Time for more Gun Blog Variety Cast!
This week I finish off my “Gun Death?” Series….kinda. Stay tuned for next week to see what I mean.
Also Miguel was sick so we had Ben from Triangle Tactical filling his segment.
Another great show! Enjoy!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Ryan has this nice video up of shooting an old Remington 514T .22
Now there might be some other things at work here, but I suspect the key is the barrel length. Today most .22 rifles have a 16″ barrel, sometimes a little more just to make sure things stay legal, I’m not familiar with this rifle but some listings on gun sights have said it has a 23″ tube. I have an old Glenfield branded Marlin Model 60 that has the 22″ barrel with the 18-shot tube magazine. That gun is very quiet, and if I’m shooting it like Ryan is, alone on a private range, I don’t even bother with my ears. Ryan says the same thing, but doesn’t recommend it. I’ll go a step further after my little physics talk.
So first let’s talk about sound suppressors and how they work. The bullet exits the barrel and enters the suppressor, here the gasses start expanding in the baffle system, and when the cartridge exits the suppressor the gas slowly bleeds out into the atmosphere.
How this makes the gun quiet is when the gas exits the gun it expands to ambient atmospheric pressure. This is the same mechanic as when a balloon pops. That rubber party balloon feels hard to the touch because the gas is compressed. When you pop it, it rapidly expands to the ambient pressure, and this creates a shock-wave. I remember a kid in school who was a tinkerer, and he ended up tying off a 2 liter soda bottle to an air compressor and let it run. When the bottle gave way it left him with his ears painfully ringing. I’ve done a similar trick stuffing a drink bottle with dry ice and sealing it tightly. The bottle is stronger than the rubber balloon so the pressure difference is greater, and so the shock wave is greater. Scale that up to the gas pressure behind a bullet and we have the reason why you should wear ear protection on the range.
Now if you had a magic suppressor that reduced gas pressure behind the bullet to one atmosphere, your muzzle report would be zero. Now if the pressure inside the gun is 1 atm, and outside is 1 atm, the bullet will be experiencing as much pressure pushing it INTO the gun as outside the gun. This would probably work in a suppressor as momentum would probably carry the bullet out of the can. Still velocity would be low, and I wonder if the round would still have stable flight, or if you might start getting baffle strikes.
One other thing to note is that the suppressor working does make noise, as there is expanding gas. Still the shock wave created by this expansion is mostly containing inside the can. Still a thicker outer wall of the suppressor would make for a quieter can.
But let’s get back to the talk of the gun barrel. When people are discussing what barrel length for a gun it’s generally a game of weight/size/handling to muzzle velocity. A 10″ AR-15 is super handy, small, and light, but with that you have lower muzzle velocity. Incidentally you also have a louder gun with more pronounced flash. This is because more of the propellant gas is expanding outside the barrel than inside.
See where I’m going?
Now this isn’t a limitless property. If you stuck a 6′ barrel on your 10/22 you wouldn’t suddenly turn those CCI Mini-Mags into 5.56x45mm ammo. Eventually all the propellant will burn up, and the gas inside the barrel will expand to 1 atm, and if there is more barrel to go, air outside will push the bullet back and you’ll get a stuck round. Still moving backward from these numbers you will get more muzzle velocity and more noise coming out of the barrel, but for a while you’ll be getting a REALLY slow bullet until you reach a maximum, then you start losing velocity again, but instead of barrel friction and loss of gas pressure you’re losing velocity because you are essentially wasting the energy of the gas making noise.
So a longer barrel .22 is essentially acting as a suppressor, but rather than expanding the gas behind the bullet in baffles perpendicular to the plane of the barrel, you’re simply expanding gas directly behind the bullet in the ever growing barrel volume. Also given that gun barrels, even light weight ones, are MUCH thicker than the outside wall of a suppressor it actually does a more efficient job of keeping the gas quiet. Further the gas is expanding much slower because you don’t have the interface between the tight barrel and the more expansive body of the suppressor the sound of the expanding gas is less dramatic.
Also doing a little research to find the sweet spot for a .22 Barrel I found this forum post:
Supersonic speed is bad for .22 accuracy – if the bullet slows back below the speed of sound before it gets to the target (and it does) and is destabilized by the turbulence as it passes through the trans-sonic zone. So benchrest .22 target shooters shoot subsonic ammo. (Centerfire starts out supersonic and stays there.)
Target rifles don’t have long barrels just because of sight radius. Slowing the bullet a little by using a long barrel helps guarantee that the bullet does not reach the speed of sound.
In this thread and a few other pages I’ve read that maximum .22 LR velocity is reached somewhere between 14 and 18 inches of barrel length. This of course is highly subjective to the quality of the barrel (less friction, better velocity over longer lengths), the load used (more gas created, the more barrel that load will push the bullet through the barrel), and local weather conditions (the lower the air pressure the less the bullet will be pushed back into the barrel by outside air).
Either way a barrel over 20 inches is actually SLOWING the bullet down, and while it does that the gas behind it is decompressing. Further the barrel is soaking up the heat from the gas, making it lose pressure, and possibly the bullet is slowed enough that it isn’t breaking the sound barrier, which we haven’t discussed, but this also makes noise.
