From Tactical Warrior Wear.
I like this one best:
Sebastian sent me an email this morning and suggested:
Apparently the Paris bombers had vests made of TATP explosive material. I was wondering if it might make a good post on the nature of the explosive, and particularly its sensitivity to bullets.
Good idea. I have written a little bit about TATP before but not in this context.
Sebastian also wrote on the general topic today. I would like to add that steel matches are excellent practice for making multiple head shots. In the right circumstances five head shots can be made in two seconds flat.
If you are in a shooting situation where your target is in close proximity to TATP explosives you should either make certain you don’t hit the containers or you are prepared to accept the consequences of a detonation. TATP is extremely impact sensitive:
GlobalSecurity.org says, “TATP is one of the most sensitive explosives known, being extremely sensitive to impact, temperature change and friction.” I have zero doubt about a TATP bomb detonating from a bullet impact.
In the case of a suicide bomber give serious consideration to a head shot. This is not just because of the reason above but because if you don’t shut them down in a fraction of a second they are likely to manually detonate it after they take a solid hit to anything but the central nervous system. Even then, a deadman switch could cause detonation as soon as they let go.
The range of the explosion is of course dependent upon the amount of explosives and the type of fragmentation jacket (which creates the shrapnel) used, and the objects between the bomber and innocent people. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this but it is better than no information at all:
A common security drill against suspected suicide bombers is to isolate the suspect to at least 15 metres (49 ft) away from other people, and ask him to remove his upper clothing (coat, shirt, etc.) in order to see if there is an explosive vest strapped under them.
Personally I would want at least this much range between them and me and I would take cover as low to the ground as I could. You will also have fraction of a second between the time you pull the trigger and the time shrapnel arrives at your location. Use that time wisely.
About three months ago I wrote about a gun lubricant which I was rather pleased with, Interflon Fin Super. Today I received an email which said, in part:
We have been informed by the Head Office of Interflon in the Netherlands that there is an issue with selling Interflon products directly to consumers online, because the Licensing Agreement that Interflon has with DuPont for the use of Teflon in their products limits them to selling these products to the professional market only. Selling to consumers is in breach of this licensing agreement and we have been asked to take the offering on Amazon offline immediately.
We will be taking the product off line by the end of this week and will no longer be selling directly to consumers. The product will still be available to professional buyers such as gun clubs and gun stores.
I haven’t seen this in any gun store so I immediately went on line at Amazon and ordered what I figured would be a lifetime supply for me. I don’t know if they will actually ship it but I figured it wouldn’t hurt to try.
Apparently it’s a thing. People often talk of shooting their guns, but it never quite made sense to me. Why shoot a perfectly good gun?
For many years I’ve been fighting a losing battle (daughter Jaime claims I lost the battle years ago) about people calling a “magazine” a “clip”. I’m not fighting the battle alone though. Guy Sagi posted Top Media-Abused Gun Terms and points out the problem is larger than I usually view it:
Clip—Any ammunition-retention system, including magazines, speed loaders, belts, bandoleers and TSA screeners.
I was expecting the worst when I went to Whidbey Island for the monthly steel match. I have been very busy recently and hadn’t shot a pistol in nearly a month. After I arrived I realized I had left my race holster at home. My centerfire shooting was all from an inside the waistband holster and my draw time showed this.
I was surprised to do as well as I did. I did quite well (I won) with iron sighted rimfire pistol and decent (second place) with iron sighted centerfire pistol:
RF-RI-O: Rimfire Rifle Optics
RF-O: Rimfire Pistol Optics
RF-I: Rimfire Iron sights
PCC-O: Pistol Caliber Carbine Optics
RF-RI-I: Rimfire Rifle Iron sights
CF-I: Centerfire Iron sights
PCC-I: Pistol Caliber Carbine Iron sights
I just finished reloading a few rounds for my next pistol match and ran my round counting program to report on the total number of rounds I have ever reloaded. By complete coincidence the total was one short of a nice round number (from a computer programmer’s viewpoint):
223.LOG: 2027 rounds.
22LR.log: 0 rounds.
3006.LOG: 467 rounds.
300WIN.LOG: 1351 rounds.
40SW.LOG: 40054 rounds.
45.log: 0 rounds.
50bmg.log: 0 rounds.
9MM.LOG: 21636 rounds.
Total: 65535 rounds.
Via email from Ballisticarc:
If programming languages were weapons. This won’t make much sense to you unless you are a computer programmer and a gun nut.
This was a “USPSA like” match I shot in last Sunday. The shooting part was by USPSA rules but the stage designs were NOT! Stages had from 40 to 60 rounds. This was the 60 round stage:
I didn’t do all that well at this match. I made a fair number of mistakes. I overlooked one target. I failed to shoot another target twice, and I had far too many misses on the all steel stage. I also started one stage, stage 5 which I don’t have video of, with a magazine that was only about half full.
