Onerous Gun Restrictions - This Laniferous-Land Fights-back Too:

Fox News reports that more shooters groups in US are fighting back against unreasonable restrictions that only effect lawful gun users while doing nothing to control criminals:

- In California, - since January, any "assault-style weapon" with an easily detachable magazine became illegal. (I continue to be perplexed as to what 'STYLE' has to do with anything.) - This California lawsuit says this is unconstitutional, not just because it will do nothing to stop violent criminals, but because it infringes on the Second Amendment.

The California Rifle and Pistol Association filed the suit in federal court in Santa Ana and said it plans to file others in the coming days and weeks. “They're coming at gun ownership from every angle,” said Chuck Michel of the California Rifle and Pistol Association. “The whole PR campaigns to demonize gun owners. 

N.Z. Anti-Gun Police 'President' Cahill

These law changes sound familiar to the very similar nonsense that's being 'recommended' here in NZ by the Police Assoc. President Chris Cahill - this 'anti-gunner'  is quoted as "wanting to clampdown on gun ownership and control."

- Police Assoc.President Cahill is not on record as saying that he wants to clampdown on criminal gang violence.

Here is an example of one of his ridiculous "fictitious facts". He says that there is no sporting use for some styles of semi-automatic firearm .. but omits to make it clear that the reason only a few of this style of firearm are used for sport - is because a Police inspired Regulation restricts their use to only specially 'E' Category endorsed and fee paying licence holders having very expensive police specified gun safes ... Nobody else is allowed by regulation to even touch them!

 This Police Detective and Association President makes misleading statements expecting the New Zealand public to follow like a mob of laniferous ungulates.

... Restrict their use - then say that nobody uses them - Really!

Marty K.

Nagant 1895 Revolver Showed Hammer Safety To S&W and Ruger:

Some 'Got-a-gun and opinions' have been known to scoff at Nagant gas-seal revolvers as being under-powered, clunky and impossible to shoot well .. claiming that these are typical heavy crude "commie trash" that shouldn't be owned by any god-fearing Christian. (Seven shot Nagants actually weigh less than a seven shot Colt 1911)( - They do seem to have worked fine - as more than 2.6 Million Nagants are recorded as being made / issued.)

Well - sad to say (for them) - those locals are just showing their ignorance - while maybe taking a break from playing on their grannies banjo.

The Nagant Model 1895 was designed (and initially built) in Belgium. It's manufacturing rights were sold to the Imperial Russia of Tsar Peter The Great (not the Soviets) to replace their Smith & Wesson Model 3s - some twenty years before the Bolshevik October Revolution of 1917.

This Nicely Engraved (1898 Built) Example Shows What Can Be Done.

The original military loads for this sturdy revolver used approximately 100gr bullets at about 1100fps. and were expected to be able to knock-down a cavalry-mans horse. - Some surplus loads go up to 109gr with a muzzle velocity of nearly 1300fps,

How To Shoot Your Nagant From Horseback

 - And this gun was good enough for different cartridge versions of it (7.5mm, 9.4mm, and 11.2mm(.44") calibers) to be built under licence and to serve with more than 17 other nations.. Indeed it was good-enough for the Spanish arms industry to want to make & sell copies.

When, 78 years later, in 1973, Sturm Ruger introduced their 'two pin' New Model' Single-Action Revolver - using their 'innovative' transfer-bar to make it safe to load & carry six rounds in six chambers - they were actually being "dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants" (- a 12th century metaphor for building on earlier knowledge).

 - S&W  had introduced their current type of positive action  hammer-block earlier - around 1945 - reputedly following a US Navy on-board accidental shooting when a sailor dropped his issue double-action revolver onto the ships deck, - but they had used a spring activated system previously.

 . . The innovative Model 1895 Nagant revolvers used their 19th century 'safety bar' to block the hammer & firing pin until the trigger was pulled fully back - and also to move the 'forcing block' forward driving the cylinder to engage with the barrel / cartridge gas seal..

Nagant Hammer Bar Is Visible When Hammer Is Cocked.