And there you have it!
Now I’ll take a step beyond what Ryan says. There is some debate on this, and sometimes you’ll see people shooting suppressed guns with ear protection, and sometimes you see them shooting without. When I’m at my gun club I’m ALWAYS shooting with eyes and ears because you never know when somebody with a .44 Mag, or an AR-15 with a muzzle break will start shooting next to you. Still when the range is strictly controlled I shoot suppressed guns and .22s with longer barrels without ears. They’re considerably quieter than when the train goes by my house, or a motorcycle downshifts as it passes me on the sidewalk, so I see no point in diminishing my hearing with ear protection. And for 20″+ .22s you’re essentially shooting a .22 pistol with a suppressor on it, or even better.
A southwest Ohio man who pleaded guilty to killing a 16-year-old boy last year has been sentenced to 22 years to life in prison.
…**REDACTED** has testified that he and a co-defendant repeatedly beat **VICTIM** when the Dayton teen wouldn’t give up his stash of money and drugs. They dropped him off at a hospital, and he later died.
So the antis claim that if we ban guns we can end “Gun Death”….kinda like how we banned drugs…
Love Me some Motorhead, but Christina says Lemmy can’t carry a tune in a bucket.
So enter The Reverend Horton Heat:
Too funny
For those who missed the parody EYES AND EARS!!!!
Takeaway: Why won’t those shit-kicking country retards not vote for her? 😉
A great blog post with an ORGY of data:
USHCN has 1,218 stations in their database. Prior to 1990, they typically recorded temperatures at about 97% of these stations. But for some reason, USHCN has been reporting monthly temperatures at a smaller and smaller percentage of stations since 1990, and now about 30% of monthly temperatures are completely missing.
What NCDC does in those cases, is to fabricate temperatures for the missing stations. The graph below shows the percentage of stations which have fabricated data, which is increasing in a hockey stick.
Again this isn’t so much as some horrible communist conspiracy (tho more on that), this is at it’s root the same way a greedy butcher will place his thumb on the scale before quoting the price of your Christmas roast, or a contractor will install the cheapest crap in a building project where there is minimal oversight.
Groups like NOAA and NASA get funded based on the severity of the calamity of the hour. Be this declining fish stocks, the fragility ecosystem of the Spotted Owl, or the increase of global temperature due to carbon dioxide. You don’t hear much about Acid Rain anymore. When I was a kid, and as much into Biology as I was today every nature show seemed to weave in acid rain and it’s disastrous effects into it. Further you heard about the coming calamity of dead lakes and streams, as well as destruction of property, from biodiversity to crumbling concrete due to the increasing acidic environment.
Now Acid rain is indeed a real thing, it just isn’t that big a deal, and the worst problems were solved by regulating some really nasty emissions that caused MANY pollution problems, including making some really nasty acids in the clouds.
Still since our skin isn’t stinging when it rains, and our sidewalks don’t look like the floor of a soda factory, and wild lakes and streams are still filled with diverse life, funding still exists, but not at the huge monetary levels of the 1980s when the scare was at it’s peak. I’m betting many scientists are still around from when that cash cow was slaughtered, and are taking steps to, as our union thug brothers say “Don’t kill the job!”
Now comes the REAL conspiracy. Why are the politicians so hungry for a calamity, real or imagined? Well two reasons, #1. Fear sells, and they can get elected and raise funds by feel-good limousine liberals who are encrusted with guilt, but don’t actually want to change their lifestyle, they can do a secular form of tithing by donating to PAC of choice that claims it will stop people like them from killing the world without them actually having to stop what they’re doing that is killing the world.
But #2 is socialism. They are targeting carbon dioxide. The focus on this chemical is really odd to somebody with a science background because IT IS EVERYWHERE!!! Not only is it everywhere but life depends on it. Burn the above overpriced roast in the oven and the surface turns black…as does your grease in the roasting pan. That sooty back stuff is amorphous carbon. Where did that carbon come from? Well where did the roast come from? Well it started out as a cow, and that cow was made of a bunch of carbon-containing organic molecules. That cow started out as an relatively smaller calf. It drank Mom’s milk, and then started eating grass and began to grow. Mom made the milk from eating grass, and then bigger baby started eating their own grass. The grass of course is also made of carbon-containing organic molecules, the biggest component being cellulose, which we can’t digest, but ruminants like cows can digest. And the grass got the carbon to build those long cellulose chains from photosynthesis which uses solar energy to chain together carbon molecules from Carbon Dioxide.
Just about everything from living things growing to dead things rotting, or events like burning stuff ends with carbon dioxide, and the cycle continues. When it comes to people we make a ton of the stuff collectively just by digesting food, growing, and dying. Now some of us create more than others by doing more stuff. A bodybuilder creates more CO2 than my daughter because he’s bigger, and those muscles need more energy to grow and lift heavy things. Bodybuilders eat a LOT of food. Just look at the products targeted to body builders. You’ll see lots of stuff loaded with calories and protein, it’s fuel for the massive engine that is a muscular body.