It was fun though. There weren’t any no-shoots. There wasn’t any hard cover. There weren’t any disappearing targets. There was just a lot a lot of trigger pulling, reloading and of course fun.
Overall I placed 44th out of 83. In Limited Division I was 25th out 41. Other results things such as individual stage results can be found here.
My shooter point of view video:
Loke was in my squad and has his own video and commentary on the match. His video, and of course his shooting (he came in second overall) is far better than mine:
A cloak of invisibility may be common in science fiction but it is not so easy in the real world. New research suggests such a device may be moving closer to reality.
Scientists said on Thursday (September 17) they have successfully tested an ultra-thin invisibility cloak made of microscopic rectangular gold blocks that, like skin, conform to the shape of an object and can render it undetectable with visible light.
The researchers said while their experiments involved cloaking a miniscule object they believe the technology could be made to conceal larger objects, with military and other possible applications.
The cloak, 80 nanometers in thickness, was wrapped around a three-dimensional object shaped with bumps and dents. The cloak’s surface rerouted light waves scattered from the object to make it invisible to optical detection.
What if you had a holster that was made with a cloak of invisibility? You could have the comfort and access of open carry with the discreetness of concealed carry.
There has been a fair amount of discussion in the past few days about a “gun oil” that is suspected of being nothing more than repackaged Canola oil:
We sometimes grow rapeseed and canola on the farm.
Rapeseed oil is the main component in all the “synthetic” motor oils. It can tolerate higher temperatures than the pumped from the ground. Rapeseed oil is believed to be toxic (not dramatically so, but you shouldn’t cook with it on a regular basis).
The Canola plant and seed look identical to rapeseed but the oil is much lower in erucic acid than the oil from rapeseed. The erucic acid is desired in the lubricating oils.
Canola oil is not going to be as good a high temperature lubricant as rapeseed oil. If you want to use something cheaper than the hyped up gun oils but better than common lubricants then use a Mobil One or some other synthetic motor oil.
There are some severe factual errors in that comment. It was probably 45 years ago Dad had told me Mobile 1 was made of rapeseed oil. Yesterday I discovered that was wrong. I went searching for a web page to show it was true and could not find evidence to support that claim.
I sent an email to my brother Doug asking him what the story was. He wrote back saying he had discovered the error many years ago himself. Dad was not one to exaggerate or make things up and Doug elaborated on how he might have come to this erroneous conclusion.
He elaborated quite a bit but it boiled down to the following (slightly edited to remove names):
I don’t think Dad fabricated the entire rapeseed story. When I first started farming, I sat in several farm meetings where rapeseed and its many industrial uses was discussed. I think much of it came from a certain plant breeder. Dad really liked him and I did too. He seemed like a great guy, but I have heard he was a bit of a visionary/exaggerator. He left in the late 80s and was replaced. The new breeder also seems like a great guy, but I have seen the results for enough years to know that most of his dreams don’t come true. His great plans for various new crops have all fizzled over the years and he really has very little to show for his 25 years of plant breeding.
In answer to your question, I suspect much of the hype about rapeseed came from these two plant breeders and much of it was based on wishful thinking rather than reality. I don’t have any other good explanation.
I did further research and found that while rapeseed oil has been used for lubricating oil for a long, long time it doesn’t have the extraordinary high smoke point that I had been lead to believe. When refined it is higher than many cooking oils but it’s not anything worthy of exception note.
The synthetic oils, like Mobile 1, do tolerate very high temperatures but it isn’t because they have any particular vegetable oil in them. It is because they have very particular, custom built, molecules in them that are temperature tolerant. Conventional oils, and vegetable oils, have a wide variety of molecules in them. Some of the molecules break down at lower temperatures than others. As soon as any component of the oil starts breaking down it changes everything. The viscosity can change, the lubricity can change, and the oil will cease to do its job.
I suspect that high temperature tolerance is important in firearms but I don’t know for certain. It’s not as if the oil is for the chamber and barrel of the gun. It’s for the metal on metal parts of the gun which doesn’t reach chamber and barrel temperatures.
Ry and I were at the Boomershoot site in Idaho this weekend when Sebastian sent me an email asking about steel penetration by bullets. I was pretty sure I gave him off the cuff correct answers but I was in a good position to do some of the tests. The next morning Ry and I found a piece of 0.5” mild rod and I shot it a few times.
The question was, “Could a pistol bullet severely damage the mild steel rod? Or is severe damage proof that AP rifle rounds were used?” I said, “I don’t think 1000 FPS pistol bullets will do that.” But I also said that a rifle, even relatively low powered lead core rounds, would go right through. Ry said, “The pistol bullets will only polish the metal.”
