This splashed onto several blogs last week, and it's just too good
a train wreck to ignore. Do not be mislead: the advice this guy
gives is a sure ticket to a jail cell. The ‘term clueless
loon' comes to mind...
For years people likeMas
AyoobandMarty
Hayeshave been educating people
on the realities of the legal side of self defense, but apparently
this guy missed every freaking memo - or, perhaps as likely,
willfully ignored them. Rest assured that if you follow any of his
advice, you will go to prison.
Don't be this guy; learn about your rights and responsibilities,
how shooting cases are investigated, and how claims of self defense
are tested in court. The information is out there,it's readily available, and it can keep you from
making stupid mistakes.
(This video also serves as a perfect illustration of why you should
never take medical, legal, or self defense advice from anyone who
hides behind a pseudonym on the 'net.)
I received a bunch of emails fromlast week's
storyon the reintroduction of the
Dan Wesson Model 715 by CZ-USA.
Some of them centered around the gun's MSRP, which is reported as
being $1200. If the gun is of superb quality, that's not an
unreasonable figure. Think of it this way: Freedom Arms has no
trouble selling their high-end single actions, and the S&W
Performance Center - despite putting out some embarrassingly bad
examples - seems to sell all of the expensive revolvers they can
produce.
If the new DW is of sufficient quality, the price should not be a
barrier except to those who've grown accustomed to the cheap used
examples that still abound in the market. A new DW would thus have
to be substantially better than the best Monson guns available to
justify their price tag. I'm not sure CZ is up to the task.
Another email came from someone who contacted CZ for more details.
CZ reportedly said that they're making only 500 of these models,
and that they couldn't make any more because they didn't have the
blueprints!
What?!?!?
The former Serva crew certainly had the plans, and if CZ-USA didn't
get them in their acquisition of DW it would be a stupendous
blunder. I suspect the truth is a little more pedestrian: CZ still
has the former owner's run of 715 frames, which they realized could
generate more revenue being sold than scrapped. If the writer of
the email is correct in that they're only making 500 guns, this
would tend to support my theory.
It wouldn't be the first time. When CZ-USA acquired DW from Bob
Serva’s company they trotted out a few large frame models in
the odd .460 Rowland chambering - coincidentally, the same
chambering that Serva himself had hyped. CZ promised that other
calibers would follow but the entire line quietly
disappeared.
At the time I suggested the only guns CZ-USA had were those that
were in process at the time of the acquisition, and that no others
were likely to be made. The passing years seem to have validated
that opinion, and I suspect the same thing is being done with this
limited run of the 715.
All that aside there is still an opening in the market for a good
quality double action revolver, and with the appropriate amount of
work the DW could fill that space. As I've said before: it will
take some re-engineering of certain parts of the gun, flawless
construction quality, and a company that displays a solid
commitment to the product.
So far CZ-USA has shown us all but three of those attributes.
I’m actually anxious to eat crow on this, as I'd love to see
Karl Lewis' great design back on the market. I sincerely hope
CZ-USA steps up to the plate and proves me wrong, but we now have a
half-decade of history which suggests they're not going to.
Got an email recently from a fellow who noticed that CZ-USA is once
again illustrating new Dan Wesson 715 revolvers on their site. As
you may recall, this is an old story; you can read ithere,here, andhere.
When CZ-USA acquired Dan Wesson in 2005, the first thing they did
was promise that revolvers would be an important part of their
business. They even showed a prototype "new 715" at SHOT that
season. Time passed and nothing more came of the 'new' 715, though
they continued to show the prototype.
Fast forward to what is nearly 2011 and they're once again
promising revolvers 'any day now'. Pardon my cynicism, but I'm not
about to believe anything until I see the guns on dealer's shelves.
Even then, if they're not perfect - and I do mean perfect in every
way - they'll be too little, too late. CZ-USA dropped the ball, and
it'll take a lot more than empty promises to get me back into their
court.
THAT
TIME OF THE YEAR:I hope everyone had a great
(as in safe and happy) Christmas weekend. I hope you'll accept my
sincere wishes for a happy New Year - may 2010 be a darn sight
better than 2009!
HERE
WE GO AGAIN:Maryville, TN has had a
couple of accidental shooting deaths in the past weeks. Both
incidents involved guns that (brace yourselves) people thought
"were unloaded." The Maryville Police Chief, one Tony Crisp,
concludes thatpeople just weren't pretending hard
enough:
"Treat a gun as always
being a loaded gun," he said. "Once you cleared it, check it
again."
A more nonsensical statement I cannot imagine! I hope that you will
save me the trouble of tearing it apart by seeing for yourself the
logic failures therein. How much better it would have been had he
taken the opportunity to do somereal educationby saying something like:
"never point a gun - any gun, loaded or unloaded - at anything
you're not willing to shoot. Don't let anyone around you do so,
either."
