesson functionally deceased, and Smith & Wesson producing mere shadows of their former greatness, it's time for someone else to step up to the plate. It's time for someone to take over the badly-served upper end of the revolver market.
It's time for Freedom Arms to branch out from making the best single actions to making the best double actions.
Why Freedom Arms? Because they've already proven their ability to make a high-grade revolver. They're used to producing and selling high-end guns, and they know how to make those guns both superbly accurate and incredibly durable. They have a well-regarded brand name, and an established dealer network.
They have everything it would take to introduce a top-flight double action revolver.
It is, admittedly, a small market. The best of anything is always a small market. That doesn't seem to stop Rolls Royce or Patek Philippe, and I don't think it would stop Freedom Arms. There are a lot of people who would have purchased Pythons were they still being made to their former standards, and those would be Freedom Arms' customers.
How about it, FA?
-=[ Grant ]=-
New feature: GRANT'S SUNDAY
RANT
Sunday, January 28, 2007 Filed in: Current
EventsFiled in:
Permalink
Everyone else rants on their blog,
why not me? I generally I find ranting to be unseemly, but
sometimes I run across something so unbelievably stupid that I just
can't help myself!
After all, Straka has his "Grrrrs", and Andy Rooney has made a virtual industry of ranting; heck, there's one gunsmith who has a half-dozen blogs, each of which is a gigantic, incoherent rant! So I think it's not too much to ask to be allowed an occasional "harrumph!"
Our inaugural item comes from one of my "daily reads", the Uncommon Business blog. This is a great blog, chock-full of examples of businesses that you wouldn't normally think of as being viable, yet somehow have found a successful niche. (One could argue that revolversmithing is such a business!)
Their latest entry is for OpenX, a device that was designed to open that annoying plastic clamshell packaging. Go check out the article, then come back and read the rest of my rant.
I'll wait right here. (Cue "Jeopardy" theme...)
Back already? Did you read the whole thing? Good!
When I read the article, I was immediately struck with the thought "man, that's stupid." Don't get me wrong - I'm sure that the engineering is good and the construction quality is more than acceptable; I'm sure it opens clamshell packaging in a most efficient manner, with great aplomb and no doubt accompanied by heavenly choirs.
What I can't understand is why the heck this guy needed to invent the thing in the first place!
You see, I always carry a pocket knife - usually a couple. I've carried a pocket knife since (probably) the 3rd grade. (Back then every kid carried a pocket knife to school. For those born after 1980, I'm not kidding.) Every male I know carries a pocket knife. My wife carries a pocket knife, and has her own collection from which to choose.
When I need to open a clamshell package, I simply reach into my pocket, pull out my trusty pocket knife (a Victorinox Swisschamp, in most cases) and proceed to open the package with a minimum of fuss, bother, and anguish.
Apparently, that's not how everyone does it. There are ill-equipped people out there, just waiting to be frustrated by product packaging!
How is it this guy didn't have a pocket knife?!? Is he afraid of them? Does his social station eliminate the need to carry his own implements? ("Jeeves, please open this package for me.") Do his peers look down on someone who carries such an essential implement? ("I say, Muffy, he is acting positively blue-collar these days! The boys at the club will be absolutely aghast!")
Follow me here: he didn't have a knife with him, which made him conceive of the idea of a package opener; he invented a knife substitute to have with him, in place of that which he didn't have with him in the first place! So, this solves the problem how, exactly? What happens the next time he's presented with a gift that he can't open, because he doesn't have his opener with him, just as he didn't have a knife with him?
(Hmmm....wonder if the OpenX comes in a clamshell package? If so, how is one to open it?? The Helplessness Brigade would be stymied once more!)
Rant off. Until next time!
-=[ Grant ]=-
After all, Straka has his "Grrrrs", and Andy Rooney has made a virtual industry of ranting; heck, there's one gunsmith who has a half-dozen blogs, each of which is a gigantic, incoherent rant! So I think it's not too much to ask to be allowed an occasional "harrumph!"
Our inaugural item comes from one of my "daily reads", the Uncommon Business blog. This is a great blog, chock-full of examples of businesses that you wouldn't normally think of as being viable, yet somehow have found a successful niche. (One could argue that revolversmithing is such a business!)
Their latest entry is for OpenX, a device that was designed to open that annoying plastic clamshell packaging. Go check out the article, then come back and read the rest of my rant.
I'll wait right here. (Cue "Jeopardy" theme...)
Back already? Did you read the whole thing? Good!
When I read the article, I was immediately struck with the thought "man, that's stupid." Don't get me wrong - I'm sure that the engineering is good and the construction quality is more than acceptable; I'm sure it opens clamshell packaging in a most efficient manner, with great aplomb and no doubt accompanied by heavenly choirs.
What I can't understand is why the heck this guy needed to invent the thing in the first place!
You see, I always carry a pocket knife - usually a couple. I've carried a pocket knife since (probably) the 3rd grade. (Back then every kid carried a pocket knife to school. For those born after 1980, I'm not kidding.) Every male I know carries a pocket knife. My wife carries a pocket knife, and has her own collection from which to choose.
When I need to open a clamshell package, I simply reach into my pocket, pull out my trusty pocket knife (a Victorinox Swisschamp, in most cases) and proceed to open the package with a minimum of fuss, bother, and anguish.
Apparently, that's not how everyone does it. There are ill-equipped people out there, just waiting to be frustrated by product packaging!
How is it this guy didn't have a pocket knife?!? Is he afraid of them? Does his social station eliminate the need to carry his own implements? ("Jeeves, please open this package for me.") Do his peers look down on someone who carries such an essential implement? ("I say, Muffy, he is acting positively blue-collar these days! The boys at the club will be absolutely aghast!")
Follow me here: he didn't have a knife with him, which made him conceive of the idea of a package opener; he invented a knife substitute to have with him, in place of that which he didn't have with him in the first place! So, this solves the problem how, exactly? What happens the next time he's presented with a gift that he can't open, because he doesn't have his opener with him, just as he didn't have a knife with him?
(Hmmm....wonder if the OpenX comes in a clamshell package? If so, how is one to open it?? The Helplessness Brigade would be stymied once more!)
Rant off. Until next time!
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: Do you know
Nessmuk?
Friday, January 26, 2007 Filed in: Random
StuffFiled in:
Permalink
You know, I had a pretty darned
good childhood. I grew up on a small farm, outside a small town (I
remember when the town passed the 1500 resident milestone) that was
nestled in the foothills of the Cascade Range.