Here is the photographic evidence:
The Winchester Rangers were probably going about 1015 fps and polished the metal a little better than the handloads going about 950 fps. I don’t have any chronograph data of my own for the .223 rounds out of my gun but Black Hills says to expect about 3250 fps.
This shows why those who wish to ban ammo that penetrates police soft body armor are actually proposing to ban all hunting ammo.
Saturday I went to Whidbey Island for the steel match at Holmes Harbor Rod & Gun Club. I had specially practiced for this match last Thursday and had high hopes of doing well.
Here are the results:
I won in both rimfire iron sighted (RF-I) and centerfire iron sighted (CF-I). In a similar match last month I had times of 69.39 seconds and 82.6 seconds compared to this months 67.22 and 82.13 seconds. Those differences are essentially in the noise unless the stages were more difficult this month but comparison of other shooters between the months doesn’t show a clear pattern so I’m going with I didn’t shoot measurably better this month. I had a lot of misses so I think I probably was doing the transitions quickly enough to make up for the misses. If I can combine the speed up in transitions with accuracy then I might see some improvement.
Here are pictures of the stages. You can play a game of “Where’s the tennis ball?” in each of the pictures to discover the starting aiming point for people shooting rimfire guns.
I used my video glasses to record most of the stages. Again I forgot to turn on the glasses for one of the stages.
I was very pleased with one string (starting at 0.00:24). I shot five targets in 1.94 seconds. The first shot took about 0.77 seconds so the remaining four had an average split time of less than 0.30 seconds.
It was hazy from all the smoke but I had a nice ferry ride on my way home:
I reserved the training bay at the local indoor range last night and put about 600 rounds of .22 down range:
I had noticed something when I watched Master and Grandmaster class shooters. When they transition between targets they move the gun much faster than I do. Why don’t I do that?
I set up the simulated steel challenge stage with paper targets with the largest possible angle I could get in the range and still keep the bullets in the berm from 30 feet away:
The stop “plate” is the center target so I could test shooting left to right and right to left. And a secondary test was an order of shooting question I had wondered about for years (1, 2, 4, 5, 3 versus 1, 2, 5, 4, 3).
First I shot as I normally do and found the order of shooting didn’t make any difference. And although it was more comfortable for me to shoot left to right it didn’t make a measurable difference in my time. It was always between about 4.6 and 4.9 seconds.
I tried swinging the gun faster between targets. Maximum acceleration then stopping on target long enough to fire an aimed shot then maximum acceleration to the next target. I found it took me quite a bit longer to get the gun settled on the target compared to the way I usually do it. The end result was that I ended up with essentially the same times.
But I kept trying. At about 300 rounds my time just dropped by a full second. It wasn’t gradual. It was just the same as usual on one string of fire and the next was a full second faster. It continued to be in the 3.6 second range and when I sometimes messed up with a target acquisition and it took something like 4.5 seconds it seemed like forever. 4.5 seconds a few minutes earlier would have been a good run.
I pushed a little harder and even had a few runs that were in the 2.8 to 2.9 range. That’s almost two seconds off my previous times. That a reduction of about 40 percent! I backed off some so that I was consistent and was steady at about 3.6 seconds per string. I continued shooting until I ran out of time trying to condition my brain and muscles to make this a comfortable habit.
My gun got so hot I couldn’t hold onto the barrel and I found out when I cleaned it tonight the front sight had come loose. The heat had probably degraded Loctite on the threads.
The gun also got quite dirty on the outside as well as the inside:
I’ll find out at the steel match tomorrow if the training stuck. If it did and I can shoot as fast and accurately tomorrow as I could last night I will be very pleased.
Hat tip; Uncle
That’s what I envision whenever people speak of shooting their guns. Why would you even think of shooting a perfectly good gun on purpose?
I fire mine a lot, I’ve shot a few deer and a lot of cans and bottles and other things, but I’ve never shot a gun.
It may annoy some people, but I find the fact that words mean things to be both convenient and comforting. If I seem over-zealous at times, that is the reason why– I LIKE words to mean things, and I like them to mean the same things in the future as they did in the past. The trend of course is something else.
Update: This product is being taking off the direct to customer market. See this post for more information.
I received a free can of Interflon Fin Super for review a while back and have been using it on my guns and in a few around the house applications. Here is a portion of the email I received about it:
I am writing to you because I represent a lubricant called Fin Super. Fin Super is a multi-purpose spray. It is not very well known in the states, but has been used for a number of years by military and police brigades for firearm lubrication in Europe.
Do you accept product to conduct reviews on your blog? If so, I would be happy to send you a sample to try. The feedback I get is always overwhelmingly positive.
I have included some info about Fin Super. In the attachments you will find:
-a review written by a friend who has been using Fin Super for the past three years
-A picture of what the can looks like
-An article translated from an Italian Firearms magazine (the translations isn’t great but the information is very useful)
A copy of the article is included in text form lower in the email.