 - Only When Trigger Is Fully Back Does The Bar Move Up & Permit Firing-Pin Strike.

This trigger action might be called a 'Triple Action' as the trigger is being used 1/- to cock the hammer, - 2/- to move the cylinder forward sealing the cylinder/barrel gap and to disengage the drop-safety bar, - and then 3/- fire the gun.

- All this explains why shooters have to exercise their digits at the trigger if not first cocking the hammer 'single-action' .. plus the Russian made guns were built with more regard to function than form. Their rough machined finish and assembly wasted little time on the action's smoothness or nicety of appearance.

The Nagant's trigger action and weight of pull can be smoothed and reduced by action-tuning - just like any other revolver's - while their rough looks can be polished and re-finished if desired.

 - There is one clever trick of inserting a nut (or a short 8mm dia. inert bullet) to reduce the mainspring pressure - that can reduce trigger pull by around two pounds without permanently altering anything. (- I'm thinking that one might better drill and tap the front of the grip frame and fit an adjustable 'strain screw' as used by S&W to set the hammer strike.)
 Link:
http://www.surplusrifleforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=56731

- My earlier piece about the two different systems of Transfer-Bar or Hammer -Block Safeties explains the difference and might be worth reading: Link:

 https://flicense.blogspot.co.nz/2014/05/hammer-safeties-on-revolvers.html

______________

Very prudently Leon & Emile Nagant designed their service revolver to save costs and use rejected Mosin-Nagant rifle barrel tubes.

- And their 7.62x38mmR gas seal revolver cartridges supposedly were designed by cutting-down the  Moisin-Nagant 7.62x54mmR rifle cartridge.

Please note that my reading shows that the bullet diameter of both the Mosin-Nagant Rifle AND the M1895 Nagant Revolver is .312 of an inch - exactly the same as the .32" S&W revolver rounds ("short",- Long, - .32" H&R Magnum and the 327 Federal Magnum plus the semi-rimmed .32" ACP auto-pistol rounds).

This link is to a 'Real Guns' story that is somewhat short of reality but entertaining:

http://www.realguns.com/archives/130.htm

There's lots of on-line chatter about 'alternative ammunition' that can be used in Nagants - some folk report using various rimmed "thirty-twos" in their revolvers without mishap - other than bulged and split brass cases.. I've also seen advice that this blowing-out of undersized cartridges can be avoided by building-up the smaller casings to fit by wrapping them around with adhesive tape (sellotape)!

- A much preferred method would be to get one of the after-market cylinders adapted for use with the .32" rounds.

Nagant Revolver Fitted with a 

Korean? Made Conversion Cylinder in .32" ACP.

I have seen it stated that the 1895 Nagant 7.62 x 38mmR cartridges used bullets measuring .308" - and that it is dangerous and inviting disaster to use .312" diameter slugs - but I can't agree.

Certainly it would be sensible to "slug" or gauge the barrel of any old firearm to determine just how it shapes-up - before loading for it or shooting it.

Marty K.

P.S.  There are also some rare .22" caliber Nagant training revolvers and target guns - real collectors items. Here is a link to an excellent PDF about the 1895 and some of its variations - it includes take-down information for 1895 Nagant students:

https://sayga12.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/manual_nagan_en.pdf

Marty K.

After researching & writing 1,036 blogs I've got something NEW to try .. I've signed-up to Patreon. - In over five years I've not made one cent from this .. NOW you can send me a wee support $ - starting from $1. to get all this stuff from New Zealand - over a year that's nearly the price of one Shooting magazine. - Am I worth it?

https://www.patreon.com/posts/24075745

'Handgun Stopping Power' - Myths, Fables & Beliefs:

 Even I (who - me?) - a small voice looking for acknowledgement of the .32" calibers effectiveness - I am getting impatient with what is becoming a circular argument. -  'Colpepper' (& no doubt many others) stubbornly refuses to accept that the results for .22 rim fire & .32" effectiveness figures in Greg Ellifritz's 2011 study are factual - saying ..