After chores were finished and if there were no other pressing jobs to be done (like hauling hay), I got to do what I wanted. I could go down to our pond and fish, or take off with my friends Dan and/or Tom for an overnight camping trip - all with very little administrative (parental) hand-wringing. Even a two-day trip up the river and into the woods wasn't out of the question, though such an outing did prompt some worrying from my mother.
Not a bad way to grow up!
Living as I do in suburbia, I long for the time when we would run into the forest with little more than a small tent, a blanket, a sheath knife, maybe a couple cans of baked beans, and a fishing pole. (If we planned our trip into a particular area that we knew contained several small caves, we didn't even bother with the tent.) Woodcraft, such as shelter building and fire making, was an expected part of any well-balanced upbringing. I miss those days.
I have found a way to keep the hunger for simpler times at bay: I curl up with Nessmuk.
What is a Nessmuk? Properly, the question is phrased "Who is Nessmuk?"
Nessmuk was in normal existence one George Washington Sears. Sears was a slight, asthmatic individual who was born in 1821 in Massachusetts, and spent much of his life - at least, that portion when he wasn't working just to finance his next adventure - in a canoe or on a boat or in the woods.
He was able to combine his love of the outdoors and his considerable talent as a writer by having narratives of his adventures published in Forest and Stream magazine.
He wrote two books, Woodcraft and Camping, which are still in print - combined into one volume titled Woodcraft and Camping (no surprise there, right?!?) It is still available to this day, which must be some sort of record in the publishing business. (Another book, called Adirondack Letters, is a compilation of his articles in Forest and Stream.)
Woodcraft and Camping is not a thick book, nor is it solely a "how to" manual. It is the collected wisdom and insights of a man who lived just to be able to commune with nature. Nessmuk wrote in a beautiful, lyrical style that makes the reader salivate with the desire to get out into the wilderness.
At only $6.95, I believe it to be one of the greatest bargains - as well as one of the "must haves" - in outdoor literature. I cannot recommend this book highly enough to anyone who enjoys living in and exploring the wilderness, or even just dreaming about it!
Woodcraft and Camping at Amazon.com
A short biography of George Washington Sears
The Adirondack Letters online edition (free!)
Wikipedia entry on Nessmuk
-=[ Grant ]=-
After chores were finished and if there were no other pressing jobs to be done (like hauling hay), I got to do what I wanted. I could go down to our pond and fish, or take off with my friends Dan and/or Tom for an overnight camping trip - all with very little administrative (parental) hand-wringing. Even a two-day trip up the river and into the woods wasn't out of the question, though such an outing did prompt some worrying from my mother.
Not a bad way to grow up!
Living as I do in suburbia, I long for the time when we would run into the forest with little more than a small tent, a blanket, a sheath knife, maybe a couple cans of baked beans, and a fishing pole. (If we planned our trip into a particular area that we knew contained several small caves, we didn't even bother with the tent.) Woodcraft, such as shelter building and fire making, was an expected part of any well-balanced upbringing. I miss those days.
I have found a way to keep the hunger for simpler times at bay: I curl up with Nessmuk.
What is a Nessmuk? Properly, the question is phrased "Who is Nessmuk?"
Nessmuk was in normal existence one George Washington Sears. Sears was a slight, asthmatic individual who was born in 1821 in Massachusetts, and spent much of his life - at least, that portion when he wasn't working just to finance his next adventure - in a canoe or on a boat or in the woods.
He was able to combine his love of the outdoors and his considerable talent as a writer by having narratives of his adventures published in Forest and Stream magazine.
He wrote two books, Woodcraft and Camping, which are still in print - combined into one volume titled Woodcraft and Camping (no surprise there, right?!?) It is still available to this day, which must be some sort of record in the publishing business. (Another book, called Adirondack Letters, is a compilation of his articles in Forest and Stream.)
Woodcraft and Camping is not a thick book, nor is it solely a "how to" manual. It is the collected wisdom and insights of a man who lived just to be able to commune with nature. Nessmuk wrote in a beautiful, lyrical style that makes the reader salivate with the desire to get out into the wilderness.
At only $6.95, I believe it to be one of the greatest bargains - as well as one of the "must haves" - in outdoor literature. I cannot recommend this book highly enough to anyone who enjoys living in and exploring the wilderness, or even just dreaming about it!
Woodcraft and Camping at Amazon.com
A short biography of George Washington Sears
The Adirondack Letters online edition (free!)
Wikipedia entry on Nessmuk
-=[ Grant ]=-
An unusual lubrication problem
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Filed in: Revolvers/other gunsFiled in: Permalink
I get the most interesting phone
calls!
A client who works for a public agency in California contacted me with a problem. As you may know, California has pretty strict ideas about what constitutes a carcinogen. Management in his agency won't let him use any lubricants that contain "substances known to the state of California to cause cancer." That, ladies and gentlemen, excludes most anti-wear and anti-corrosion additives!
After some consultation with experts, I was able to come up with a recommendation. In general, if you need a "clean" lubricant with good protection against wear and corrosion, look no further than lubes made for the food service industry!
They have to be non-toxic and non-staining, and since food production often involves contact with acids and liquids, they have to be very resistant to those substances as well. They also typically perform very well in colder temperatures and almost invariably are superb at corrosion resistance.
If you've read my article on lubricants, you know I'm a big fan of Lubriplate's SFL series of greases, which are designed and approved for food service. Another good choice is their FGL series, which is a bit easier to get in the small quantities shooters use. If you prefer an oil, their FMO-AW series of oils (available in a wide variety of viscosities down to 5W) are a superb choice.
These products should also be fantastic choices for those who have allergic reactions to the additives present in other oils and greases.
In this case, I recommended the FGL grade 00 grease to my client. This is a very light, almost fluid grease with superb anti-wear and anti-corrosion properties. It should pass muster with even the most strict requirements that he has to meet!
-=[ Grant ]=-
A client who works for a public agency in California contacted me with a problem. As you may know, California has pretty strict ideas about what constitutes a carcinogen. Management in his agency won't let him use any lubricants that contain "substances known to the state of California to cause cancer." That, ladies and gentlemen, excludes most anti-wear and anti-corrosion additives!
After some consultation with experts, I was able to come up with a recommendation. In general, if you need a "clean" lubricant with good protection against wear and corrosion, look no further than lubes made for the food service industry!
They have to be non-toxic and non-staining, and since food production often involves contact with acids and liquids, they have to be very resistant to those substances as well. They also typically perform very well in colder temperatures and almost invariably are superb at corrosion resistance.
If you've read my article on lubricants, you know I'm a big fan of Lubriplate's SFL series of greases, which are designed and approved for food service. Another good choice is their FGL series, which is a bit easier to get in the small quantities shooters use. If you prefer an oil, their FMO-AW series of oils (available in a wide variety of viscosities down to 5W) are a superb choice.