SOMEONE ELSE FOR A CHANGE:A couple years back I made
an offhand remark about Charter Arms guns. That one little sentence
generated a ton of hate mail, including some from Charter's
president/owner and their largest distributor. Well, M.D. Creekmore
over at thesurvivalistblog.netmade a more pointed statement regarding Charter's
"quality", and he too heard from
Charter's owner. It's in the comments; scroll to the bottom.
One of the hardest things to predict in this business is workflow.
The shop will be humming along, work flying out the door, then
suddenly a few large projects (total customs or heavy restorations)
come in and the work slows to a snail's pace. Those bottlenecks
seem to come in groups, when they're most difficult to deal with.
It makes mincemeat out of the most conservative projections!
---
Occasionally someone will suggest that being a one-man shop is
limiting the amount of business I can do, and that I should take on
employees. Aside from not wanting the hassle (I was once a
corporate lackey with a pile of employees to handle - I know of
what I speak), there's also a bit of personal pride involved: if my
name is on the work, I think it's important that I actually do said
work. If it's good, I want the accolade, and if it's bad I don't
want to be reduced to pointing like a 5-year-old and screaming "but
it's HIS fault!"
There exists today a well-known gunsmithing concern whose very
talented owner used to do all his own work. He "progressed" to
having employees, but supervised their work closely. Judging by the
recent experiences of several of my clients, he's been reduced to
sending out emails explaining why their shoddy work is actually
better than the quality product he used to provide.
Personally, no amount of money (or time savings) will convince me
to do that - my clients deserve better.
Dog people, I need some advice. We have a year-old
Shepherd/Newfoundland mix who won't sleep in the spacious,
insulated doghouse we've provided. He'll go in to eat, and he's
been known to voluntarily pile his toys in it, but he sleeps on our
porch exposed to the rain and wind. One would think that sooner or
later he'd get cold enough and wet enough to use it for the
intended purpose, but it has yet to happen. Should I just leave him
to his misery, since it appears to be of his own choosing?
There are times that I feel
I'm harping on the safety issue, but with the number of grievous
injuries and deaths that occur I don't think it is
unwarranted.
The latest, sent to me by an alert reader, is a self-expose
(complete with pictures) of a nasty handgun incident. Short
version: this fellow, in an attempt to test a recently installed
grip safety,pointed his gun at his leg and pulled the
trigger. The sequence of events was
predictable. (Warning - the pictures may be graphic for some
people.)
Once again, I'm going to place
the blame squarely on Traditional Rule #1:"All guns are always
loaded", or any variant thereof. He felt free to do something
blatantly stupid with his gun, because he was sure that he had
unloaded it. Since he was sure that he unloaded it, in his mind the
other rules obviously didn't apply. If they did, he wouldn't have
pointed it at his leg as he intentionally pulled the trigger!
What bothers me most about this fellow's misfortune isn't that he
was injured, but that he still doesn't get why it happened in the
first place. He is so clueless about this, in fact, that he cites
the classic Four Rules of Firearms Safety, starting with the
offending Traditional Rule #1 in his article, and explaining to his
readers that they should follow them. This is in fact the wrong
thing to do, and is what caused his injuries.
It is my opinion that the more people who follow Traditional Rule
#1, the more accidents like his will occur. Again, Traditional Rule
#1 leads people to do dumb things with guns, because once they're
convinced the gun is unloaded they feel at liberty to ignore the
other three. In my opinion, we should instead be teaching people to
follow the Three Commandments of Gun Safety religiously:
Never point a gun - any gun, loaded or
unloaded - at anything you are not willing to shoot.
Keep your finger out of the triggerguard until you are ready to
fire.
Know where your shots will land and what they’ll touch along
the way.
Let's look at his accident: he violated the First Commandment,
because he thought the gun was unloaded.
He then violated the Second Commandment, because he thought the gun
was unloaded.
Finally, he proceeded to violate the Third Commandment, because he
thought the gun was unloaded.
The result? A large emergency room bill. Lots of pain. All because
Traditional Rule #1 allowed him to do stupid things with a gun once
he was "sure" it was unloaded!
(It is worth noting that the gentleman in question, one Darwin
Teague, is on Usenet record as declaring that he would never carry
a Glock, as he considers them to be "unsafe." With all due respect,
Mr. Teague, if you do stupid things with guns, loaded or not, all
the safety features in the world won't stop you from shooting
yourself - as you have found out. I wish you luck, as you seem to
need it.)
You're
reading... The Revolver Liberation
Alliance! The blog about revolvers,
training, self-defense, and shooting in general (along with an
occasional surprise!)