"Arguably the most well known of those (other) studies was by Evan Marshall & Edwin Sanow" 'Handgun Stopping Power - The Definitive Study' "  (Published 25 years ago in 1992) .. and of-course this book points to the claimed superior stopping power of the large calibers  .. including the .45" ACP.

To help my understanding of how those authors constructed their claims I have now imported & read a copy of this "bible" from USA.

- A Quote from that book where they explain how the RELATIVE INCAPACITATION INDEX was calculated:

"Actual shot placement has a tremendous effect on the overall stopping power of a bullet; in fact, it is the most significant factor. It is also the factor over which we have least control, so it was important to isolate this variable first."

They go on to state that the computer image used to calculate the index was generated by using the M1911A1 .45 ACP - saying "There were lots of misses and lots of poor shots, just like reality."

- So this Index and their figures were calculated by deliberately "isolating" these .45" ACP misses - as the targets didn't stop and only counting the hits that worked ... while we are (US Govt. figures) informed that between 80 - 85% of shots miss their intended target in US police duty shootings.

- Then further into 'Handgun Stopping Power' the author says ..

 "Frankly, I had no intention of including any caliber smaller than the .380 ACP, but I kept stumbling across cases where the excellent (.32" ACP) Silvertip jacketed hollowpoint was used.

- So these preclusions in the criteria then are the unscientific basis that this "most well known of those studies" was based on.

In a couple of places the authors state that shot placement is critical  - but then go-on to write "Only torso shots were used." thereby discarding from their calculations all the 'major caliber' misses or marginal hits "from the Street" - And "Multiple hits were also discarded."  when calculating stopping power - thereby eliminating any repeated effective follow-up shots from the smaller calibers which are more easily held on target in rapid fire.

- If you only count single shots that hit in critical areas - then calculate 'stopping power' by recording how long it takes for that 'stop' to happen - no wonder you get high percentages of effectiveness for the cartridge so assessed.

___________

My statement here is that defensive shooters such as US Citizens should use the most powerful cartridge caliber that they themselves can carry & control, shoot easily, accurately and quickly - rather than any fabled man stopper .. as shot placement is the single most critical factor. -  If that choice is a 'thirty-two' - the latest study of factual records clearly shows that they will not be disadvantaged by their choice of a "minor" caliber.

The concept of defensive "stopping power" is close to meaningless if it ignores 'shootability' & accuracy by discounting all the misses.

2011 STUDY by GREG ELLIFRITZ. Link:
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

If you are a well trained and practiced professional - or a competitive handgun shooter - your personal ability may possibly extend your choice toward more powerful handguns.

 'HANDGUN STOPPING POWER' fails to provide a proper methodology for "stopping power" conclusions - while claiming tabulated results for handgun effectiveness as high as 96.96% (a .357" Magnum load). The major part of their book repeats gruesome anecdotal tales of fatal shootings. - Just because you title your book as "Definitive" doesn't mean that it is.

 - However - The authors do make sense late in the book when they state:

 "A strong case can be made for simply putting the ammo in the guns and ignoring small design differences between loads. Instead time and effort should be spent developing shooting skills so that the shooter always hits what he aims ..." 

and again - "It is an error to overstate differences between calibers and loads that do not exist in reality."

  Chapter (11) Specialty Ammunition was usefully informative in describing the construction of specialist rounds such as 'Glasers' and other inventions like "explosive bullets" - attempting to improve handgun performance in novel ways. - Chapters 14 & 15 are also generally interesting regarding terminal ballistics.

Marty K.

1871 Remington Rider .32" Magazine Pistol:

“Cogito, ergo sum armatus: - I think, therefore I am armed.”  - Anonymous latin writer.

This is a real cute old repeating gun - five shot no less and in .32" caliber. However the .32 EXTRA SHORT won't have managed too many 'one shot stops' in the day eh.

The Remington Rider  Magazine Pistol was patented in 1871 and has a five round tubular magazine under the 3 inch barrel and a thoughtfully considered aperture rear sight set into that action cocking piece.