These products should also be fantastic choices for those who have allergic reactions to the additives present in other oils and greases.
In this case, I recommended the FGL grade 00 grease to my client. This is a very light, almost fluid grease with superb anti-wear and anti-corrosion properties. It should pass muster with even the most strict requirements that he has to meet!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Getting your revolver engraved
Monday, January 22, 2007 Filed in: Revolvers/other gunsFiled in: Permalink
The lure of a personalized and
decorated weapon is centuries old. Embellished swords and knives
from the 17th and 18th centuries are well known; before that,
soldiers in high standing had their armor decorated. Some of the
earliest firearms in existence are lavishly treated, with inlays
and fine woods.
Today many people desire to have their favorite guns engraved. But where to start? There are so many engraving styles, not to mention engravers - how are you going to make sense of it all?
I've recommended to many clients that they start by studying the art of weapon engraving. With just a bit of research on your part, you will quickly learn the difference between quality engraving and the firearms equivalent of the "Velvet Elvis."
If you're like most people, you'll be drawn to a specific engraving style. Once you've identified what you like, you can then start looking at the work of the engraver. Every engraver has a specialty; while they may do many different styles, sometimes quite well, they'll generally do their best work in one particular style.
How do you get this education? I've found one book to be incredibly useful: "Steel Canvas" by R. L. Wilson. (Yes, I know all about his shady business dealings - but the book is superbly done, perhaps the most accessible of all books on the subject.) This large-format coffee table book is a bargain at about $30. In it, you'll see the very best examples of all the styles from every well known engraver, current and past. This one book will help you identify the style you like most, and will show you the best examples so that you can judge for yourself if the engraver you've chosen is any good.
I can't recommend this book enough. Even if you don't have any intention of having an engraved gun produced, you should get it just for the superb photographs of "best quality" firearms. Of all the gun books I own, this is the one I thumb through most often!
If I may be so bold, you can get this book through my Amazon store here.
Look at it this way: to get a good engraving job will cost you time and money (quality engravers don't work cheaply or quickly.) Spending just a fraction of that cost, and a few pleasurable days looking at stunning photos, is a very small investment that will repay you for years to come!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Today many people desire to have their favorite guns engraved. But where to start? There are so many engraving styles, not to mention engravers - how are you going to make sense of it all?
I've recommended to many clients that they start by studying the art of weapon engraving. With just a bit of research on your part, you will quickly learn the difference between quality engraving and the firearms equivalent of the "Velvet Elvis."
If you're like most people, you'll be drawn to a specific engraving style. Once you've identified what you like, you can then start looking at the work of the engraver. Every engraver has a specialty; while they may do many different styles, sometimes quite well, they'll generally do their best work in one particular style.
How do you get this education? I've found one book to be incredibly useful: "Steel Canvas" by R. L. Wilson. (Yes, I know all about his shady business dealings - but the book is superbly done, perhaps the most accessible of all books on the subject.) This large-format coffee table book is a bargain at about $30. In it, you'll see the very best examples of all the styles from every well known engraver, current and past. This one book will help you identify the style you like most, and will show you the best examples so that you can judge for yourself if the engraver you've chosen is any good.
I can't recommend this book enough. Even if you don't have any intention of having an engraved gun produced, you should get it just for the superb photographs of "best quality" firearms. Of all the gun books I own, this is the one I thumb through most often!
If I may be so bold, you can get this book through my Amazon store here.
Look at it this way: to get a good engraving job will cost you time and money (quality engravers don't work cheaply or quickly.) Spending just a fraction of that cost, and a few pleasurable days looking at stunning photos, is a very small investment that will repay you for years to come!
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: "What the hell were
you thinking??"
Friday, January 19, 2007 Filed in: Random
StuffFiled in:
Permalink
That was my dear, departed
father's question whenever I was found to have done something that
wasn't all that bright. Of course, any self-respecting 10-year-old
knows how to answer: look at the ground, shuffle your feet, and say
(sotto
voce) "I
dunno."
Unfortunately, once you become of age and start asking yourself the same question that tried-and-true answer know longer works. As luck would have it, sometimes it takes a while before you ask. Sometimes, it takes years. The great part about this delay is that it allows you to once again say "I dunno!"
This is a story about just such an event.
Here in Oregon we're blessed with some phenomenal scenery. From our gorgeous Pacific Coastline to the high desert east of the Cascades (a treasure unto themselves), there is something here for every taste. One of the most visited natural wonders is Multnomah Falls, located just a short 45-minute drive from downtown Portland.
The spectacular waterfall - the second-highest year-round fall in North America - is fed by a spring way up on Larch Mountain. In fact, it's not the only falls served by that spring: there are several other (much smaller, of course) falls that the water travels over before reaching the "big one."
(From the U.S. Forest Service website.)
Multnomah Falls is 620 feet high - a straight drop of 542 feet, then a bit of a pool, then another drop of a mere 69 feet. A footbridge spans the small canyon over the top of the smaller section, and leads to a trail which snakes its way up the side of the mountain to a viewpoint at the top. There, safely contained behind fences and guardrails, one can look over the incredibly scenic Columbia River Gorge.
However, back in 1982 there were no such amenities at the top - just a small sign that warned visitors (those hardy enough to make the steep climb) to stay on the trail. That didn't stop my buddy Ed and me from doing something stupid, however!
A quick digression: Ed and I were aspiring photographers who spent our days selling Nikons and other assorted high end gear to people who also aspired to be photographers. Most of them, however, would never put themselves on the line for "that shot"; we, on the other hand, continually stick our various body parts in harm's way just to get pictures that no one else would dare.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how we found ourselves in the middle of that cold little river at the edge of Multnomah Falls!
I decided that I wanted a different shot of the falls - one that no one else would take. So we lugged our 35 pounds of gear (per person, you understand) up the trail and sloshed out into the water.
I walked to the edge of the falls, where I found a couple of rocks between which I could wedge my Pentax KX-Motor camera on its Bogen Monopod and shoot at a low enough shutter speed to capture the movement of the water. I framed the scene to show the water going over the edge on its way to the bottom (542 feet below my, umm, feet) as well as a glimpse of the river and gorge, and made 3 exposures.
Once I developed the film, into my archives the negatives went - to be resurrected here for the first time in a quarter century:
Looking at this shot today sends chills down my spine. It was foolhardy in the extreme; I was literally leaning out over the edge of the falls to take the picture, knee-deep in cold water, just a slip away from certain death. I was either invincible or ignorant - I'll leave it to you to determine which.