And then there is real fuels and energy. If you drive a car, or operate a fleet of trucks, or run a factory you’re burning a lot of fuel to keep the wheels a turning, and there’s where the Marxists see their end game.
Wealthy people are wealthy because they produce stuff, be it industrially or simply by making movies and playing sports ball. Marxists HATE the wealthy, and in the end there’s a pretty good correlation between your “carbon footprint” and how productive you are, and the Marxists have found a link between carbon and this theory that is at it’s root The Greenhouse Effect.
Now this is a legit theory, but the controversy comes with how well it scales up to complex systems like the environment of our planet. Science be damned! Politicians simply buy scientists by only buying the “Right” data, and there we have what leads to much of the data being collected being fabricated.
Don’t kill the job, there are Koch brothers we need to kill!
South African Babanto Chauke, 38, was killed earlier this week by two men who “starting throwing oranges at him until he died,” according to Lt-Col Moatshe Ngoepe, a local police spokesman in Tzaneen, Limpopo.
WOW! Now as an avid orange eater, and the father of a little girl who LOVES her citrus fruit, I know South Africa produces a LOT of oranges. Still I never considered them as a weapon! Were they ripe or in the harder green form? How many oranges did it take to end this man’s life?
Goes to show that those interested in committing murder will be VERY creative when it comes to what weapons they use. Of course those who tout “Gun Death” were happy that the departed didn’t have a gun to defend himself! That would have caused a “Gun Death” which is BAD!
H/T Siddhartha Priest and
Remember what the antis tell you, guns cause domestic violence!
A 22-year-old man suspected of stabbing his parents at their suburban Cleveland home has been charged with felonious assault.
If only guns were banned!
Well we’ll be back tonight after a two week hiatus!
We have a bunch of topics to talk about as they’ve been piling up over the few weeks!
Remember to call in 214-530-0036 starting at 9pm EST!
State lawmakers have launched a nationwide non-partisan coalition to combat gun violence, in part because the Congress has failed to reform gun laws, members of the group said on Monday.
Some 200 lawmakers from 50 states have joined the alliance, American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention, said the group’s founder, Democratic New York State Assembly member Brian Kavanagh.
Now when I saw the link to this article while cruising the anti-rights feeds, I almost skipped it. Still I was hooked by the “Non-Partisan” line in the lead. These days support for gun ownership is really the bi-partisan political issue:
Partisan differences on this question, already sizeable in 2012, have widened over the last two years. As was the case in December 2012, a majority of Democrats (60%) say guns do more to put people’s safety at risk, while only about a third (35%) say they do more to protect people from becoming crime victims. By contrast, eight-in-ten Republicans say guns do more to protect people from becoming crime victims, up 17-points from 2012.
Back in the 90s the Brady Campaign (when that name meant something) picked Paul Helmke to head their group because while Gun Control is a Democrat issue (be it the Marxists in the North or the Hood-Wearing Jim Crow types in the South) they wanted to increase their bi-partisan appeal. And they did…for a little while. Now gun control isn’t even a Democrat issue, it’s a “Progressive” one. So how is this group bi-partisan in these days?
Lawmakers from eight states were at the news conference, including Virginia, Alabama, New Hampshire and Kansas. The only Republican lawmaker was state Representative Barbara Bollier from Kansas.
Ahhh, so they managed to to get ONE Republican to sign on. Have a look at this statement from her October:
I support local control and voted against the recent bill that took away cities rights to determine where guns and knives are allowed. I would absolutely support the return of local control, but do not see passage of such a change as a possibility due to the current makeup of the Kansas legislature. However, I will work for change in our state regarding gun laws and would support mandatory background checks for any purchase of a gun. I would also support limitations on the type of guns available to the general public specifically related to the number of rounds that can be fired sequentially. While I support Second Amendment rights, I also recognize that guns are a public health issue and reasonable policy must be the goal surrounding guns.
So she supports the Second Amendment, she doesn’t seem to much support the right of the people to keep and bear arms!
Now what’s interesting is they almost don’t exist outside of this article. They have a website, in that they’ve registered a domain and put up a front page, but all it does is link to this presser:
At the summit, the legislators will discuss how to organize the coalition to be most effective, as well as legislative successes of the last two years and actions they plan to take in their respective states in 2015. Topics will include ways of strengthening and closing loopholes in the background check system, growing concerns about guns in the context of domestic violence and abuse, and effective intervention strategies in communities experiencing high rates of gun violence.
That’s as close to any true agenda item you’ll find. Also while they brag about having 200 members from all 50 states, plus DC and Puerto Rico, they only list the few seen in the press release. Do they really have 200 members, or do they have 200 people interested in attending the summit to see what’s going on, or are they like Mayors against Illegal Guns where they inflated their numbers by keeping on people who quit the group when they found out what it was about, or adding people to the roster simply because they filled out a survey?
Last is this line:
The group has not released information on its preliminary donors, but Kavanagh said fundraising efforts were under way. Members are scheduled to hold their first meeting on Tuesday.
I’m willing to bet this is just Michael Bloomberg working on his new agenda to push local referendums to ban guns rather than dealing with the hostile waters of National politics.