Link to Forgotten Weapons video Review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-9QVlEm87I

More Usual Engraved Iteration.

This really neat looking repeater has a three inch rifled barrel and was made to use the .32" EXTRA SHORT cartridge.

These rim fire rounds were initially loaded with Black Powder but transitioned through semi-smokeless powder loadings to the later smokeless. - Bullet diameter was .316"

These Extra-Shorts are the babies that some will welcome as they were described as "packing a punch".
.. They were also known as the .32 Protector. 😊

.32" Extra-Short, Short, Long, & Extra Long

 Rim Fire Cartridges.

These 'thirty-twos' were designed by S&W and were considered to be very effective in their day for small game shooting.

What a neat wee antique 'Protector',

Marty K.

Police Arms Code Changes & Local Lies About Guns:

Here's a short list of some regularly stated 'FICTS' about guns. I'd be happy to add other examples.

These are usually trotted-out in support of poorly presented anti-gun argument:

UNTRUE STATEMENTS:

The British Police are an Unarmed Force &

The New Zealand Police are historically an Unarmed Force:
The Armed Constabulary of New Zealand was formed by Act of Parliament in 1867, with constables used as both soldiers and sworn police. - Following the cessation of hostilities with Titokowaru and Te Kooti it became an armed police force in 1870. 

There is no sporting use for semi-auto firearms. - I use them regularly.

There is NO RIGHT to have firearms in New Zealand: 

.. Article 7 of our British AND New Zealand Bill Of Rights clearly states:

Bill of Rights 1688 (February 13).

" Subjects’ arms.

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law:"

- By the passing of the (NZ) Imperial Laws Application Act 1988. the British Bill of Rights, unmodified, became part of New Zealand law.

Guns are Dangerous: - I have yet to see or hear of a firearm leaping-up and attacking anyone. The danger is from uncontrolled violent criminals and neglected mentally deranged persons.

_______________

The NZ POLICE ARMS CODE used to state:

"SELF DEFENCE IS NOT A VALID REASON TO POSSESS FIREARMS."

I see that the Police have now changed their SELF DEFENCE statement in the extensively amended 2017 Arms Code as below:

SELF DEFENCE Important note: Firearms for self defence

 A generalised fear is not a justification for keeping a firearm readily available for self-defence. 

Citizens are justified in using force in self defence in certain situations. The force that is justified will depend on the circumstances of the particular case. Every person is criminally responsible for any excessive use of force against another person.

 A firearm is a lethal weapon. To justify the discharge of a firearm at another person, the user must hold a honest belief that they or someone else is at imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. Discharge of a firearm at another person will result in a Police investigation and whatever the consequences of the incident you may face serious criminal charges. Contact your local Citizens Advice Bureau for advice on how to defend yourself lawfully. They can advise you of empty hand self defence courses or groups in your area.

__________________________

So, the Police - who themselves have metal batons, shields, helmets, high voltage Taser guns, Glock 9mm semi-auto pistols, and Bushmaster 5.56mm assault rifles - while providing round-the-clock armed VIP protection to our "leaders", - suggest that we and our vulnerable weak & old, - seek advice on how to use our empty hands to defend ourselves  .... Right,

Marty K.

NZ Army Visit to School:

The Manawatu Standard recently reported an Army Team visit to Whakaronga School where they held a seminar for the kids about leadership and responsibility:

Of course the 'gentlemen of the press' focused their cameras on the *GUNS*

- but were surprisingly neutral and restrained in their reported opinions..

- There was no reportage in the newspapers of the day - back at the end of the 1950s - when I and my classmates were trained by the school Combined Cadet Force to handle and shoot safely with Lee Enfield's on the school rifle range.

- So I say .. Well Done to that school - I consider that the group of 9 to 13 year olds will benefit from the experience.

Marty K.

Anti Gun "Ficts" from Canada Corrected:

I regret that we need to again point-out the extent of LIES being used by anti-gun activists - this time from Ontario, Canada.

Headline:

• 
  
• 1 child or youth injured by 'firearms' nearly every day in Ontario, pediatricians find

- However, the Canadian National Firearms Association has been obliged to examine these statements and to CORRECT them ..