It shouldn't surprise you to learn that this wasn't the first - nor was it the last - stupid thing we did in the name of photographic immortality. My wife, one would think, would be used to this sort of thing - yet when I told her the story (several years later), she asked "what the hell were you thinking?!?" Need I tell you my answer?
-=[ Grant ]=-
Unfortunately, once you become of age and start asking yourself the same question that tried-and-true answer know longer works. As luck would have it, sometimes it takes a while before you ask. Sometimes, it takes years. The great part about this delay is that it allows you to once again say "I dunno!"
This is a story about just such an event.
Here in Oregon we're blessed with some phenomenal scenery. From our gorgeous Pacific Coastline to the high desert east of the Cascades (a treasure unto themselves), there is something here for every taste. One of the most visited natural wonders is Multnomah Falls, located just a short 45-minute drive from downtown Portland.
The spectacular waterfall - the second-highest year-round fall in North America - is fed by a spring way up on Larch Mountain. In fact, it's not the only falls served by that spring: there are several other (much smaller, of course) falls that the water travels over before reaching the "big one."
(From the U.S. Forest Service website.)
Multnomah Falls is 620 feet high - a straight drop of 542 feet, then a bit of a pool, then another drop of a mere 69 feet. A footbridge spans the small canyon over the top of the smaller section, and leads to a trail which snakes its way up the side of the mountain to a viewpoint at the top. There, safely contained behind fences and guardrails, one can look over the incredibly scenic Columbia River Gorge.
However, back in 1982 there were no such amenities at the top - just a small sign that warned visitors (those hardy enough to make the steep climb) to stay on the trail. That didn't stop my buddy Ed and me from doing something stupid, however!
A quick digression: Ed and I were aspiring photographers who spent our days selling Nikons and other assorted high end gear to people who also aspired to be photographers. Most of them, however, would never put themselves on the line for "that shot"; we, on the other hand, continually stick our various body parts in harm's way just to get pictures that no one else would dare.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how we found ourselves in the middle of that cold little river at the edge of Multnomah Falls!
I decided that I wanted a different shot of the falls - one that no one else would take. So we lugged our 35 pounds of gear (per person, you understand) up the trail and sloshed out into the water.
I walked to the edge of the falls, where I found a couple of rocks between which I could wedge my Pentax KX-Motor camera on its Bogen Monopod and shoot at a low enough shutter speed to capture the movement of the water. I framed the scene to show the water going over the edge on its way to the bottom (542 feet below my, umm, feet) as well as a glimpse of the river and gorge, and made 3 exposures.
Once I developed the film, into my archives the negatives went - to be resurrected here for the first time in a quarter century:
Looking at this shot today sends chills down my spine. It was foolhardy in the extreme; I was literally leaning out over the edge of the falls to take the picture, knee-deep in cold water, just a slip away from certain death. I was either invincible or ignorant - I'll leave it to you to determine which.
It shouldn't surprise you to learn that this wasn't the first - nor was it the last - stupid thing we did in the name of photographic immortality. My wife, one would think, would be used to this sort of thing - yet when I told her the story (several years later), she asked "what the hell were you thinking?!?" Need I tell you my answer?
-=[ Grant ]=-
A thin SHOT show for wheelgun
fans
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Filed in: Revolvers/other gunsFiled in: Permalink
Well, SHOT has come and gone, and
Colt had no revolvers in their display. (You may remember that one
of their spokespeople bragged in a magazine interview that Colt was
working on a new revolver design. Everyone on the forums got all
worked up about what Colt might be doing, endlessly speculating on
what they might bring to market. Some breathlessly suggested that
they might be working on a new high end revolver to replace the
Python. Excitement ran and, for some, continues to run high.)
Except here at the Revolver Liberation Alliance.
As I blogged just recently, Colt has demonstrated through their actions that they aren't interested in the revolver market. I even suggested that mention of a new revolver might be a ploy to make the company more attractive to potential buyers. You'd think that if they really had something going on, they'd show it at the industry's biggest trade show.
They didn't. End of story. (I remain ready to eat my words if they ever introduce this mythical new gun at some future show, but I suspect that I won't be needing to do so.)
In other SHOT news, Charter Arms, makers of "value priced" wheelguns, announced a line of left-handed revolvers. This would be big news if the guns were coming from a maker of high quality firearms, or even Taurus. From Charter it's just a curiosity. The honorable lefties amongst us deserve better.
Dan Wesson, lethargically owned for the last couple of years by CZ-USA, was finally showing a new Model 715. This would be exciting, except that the folks in Norwich proved that they couldn't make this decades-old design correctly last time, and I remain unconvinced that CZ management can do any better. (Let's face it: they've taken two years to produce one display example of a gun that they already had the plans, machinery, tooling, and parts to produce. Methinks they have hired some former Colt people to run the Dan Wesson division...)
Smith & Wesson is fast becoming the schizophrenic gun maker. One the one hand they're making modern "reproductions" of the guns from their heyday (though not to the same level of craftsmanship), while on the other they are coming up with such monstrosities as the new "sniper revolver." (Saw pictures, but the site that hosted them seems to have gone away. If I can find another, I'll post it.) S&W styling has always been a bit "hit and miss", but in the 21st century seems to have devolved to "miss and miss."
Glad I didn't go; I would have been too depressed to leave the hotel room!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Except here at the Revolver Liberation Alliance.
As I blogged just recently, Colt has demonstrated through their actions that they aren't interested in the revolver market. I even suggested that mention of a new revolver might be a ploy to make the company more attractive to potential buyers. You'd think that if they really had something going on, they'd show it at the industry's biggest trade show.
They didn't. End of story. (I remain ready to eat my words if they ever introduce this mythical new gun at some future show, but I suspect that I won't be needing to do so.)
In other SHOT news, Charter Arms, makers of "value priced" wheelguns, announced a line of left-handed revolvers. This would be big news if the guns were coming from a maker of high quality firearms, or even Taurus. From Charter it's just a curiosity. The honorable lefties amongst us deserve better.
Dan Wesson, lethargically owned for the last couple of years by CZ-USA, was finally showing a new Model 715. This would be exciting, except that the folks in Norwich proved that they couldn't make this decades-old design correctly last time, and I remain unconvinced that CZ management can do any better. (Let's face it: they've taken two years to produce one display example of a gun that they already had the plans, machinery, tooling, and parts to produce. Methinks they have hired some former Colt people to run the Dan Wesson division...)
Smith & Wesson is fast becoming the schizophrenic gun maker. One the one hand they're making modern "reproductions" of the guns from their heyday (though not to the same level of craftsmanship), while on the other they are coming up with such monstrosities as the new "sniper revolver." (Saw pictures, but the site that hosted them seems to have gone away. If I can find another, I'll post it.) S&W styling has always been a bit "hit and miss", but in the 21st century seems to have devolved to "miss and miss."
Glad I didn't go; I would have been too depressed to leave the hotel room!
-=[ Grant ]=-
The importance of endshake
Monday, January 15, 2007 Filed in: Revolvers/other gunsFiled in: Permalink
An often misunderstood aspect of
revolver construction is the idea of endshake. Endshake is nothing
more than the amount of back-and-forth movement (or front-to-back,
if you prefer) that the cylinder is allowed to make.
Measuring endshake is easy: using a set of feeler gages, the cylinder is pushed forward and the barrel/cylinder gap is measured. Then, the cylinder is forced backward as far as it will go, and the gap measured again; the difference between the measurements is the endshake. (When making the second measurement, it is important to push the cylinder all the way back - even past any cylinder latch resistance.)
How much is acceptable? That varies depending on the gun; Colts are the most stringent, and need to have no more than .003" of endshake for "factory level" condition. A S&W is generally allowed a bit more leeway.
The amount of endshake any given gun will experience will vary a bit over the life of the gun. As the cylinder pushed backward by the force of the firing round, the ratchet (aka "ejector star") ultimately hits the rear of the frame opening, which stops the cylinder movement. With each round fired, the ratchet/star is slightly deformed, and the frame is very slightly stretched. Over a long period of time, this results in more space between the ratchet/star and the frame, which increases the endshake.
As the endshake increases, the amount of "free run" the cylinder has will increase the battering effect against the frame, resulting in even more wear - which increases the endshake, and the cycle repeats itself, getting progressively worse.
Why should endshake be a concern? Under the best of conditions, the revolver cylinder would have zero movement. Of course, that rarely happens in the real world; some endshake is inevitable. As endshake increases, though, several things happen: first, the impact on the frame, and frame stretching, increases; this can, in extreme cases, result in the frame becoming unsuitable for use.
The immediate effects can be more visible. In a Colt revolver, excessive endshake results in increased hand wear, which causes the timing to fail prematurely; in extreme cases, it can also cause bolt (the little "pop up" half-moon shaped piece in the bottom of the frame window) to wear to the point of replacement. In a Smith & Wesson (and to a slightly lesser extent Ruger), excess endshake manifests itself as an inconsistent trigger pull which gets worse as the endshake increases. These guns can also experience increased bolt wear, though not nearly to the degree of the more closely-fitted Colt.
(Interestingly, the Dan Wesson guns are very robust in terms of their endshake handing; the spring-loading bearing detent at the rear of the frame locates the cylinder at the forward-most position every time, and also serves to absorb a bit of the recoil force of the cylinder.)
An excessive amount of endshake can also affect accuracy. Not only does it change the relationship between the chamber and the forcing cone with every shot (and not necessarily consistently), but it also changes the barrel/cylinder gap; both can have a negative effect on the accuracy of the gun/load combination.
Setting the endshake to as close to zero as possible results in increased frame and ratchet/star life, better action quality in S&W guns, extended service intervals on Colts, and better accuracy on all guns. That's why it is one of the first things I check on any revolver that comes in to my shop!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Measuring endshake is easy: using a set of feeler gages, the cylinder is pushed forward and the barrel/cylinder gap is measured. Then, the cylinder is forced backward as far as it will go, and the gap measured again; the difference between the measurements is the endshake. (When making the second measurement, it is important to push the cylinder all the way back - even past any cylinder latch resistance.)
How much is acceptable? That varies depending on the gun; Colts are the most stringent, and need to have no more than .003" of endshake for "factory level" condition. A S&W is generally allowed a bit more leeway.
The amount of endshake any given gun will experience will vary a bit over the life of the gun. As the cylinder pushed backward by the force of the firing round, the ratchet (aka "ejector star") ultimately hits the rear of the frame opening, which stops the cylinder movement. With each round fired, the ratchet/star is slightly deformed, and the frame is very slightly stretched. Over a long period of time, this results in more space between the ratchet/star and the frame, which increases the endshake.
As the endshake increases, the amount of "free run" the cylinder has will increase the battering effect against the frame, resulting in even more wear - which increases the endshake, and the cycle repeats itself, getting progressively worse.
Why should endshake be a concern? Under the best of conditions, the revolver cylinder would have zero movement. Of course, that rarely happens in the real world; some endshake is inevitable. As endshake increases, though, several things happen: first, the impact on the frame, and frame stretching, increases; this can, in extreme cases, result in the frame becoming unsuitable for use.
The immediate effects can be more visible. In a Colt revolver, excessive endshake results in increased hand wear, which causes the timing to fail prematurely; in extreme cases, it can also cause bolt (the little "pop up" half-moon shaped piece in the bottom of the frame window) to wear to the point of replacement. In a Smith & Wesson (and to a slightly lesser extent Ruger), excess endshake manifests itself as an inconsistent trigger pull which gets worse as the endshake increases. These guns can also experience increased bolt wear, though not nearly to the degree of the more closely-fitted Colt.
(Interestingly, the Dan Wesson guns are very robust in terms of their endshake handing; the spring-loading bearing detent at the rear of the frame locates the cylinder at the forward-most position every time, and also serves to absorb a bit of the recoil force of the cylinder.)
An excessive amount of endshake can also affect accuracy. Not only does it change the relationship between the chamber and the forcing cone with every shot (and not necessarily consistently), but it also changes the barrel/cylinder gap; both can have a negative effect on the accuracy of the gun/load combination.
Setting the endshake to as close to zero as possible results in increased frame and ratchet/star life, better action quality in S&W guns, extended service intervals on Colts, and better accuracy on all guns. That's why it is one of the first things I check on any revolver that comes in to my shop!
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: Are you NUTS??
Friday, January 12, 2007 Filed in: Permalink
I found this thread over on
Candlepowerforums (a great place for flashaholics!) about a hike in
China. Take a look at what passes for a trail:
While not having been to China, I have had some experience along those lines. A few years back, I spent a month gold mining in the wilderness of southern Oregon - just a few miles, coincidentally, from where the James Kim family was stranded last month.
We were mining down in a canyon, and it was a seriously difficult hike in and out. The nearest flat, relatively clear spot to make a camp was about a 1-1/2 miles away, which wouldn't have been too bad - except for the 800 foot elevation change! Even that wouldn't have been too bad, except that more than half the trail was relatively level, which meant that we had to deal with an 800 foot vertical climb in about three-quarters of a mile! (Did I mention that the trail was wilderness, amounted to a path that most of the time wasn't even visible, and that we hiked in and out every single day for a month?)