In a study published two weeks ago in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, researchers found after pouring over health records covering a five-year span that over 450 children and youth were injured following a firearms assault, and another 1,329 were unintentionally injured by a firearm in Ontario.


The previously unreleased statistics showed that in cases where the firearm type was known, over 78 per cent of injuries were from pellet, airsoft and paintball guns; not rifles, shotguns and handguns, - which are by default regulated under the Canadian Firearms Act.

They also questioned the motivation behind the decision by the authors to define "children and youth" as those 24 years old or younger, when more than 80 per cent of the injuries were among those 15 years or older, many of whom could be adults.

- So we have 78% of reported Canadian  "firearm" injuries not being from firearms - and 80% of these "children" are actually between the age of 15 to 24.

- This does feel familiar to anyone who has read the New Zealand Police Associations recent opinions and submissions on illegal firearms.

Shooters worldwide are being lied about and lied to..

Marty K

Stopping Power etc. Part 3:

More considered ballistic science from Colpepper A:

An excellent point,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - How can this be? - My suggestion goes something like this ... If a destructive/explosive energetic device weighing e.g. 200 grams is inserted into a space and it completely & effectively destroys that spaces contents ... then you insert a twice as powerful (400 gram) device into a second similarly filled 'room' and activate it - are that second example room's contents still destroyed?

If the answer is Yes - then why waste that additional power and weight and surplus energy -when the lighter, more compact but equally effective device is more efficient and easier to deploy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But,......this is of course, always ASSUMING that the "destructive/explosive energetic device weighing e.g. 200 grams" actually WILL with a LARGE DEGREE OF SURETY "effectively destroy that spaces contents". 

In fact, that "space" may unexpectedly turn out to be considerably larger & more robust than originally envisioned.

Prudent persons MAY decide in advance that a "more comprehensive insurance policy" would be wise and therefore employ "a twice as powerful (400 gram) device", thereby covering a greater margin of possible error.

The arguable greater "efficiency for size" of the smaller 200 gram device does NOT and CANNOT surpass the greater terminal effectiveness of the larger 400 gram device.

One may have great confidence in the pilot of a light aircraft, but it is also very comforting to know that one is seated on a parachute.

One further significant point on 'MASS & MOMENTUM" is that with two projectiles of similar form, regardless of caliber, a heavier projectile will SHED VELOCITY at an apprecibaly LESSER RATE than a lighter projectile.

Again; to each their own. It's simply a matter of personal choice and REASONED CONFIDENCE in that choice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( "for the sake of this argument we are talking .32" versus .45")
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument??????ARGUMENT????? Is this not a REASONED DISCUSSION between an advocate of mouse cartridges / calibers and that of a proponent of serious cartridges ??????

Yes Col - YES YES YES & YES ... All things being equal - YES.

However, in the real world there is a limit to the power levels practical to control & direct from a hand-held device.

That level will of-course vary dependent upon the the body mass and physical strength of the shooter as well as their ability to ignore and overcome the blast and sometime PAIN of detonating a large bore powerful cartridge (or even a portable nuclear device)  while maintaining full vision and target alignment.

That limit being accepted as a fact - and the further FACT that the .32" caliber handguns have a superior 'real life' stopping effect record (with Total Surety) to the larger .45" calibers - the argument is obviously settled and agreed in favor of the mouse.

Marty K.

Stopping Power etc. Part 2:

I tried to start a further conversation about "stopping power" and 'Caliber Effectiveness' in the previous post .. and it seems to have worked -  as commenter Colpepper responded nicely (go to comments at the bottom of that earlier page).

In part he adds this thoughtful after-note:

We would respectfully suggest a couple of further points worthy of consideration in any discussion on 'stopping power', bullet expansion, penetration and effective terminal energy. 

"

While as you note, expansion naturally makes a SMALL CALIBER projectile larger in diameter and modern expanding projectiles make the smaller calibers more effective than ever, the same is obviously equally true of larger calibers.