At one point in the hike, we had to traverse a cliff face for about 50 yards. The drop from that point down to the river at the bottom of the canyon was about 300 feet, and the "trail" was nothing more than a few crudely carved footholds in the cliff face. The first few times across the cliff I was sweating bullets, but at the end of the first week I was hopping across the cliff with nary a care in the world!
(That's the cliff face, shrouded by trees, as viewed from the approach.)
After that we had to climb down a rock wall; the first day out I fell off the wall and landed on the rocks below. Luckily I was almost all the way down, and only fell 10 feet or so. The result was a broken finger (with residual loss of dexterity coupled with some arthritis - hey, ya gotta be tough if you want to live out West!)
Just for fun, here I am in all my glory; I'm carrying about 75 pounds of mining equipment in the British pack/web gear set:
Next installment: when I was younger, I did even dumber things. Wait until you see just what...
-=[ Grant ]=-
While not having been to China, I have had some experience along those lines. A few years back, I spent a month gold mining in the wilderness of southern Oregon - just a few miles, coincidentally, from where the James Kim family was stranded last month.
We were mining down in a canyon, and it was a seriously difficult hike in and out. The nearest flat, relatively clear spot to make a camp was about a 1-1/2 miles away, which wouldn't have been too bad - except for the 800 foot elevation change! Even that wouldn't have been too bad, except that more than half the trail was relatively level, which meant that we had to deal with an 800 foot vertical climb in about three-quarters of a mile! (Did I mention that the trail was wilderness, amounted to a path that most of the time wasn't even visible, and that we hiked in and out every single day for a month?)
At one point in the hike, we had to traverse a cliff face for about 50 yards. The drop from that point down to the river at the bottom of the canyon was about 300 feet, and the "trail" was nothing more than a few crudely carved footholds in the cliff face. The first few times across the cliff I was sweating bullets, but at the end of the first week I was hopping across the cliff with nary a care in the world!
(That's the cliff face, shrouded by trees, as viewed from the approach.)
After that we had to climb down a rock wall; the first day out I fell off the wall and landed on the rocks below. Luckily I was almost all the way down, and only fell 10 feet or so. The result was a broken finger (with residual loss of dexterity coupled with some arthritis - hey, ya gotta be tough if you want to live out West!)
Just for fun, here I am in all my glory; I'm carrying about 75 pounds of mining equipment in the British pack/web gear set:
Next installment: when I was younger, I did even dumber things. Wait until you see just what...
-=[ Grant ]=-
BREAKING NEWS: Revolvers reclassified
as "assault handguns"!
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Filed in: Current EventsFiled in: Permalink
This from an article in the Frederick News-Post
in Maryland:
Thanks to SaysUncle for the heads-up.
-=[ Grant ]=-
If a Cobra and a Diamondback are "assault handguns", what does that make a Python?? It seems that the old saw about stupidity and hydrogen being the most common things in the universe has been proven true in what used to be known as the "Free State."Seized from Vaisman's residence were a broad range of weapons including assault handguns. Among the weapons were at least one Colt Cobra and at least one Colt Diamondback.
Thanks to SaysUncle for the heads-up.
-=[ Grant ]=-
A peek into the life of a
world-famous revolversmith
I know you've always wondered: how
does a jet-setting gunsmith work with all of those adoring fans
hanging around? Well, I hate to disappoint you, but unless you
count an overindulged rabbit, no one is hanging around waiting for
me to pay them any attention!
Tyler, the spoiled rabbit
Since my shop isn't open to the public, I get to dress and arrange my environment as suits me. I usually work in sweatpants and a sweatshirt (rarely matching), over which goes my little green grocer's apron.
(You read that correctly; I have two old-fasioned green cotton grocer's aprons, which I acquired when I worked in a grocery store during high school. How long ago was that? Well, let's just say the White House refrigerators were stocked with Billy Beer!)
My shop has no windows, so I'm forced to entertain myself as best I can. I usually do so by playing music at somewhat louder-than-normal volume. One might think this would be a rock-n-roll custom, but not usually - I've been known to play Scottish dance reels, Aaron Copland, Baroque trumpet concertos, and Red Rodney at the same transducer-destroying level. (Eclectic? Hey, I was a music performance minor in college - I'm allowed!)
So if you call and I don't answer the phone, it's because I can't hear it over the noise of the shop equipment. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Tyler, the spoiled rabbit
Since my shop isn't open to the public, I get to dress and arrange my environment as suits me. I usually work in sweatpants and a sweatshirt (rarely matching), over which goes my little green grocer's apron.
(You read that correctly; I have two old-fasioned green cotton grocer's aprons, which I acquired when I worked in a grocery store during high school. How long ago was that? Well, let's just say the White House refrigerators were stocked with Billy Beer!)
My shop has no windows, so I'm forced to entertain myself as best I can. I usually do so by playing music at somewhat louder-than-normal volume. One might think this would be a rock-n-roll custom, but not usually - I've been known to play Scottish dance reels, Aaron Copland, Baroque trumpet concertos, and Red Rodney at the same transducer-destroying level. (Eclectic? Hey, I was a music performance minor in college - I'm allowed!)
So if you call and I don't answer the phone, it's because I can't hear it over the noise of the shop equipment. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
-=[ Grant ]=-
You're not paranoid if they really
ARE out to get you
Monday, January 08, 2007 Filed in: Political
ActionFiled in:
Permalink
When I meet new people (who are
not clients), I am often very circumspect about revealing what I do
for a living. Paranoia on my part? Perhaps, and I sometimes think
that working and corresponding with (and being married to) fellow
gun owners has warped my view of the non-gun owners amongst
us.
Have I adopted an "us vs. them" attitude? Though loathe to admit it, I think I have - at least, the germination of that mindset is definitely underway. My more naive associates sometimes accuse me of being a bit too sensitive, telling me that just because someone chooses not to own a gun for themselves doesn't mean that they think less of me for doing so.
I almost believed them. Until this article in the Seattle PI got printed. This may be the single most sickening such opinion piece I've seen, for it attacks not the article itself - a strategy that has been increasingly ineffective - but the very mindset of the gun owner.
Thanks to the View From North Central Idaho blog for alerting me to this tripe.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Have I adopted an "us vs. them" attitude? Though loathe to admit it, I think I have - at least, the germination of that mindset is definitely underway. My more naive associates sometimes accuse me of being a bit too sensitive, telling me that just because someone chooses not to own a gun for themselves doesn't mean that they think less of me for doing so.