The second and most frequently neglected point is simply one of MASS and MOMENTUM. The greater the mass / weight the greater the momentum. Assuming near equal velocities, a heavier projectile of similar form will inevitably penetrate deeper.

Naturally, this is also the reason why it is necessary to use larger shot sizes in any shotshell to achieve greater penetration and distance.

In comparing for example a 9mm 115 grain projectile to a .45 230 grain projectile, the 9mm 115 grain pill must be moving at around 1600+ fps in order to approximate the effect of a .45 230 grain projectile moving at 950 fps.

One could hypothesize (incorrectly) that the 9mm 115 grain projectile being only half the weight of the .45 230 grain projectile should be moving at twice the velocity of the .45 projectile in order to approximate the same terminal effect, however the natural laws of ballistics state it doesn't work quite like that.

Doubling projectile weight doubles hypothetical energy, while doubling velocity quadruples hypothetical energy.

Note, we use the term "hypothetical energy" which does NOT necessarily approximate "effective" terminal energy. 

Colpepper"

I fully accept that a large diameter bullet may expand to the same degree as a smaller one will - both ending-up say twice as big as they started ... So, I think the sentiment here is to make the point again that a bigger, more powerful projectile will likely be more effective and certain in it's performance than a lesser example..

And I can't disagree with that premise - as it is theoretically correct. - BUT - it does seem that some lesser cartridges are fully as capable - and are factually recorded as indeed having superior levels of effectiveness to the conventionally lauded "Best Stopper Calibers".

( for the sake of this argument we are talking .32" versus .45")

- How can this be? - My suggestion goes something like this ... If a destructive/explosive energetic device weighing e.g. 200 grams is inserted into a space and it completely & effectively destroys that spaces contents ... then you insert a twice as powerful (400 gram) device into a second similarly filled 'room' and activate it - are that second example room's contents still destroyed?

If the answer is Yes - then why waste that additional power and weight and surplus energy -when the lighter, more compact but equally effective device is more efficient and easier to deploy?

- Answers please - written on the back of a bottle of single Malt whiskey (Irish).

Marty K.

Stopping Power, Energy Transfer, Penetration & Expansion :Part 1.

You might assume that - all things being equal (which of course they never are) - a bigger faster heavier bullet should make a bigger, deeper hole that will let the contents of a container drain-out quicker .. such as when shooting plastic bottles of colored soda sugar-fizz.

- But then there's Expansion .. that makes a smaller caliber bigger.

Problem - it appears that the more expansion designed into a projectile - the less penetration you get.. .. something to do with 'supply and demand'?

This appears to be a mystery only explained to the privileged-but-indebted during their Economics degree courses .. but I wouldn't know about that as on the last day of term (1961) when I was sixteen - my Dad said to me  "Eight o'clock tomorrow morning - Out of that door and don't come back until you've got a job." (He meant it -  now that's stopping power).

Funny to tell this to the current generations on 'zero hour contracts' - but in the immediately following forty-nine years - I only had ONE week as 'unemployed' .. but then the High Wycombe employment office subsequently knocked-down that achievement & demanded that I energetically transfer their measly dole payment back - as I had been paid up till the end of the month in lieu of notice.

Anyway - I like to think of that bullet expansion as something like a parachute opening and decelerating the projectile.. thence less speed = less penetration = less effective eh.

BUT what about 'tumbling' or 'upset' ? - A pointy bullet is more aero-dynamic and stable in flight - but on impact the heavier rear part will try to overtake the lighter pointy bit and will tumble like a .. 'tumbly-thing'.

SCCY CPX-2. 10 Round Mags. in 9mm - Under US$400.

 - I Think That's an Interesting color .. (Is white a Color?)

Can They Make these With A Four Inch Barrel?

.. Come on Col - give me an argument here.. it's a slow news day.

Range Officer which art  in heaven,- please help me shoot my 1911.
- Give us this day our single stack, - but help me hit centre and black.
Check my pathway through that Gel, -  only six inches, bloody Hell.
- Should I wander from the road, - teach me how to lock and load,
And lead us from all calibers but the forty-five, - deliver us from flinching and keep our hopes alive.'
For Colt is thine word and the light  - and keep my eyes on that front sight.

Marty K.

                                                                                            

London Gun Crime UP 42%:

The following report from yesterdays UK Guardian seems to be familiar - it may be that our pollies are again guilty of playing 'truck & trailer' - by just following British right wing political policy:

London's Police Commissioner Cressida Dick.

Britain’s largest police force have warned there has been steep increases in gun and knife crime in the capital over the past year, adding that years of budget cuts may at least be partially responsible.

The Metropolitan police said gun and knife crime rose 42% and 24% respectively and that recorded crime was up across virtually ever category, in figures released two days after Cressida Dick took over as commissioner.

In a briefing on Wednesday, Martin Hewitt, the force’s assistant commissioner, sought to pin some of the blame on cuts to funding. “It would be a naive answer to say that if you cut a significant amount out of an organisation, you don’t have any consequences,” he said.

Since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, the Met has made £600m in savings and has to find a further £400m by 2020.

Marty K.

Ruger Redhawk Eight Shot Magnum Revolver

Wow - I just watched Hickok 45 shooting a new Ruger Redhawk  x8 shot .357" Magnum revolver.
What a great looking piece - with it's chunky short barrel. - I want one...  Link:

https://www.full30.com/video/5ca7b341cec52353375cd20ddfb91bfb?utm_source=system&utm_medium=email&utm_content=hickok45&utm_campaign=subscribers

Redhawk Eight Shot .357 Magnum.

- That's Pretty.

That's a beautiful big solid revolver - but it was interesting to see even an experienced shootist such as Hickok 45 flinching and missing under the magnums blast. - It is big and loud.

Big old Magnums have the same appeal for me as does a meaty five litre V8 car . I do love a deep toned V8 rumble and that powerful acceleration as you blow-off the shopping trollys buzzing behind you at the traffic-lights.

- But I also love a small hot motor - like the Honda B16A2 V-Tec that will rev. to 9,000 rpm and will also blow-off anything else on the road (short of a Porche) while managing fuel consumption the envy of some Vespa scooters. - I loved my three Honda fuel injected CRXs - I wonder how good the CRZs are? - 50 mpg and 0-100k in 9 seconds?

My current idea of a HOT 'Honda' revolver is my 327 Federal Magnum Ruger SP 101.

I like both big and small - as long as they work well.. even old like a percussion smoke stick is good.

Marty K.

NZ Police Association Prejudice:

The President of the Police Association Chris Cahill published this interesting example of his anti-gun bias in their journal POLICE NEWS - The Voice of Police>>

He says above .. "certain sections of New Zealand believe they have a right to possess firearms"..."Gun ownership is not a right."

Excuse my boldness Mr President - BUT YES IT IS.

New Zealanders DO have the right to have firearms . I suggest that Cahill checks both the British and New Zealand Bill of Rights as in the below Article 7:

(as Reprinted by NZ Parliament at 26 March 2015)

.. Article 7 of our British AND New Zealand Bill Of Rights clearly states:

Bill of Rights 1688 (February 13).

" Subjects’ arms.

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law:"

_________________

Then he writes "The Association is not advocating onerous or costly changes to that act" (The Arms Act).

Well Mr Cahill, I have now read the recommendations of the Parliamentary Inquiry four times - and "onerous and costly changes" for lawful gun owners are exactly what they are suggesting.

He claims that "Many of these weapons have no purpose - They are not useful for hunting .."

Well I regret but that the obvious reason such firearms as handy small bore shotguns ("kea guns") and handguns etc are "not useful for hunting" - is because Police Regulation currently forbids their use for hunting. - Many Endorsed/Licensed Pistol shooters want to go hunting for NZ game with their accurate & effective equipment - but are prevented from doing so.

 - I suggest that Mr Cahill does some reading himself before again mistakenly printing or publicly making further 'misspeaks' - seemingly meant for the persuasion of the gullible and misinformed.

Marty K.