I almost believed them. Until this article in the Seattle PI got printed. This may be the single most sickening such opinion piece I've seen, for it attacks not the article itself - a strategy that has been increasingly ineffective - but the very mindset of the gun owner.
Thanks to the View From North Central Idaho blog for alerting me to this tripe.
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: Your cel phone and
its amazing connection to Hollywood
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Filed in: Random StuffFiled in: Permalink
Today's cel phone technologies
rely on something called "spread spectrum," which is a fancy way of
saying "frequency hopping." In spread spectrum, a data stream - in
this case a voice - is transmitted using radio waves whose carrier
rapidly switches between many frequencies, using a prearranged
sequence known to both transmitter and receiver.
The reason the spread spectrum is so important - aside from being resistant to interference and very difficult to intercept - is because it makes more efficient use of scarce bandwidth. Spread spectrum makes it possible to carry more information - more conversations - amongst a limited number of frequencies.
But this use is very recent. Prior to the invention of the cel phone, frequency hopping was used to make military radio transmissions more secure. Using frequency hopping makes it far more difficult for an enemy to intercept your signal, and to use direction finders to pinpoint your location. Of course, it isn't just for voice! Frequency hopping makes it possible to have radio-control munitions, such as bombs and torpedoes, that your enemy can't jam into uselessness.
Now as useful as this is, one would think that the concept originated deep in some Pentagon think tank - but you'd be wrong! The idea came from the fertile mind of a beautiful woman, the actress Hedy Lamarr.
I'll let you read the articles below to find out about her valuable contribution to the world of communications technology!
Female Inventors: Hedy Lamarr
HEDY LAMARR: The Inventor of Frequency Hopping
Did You Know...about Hedy Lamarr?
Hedy Lamarr - from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-=[ Grant ]=-
The reason the spread spectrum is so important - aside from being resistant to interference and very difficult to intercept - is because it makes more efficient use of scarce bandwidth. Spread spectrum makes it possible to carry more information - more conversations - amongst a limited number of frequencies.
But this use is very recent. Prior to the invention of the cel phone, frequency hopping was used to make military radio transmissions more secure. Using frequency hopping makes it far more difficult for an enemy to intercept your signal, and to use direction finders to pinpoint your location. Of course, it isn't just for voice! Frequency hopping makes it possible to have radio-control munitions, such as bombs and torpedoes, that your enemy can't jam into uselessness.
Now as useful as this is, one would think that the concept originated deep in some Pentagon think tank - but you'd be wrong! The idea came from the fertile mind of a beautiful woman, the actress Hedy Lamarr.
I'll let you read the articles below to find out about her valuable contribution to the world of communications technology!
Female Inventors: Hedy Lamarr
HEDY LAMARR: The Inventor of Frequency Hopping
Did You Know...about Hedy Lamarr?
Hedy Lamarr - from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-=[ Grant ]=-
"Can you really conceal a
revolver?"
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Filed in: Revolvers/other gunsFiled in: Permalink
Sorry to be late today, but my
cable internet connection has been experiencing spotty outages
lately. For the money I pay, you'd think they'd give me better
uptime than this!
GRRRRRR! But I digress...
Anyhow, today's topic once again comes from that fountain of firearms misinformation, the local gun store. A fellow is looking at several guns, and asks to see a Ruger SP101. The clerk tells him that for concealed carry (ostensibly the prospect's use), a revolver is "just no good. Too hard to hide the cylinder."
"Odd," I think to myself - "I've been doing it quite successfully for some time now. In fact, I'm doing so right in front of your face!" I did not, of course, say that out loud. I wanted to, but I didn't. At least, I don't remember doing so.
That, however, seems to be the common perception. Many people think that a revolver just has to be more difficult to conceal, because the cylinder is so much thicker than an autoloader's slide. I'm here to tell you that it is just not the case!
The cylinder really isn't a big problem to hide. Yes, it sticks out from the body a bit more, but it really isn't all that much a concern. Why? Because it's a gradual bulge - there are no sharp edges to give away a profile under a garment. What's at or below the beltline just doesn't seem to make much of a difference; it's what sticks up above the belt that makes a gun difficult to hide!
An autoloader, for instance, presents a very angular profile above the belt. The top of the slide, where the rear sight is, comes to a sharp point relative to a revolver. What's more, that point sits farther above the belt than does the rear sight of a revolver. These two factors combine to make the back corner of the autoloader stick out more prominently than a revolver, and consequently more difficult to hide under a piece of cloth.
Of course, the disparity doesn't end there! The other end of the gun - in this case, the lower back corner of the magazine well - is (again) a sharp angle relative to the rest of the gun. Even an autoloader with a very rounded grip shape tends to come up higher - and stick out the back more - than a round-butt revolver. Again, this makes the auto more difficult to hide than our blessed companion, the double-action revolver.
Now I'm sure that some will argue with me; some will, in their misguided zeal to promote the self-shucking handgun, insist that I am being "partisan." To them I say: OF COURSE I AM! What the heck did you expect from someone whose blog is titled "The Revolver Liberation Alliance"??
(Of course, none of that negates the fact that I am right!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
GRRRRRR! But I digress...
Anyhow, today's topic once again comes from that fountain of firearms misinformation, the local gun store. A fellow is looking at several guns, and asks to see a Ruger SP101. The clerk tells him that for concealed carry (ostensibly the prospect's use), a revolver is "just no good. Too hard to hide the cylinder."
"Odd," I think to myself - "I've been doing it quite successfully for some time now. In fact, I'm doing so right in front of your face!" I did not, of course, say that out loud. I wanted to, but I didn't. At least, I don't remember doing so.
That, however, seems to be the common perception. Many people think that a revolver just has to be more difficult to conceal, because the cylinder is so much thicker than an autoloader's slide. I'm here to tell you that it is just not the case!
The cylinder really isn't a big problem to hide. Yes, it sticks out from the body a bit more, but it really isn't all that much a concern. Why? Because it's a gradual bulge - there are no sharp edges to give away a profile under a garment. What's at or below the beltline just doesn't seem to make much of a difference; it's what sticks up above the belt that makes a gun difficult to hide!
An autoloader, for instance, presents a very angular profile above the belt. The top of the slide, where the rear sight is, comes to a sharp point relative to a revolver. What's more, that point sits farther above the belt than does the rear sight of a revolver. These two factors combine to make the back corner of the autoloader stick out more prominently than a revolver, and consequently more difficult to hide under a piece of cloth.
Of course, the disparity doesn't end there! The other end of the gun - in this case, the lower back corner of the magazine well - is (again) a sharp angle relative to the rest of the gun. Even an autoloader with a very rounded grip shape tends to come up higher - and stick out the back more - than a round-butt revolver. Again, this makes the auto more difficult to hide than our blessed companion, the double-action revolver.
Now I'm sure that some will argue with me; some will, in their misguided zeal to promote the self-shucking handgun, insist that I am being "partisan." To them I say: OF COURSE I AM! What the heck did you expect from someone whose blog is titled "The Revolver Liberation Alliance"??
(Of course, none of that negates the fact that I am right!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Get off the Colt bandwagon,
already!
Monday, January 01, 2007 Filed in: Revolvers/other gunsFiled in: Permalink
First things first: Happy New
Year!
Now, down to business: once again, I feel it necessary to inject some sanity into a topic that is all over the internet forums.
The latest concerns Colt and their supposed "re-entry" into the revolver market. Several months ago, a Colt executive was quoted in (if memory serves) Shotgun News to the effect that Colt was working on new revolver models.
As you can imagine, this set off a firestorm on the 'net. People were opining like there was no tomorrow about the possible wonderfulness that Colt could be coming up with. I still, months later, am reading the occasional thread wherein some eager enthusiast gleefully anticipates something new from Hartford "any day now!"
Let's look at this logically, OK?
Developing a new gun takes money and talent - and Colt has all but two of those. It's been fairly well established that they have little ready capital, and their massive layoffs over the last several years means that their pool of talent is a fraction of what it used to be - and I doubt that they had anyone as talented as the late, great Karl Lewis to begin with, let alone now.
What they do have, though, is a mothballed line of proven sellers - in this case, the Anaconda, King Cobra, and Magnum Carry revolvers. All are well regarded (even the King Cobra, which always lived in the shadow of the more famous Python), and are made of modern materials and designed from the ground up for automated production. They're sitting in the vaults, waiting to see the light of day, because Colt just voluntarily stopped producing them a few years ago.
So, imagine that you're the CEO of Colt. On the one hand, you've got some ready products that you know will sell, just waiting for you to flip the "on" switch. On the other hand, you could choose to design a new gun from scratch, even though you don't have the resources to do so. Which are you going to choose?
Well, if you're smart (and Colt hasn't been accused of that recently), you bring back the designs you have in the safe and simply start up the production lines again. Easy. Built in market. No development costs. Just start shipping.
But Colt isn't doing that.
Look at it this way: just the Magnum Carry alone would put them back squarely in the hottest segment of the market, which is concealed carry. The MC is a superb gun, and used examples are selling at multiples of their original prices. There is nothing on the market that is competitive with it; it could have a niche all to itself. Scarcely bigger than a S&W "J" frame, it carries a full 6 rounds of .357 goodness! What other gun can boast that? None.
Be absolutely clear on this concept: these are guns that have a built-in market, that they have facilities to produce, that they know how to produce, and that they've chosen not to produce. (That is, if they really wanted to be in the revolver market...)
So why would Colt imply that they're working on a new revolver design, when they won't even produce the proven sellers they have now, and likely don't even have the resources to come up with a new product?
Well, we know that they're up for sale, and the company has reportedly garnered little-to-no interest from potential buyers. But maybe, they're thinking, if they start a rumor that they've got this new, exciting design, it will stimulate enough industry buzz to interest someone in what's left of the grand old name.
Could I be wrong? You bet. In fact, if I am, I'm willing to eat a hearty plate of crow. But actions speak louder than press releases, and Colt's actions say that they have no interest in selling their existing revolvers - let alone make a new one.
(Hey - maybe CZ-USA could buy Colt, which would give them even more revolvers to not make!)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Now, down to business: once again, I feel it necessary to inject some sanity into a topic that is all over the internet forums.
The latest concerns Colt and their supposed "re-entry" into the revolver market. Several months ago, a Colt executive was quoted in (if memory serves) Shotgun News to the effect that Colt was working on new revolver models.
As you can imagine, this set off a firestorm on the 'net. People were opining like there was no tomorrow about the possible wonderfulness that Colt could be coming up with. I still, months later, am reading the occasional thread wherein some eager enthusiast gleefully anticipates something new from Hartford "any day now!"
Let's look at this logically, OK?
Developing a new gun takes money and talent - and Colt has all but two of those. It's been fairly well established that they have little ready capital, and their massive layoffs over the last several years means that their pool of talent is a fraction of what it used to be - and I doubt that they had anyone as talented as the late, great Karl Lewis to begin with, let alone now.
What they do have, though, is a mothballed line of proven sellers - in this case, the Anaconda, King Cobra, and Magnum Carry revolvers. All are well regarded (even the King Cobra, which always lived in the shadow of the more famous Python), and are made of modern materials and designed from the ground up for automated production. They're sitting in the vaults, waiting to see the light of day, because Colt just voluntarily stopped producing them a few years ago.
So, imagine that you're the CEO of Colt. On the one hand, you've got some ready products that you know will sell, just waiting for you to flip the "on" switch. On the other hand, you could choose to design a new gun from scratch, even though you don't have the resources to do so. Which are you going to choose?
Well, if you're smart (and Colt hasn't been accused of that recently), you bring back the designs you have in the safe and simply start up the production lines again. Easy. Built in market. No development costs. Just start shipping.
But Colt isn't doing that.
Look at it this way: just the Magnum Carry alone would put them back squarely in the hottest segment of the market, which is concealed carry. The MC is a superb gun, and used examples are selling at multiples of their original prices. There is nothing on the market that is competitive with it; it could have a niche all to itself. Scarcely bigger than a S&W "J" frame, it carries a full 6 rounds of .357 goodness! What other gun can boast that? None.
Be absolutely clear on this concept: these are guns that have a built-in market, that they have facilities to produce, that they know how to produce, and that they've chosen not to produce. (That is, if they really wanted to be in the revolver market...)
So why would Colt imply that they're working on a new revolver design, when they won't even produce the proven sellers they have now, and likely don't even have the resources to come up with a new product?
Well, we know that they're up for sale, and the company has reportedly garnered little-to-no interest from potential buyers. But maybe, they're thinking, if they start a rumor that they've got this new, exciting design, it will stimulate enough industry buzz to interest someone in what's left of the grand old name.
Could I be wrong? You bet. In fact, if I am, I'm willing to eat a hearty plate of crow. But actions speak louder than press releases, and Colt's actions say that they have no interest in selling their existing revolvers - let alone make a new one.
(Hey - maybe CZ-USA could buy Colt, which would give them even more revolvers to not make!)
-=[ Grant ]=-