Lastly, here are some useful links:
Technical data sheet:
Safety data sheet:
Here are the two supplied reviews of the product and a picture of the container:
You can purchase Interflon Fin Super from Amazon.
I have been wanting a dry lubricant for my guns for some time. I frequently am in a very dirty environment and the oil on guns attracts even more dirt. Notice the dirt build up in the rear of the slide below:
Another problem with liquid lubricants, particularly with my .22s, it seemed that they contributed to the build up of powder residue in the receivers. Dry lubricants should reduce that problem.
And finally I have shot in matches where it was very cold, sub-zero, and because I had been using appropriate lubricants I had higher scores than Master class shooters because their guns turned into single shots instead of semi-auto because the slide would not go into battery without manual assistance. Dry lubricants don’t have this problem.
I had two main concerns I wanted to test:
I was initially annoyed when I applied the lubricant as directed and even after 24 hours the interior surfaces of the gun were still wet. I agree with one of the supplied reviews on this topic (emphasis added):
One essential – and actually, in terms of the way it appears, almost unique – characteristic of Fin Super is that it is a semi-dry detergent-lubricant-protective product (the manufacturer considers it to be “dry”, but we think our definition is more accurate). After it has been applied to metal after giving the bottle a short but necessary shake, it evaporates slowly leaving a highly adhesive film offering the great advantage that it does not grease or stain the hands and clothes, nor does it attract dust or dirt.
I had closed the action of the gun and put it in my holster with a loaded magazine and a round in the chamber. Of course evaporation is going to be unlikely in that environment. I tested it again by leaving the gun unassembled and having an incandescent light bulb shine on it from a few inches away overnight. The surfaces were no longer wet but had a film that wasn’t really wet and adhered well.
After shooting hundreds of rounds through the gun the barrel cleaned up easily. Perhaps easier than it would have with Friction Defense. The film was still detectable with a rub of your finger over the surfaces and hence the lubricant had passed my two tests. But the slow drying brought up another question.
What if you were to apply the lubricant and take it into a cold environment before it had dried? The same reviewer I quoted above had this to say (emphasis added):
Let’s take a look at the stated chemical and physical properties: this is a semi-synthetic PTFE (Teflon) oil with a medium density (0.85 grams per millilitre at 20°C), flash point at 80° C and self-ignition at 370° C, a muddy yellow-nut brown colour common to many products to which Teflon has been added, almost insoluble in water, usable between -43° C and +170° C (although it should be pointed out that after application and vaporation of solvents the product remains effective at between -200 and +300° C).
Okay. -43 C (-45.4F) is probably below the temperature I will be using it. But what does “usable” mean? Will the gun still cycle at low temperatures? I applied the lubricant to all the usual surfaces of the gun and without wiping the excess off put the gun in the freezer (6.2F) for several hours. When I pulled it out it was almost instantly covered in frost. I should have taken a picture because it was a pretty funny looking gun with the frost growing on all the metal surfaces. But despite the cold and frost the slide and hammer moved as freely as they do at normal temperatures.
Interflon Fin Super has passed all my tests and I’m now using it on all my guns (when I get around to cleaning them). The price does seem to be a bit high ($28.00 + $7.49 shipping from Amazon). But at the current rate of consumption I’m sure the can will supply enough lubrication such that each gun cleaning will only amount to a few pennies. I can live with that for the benefits of having a semi-dry lubricant.
I participated in a USPSA match at Marysville (Washington) today. For some reason I was extremely nervous for the first stage. My stomach was tied in knots and my shooting suffered. The second stage I shot (Killer B’s) I felt better but I still shot extremely poor. I had three misses and hit a no shoot target. It was a tough stage and two people zeroed it. But I shouldn’t have had problem with it. After that I settled down and did okay. But only in one stage (Dirty Mike) was I rather pleased with my results. But that wasn’t the stage that I did the best in compared to everyone else. I did the best in the classifier where I came in 3rd out of 17 in Limited and 7th out of 43 overall. Seven people zeroed that stage.
|Place||Name||Member #||Class||Division||PF||Lady||Mil||Law||For||Match Pts||Match %|
|1||Hoang, Vinh||TY55787||M||LTD||MAJOR||N||N||N||N||577.3837||100.000 %|
|2||Parkison, Ian||TY91657||B||LTD||MAJOR||N||N||N||N||560.3346||97.047 %|
|3||Leander, Mike||A28558||M||LTD||MAJOR||N||N||N||N||532.9299||92.301 %|
|4||Tsang, Keith||A71578||B||LTD||MAJOR||N||N||N||N||469.3082||81.282 %|
|5||Purcell, Greg||FY23884||G||LTD||MAJOR||N||N||N||N||448.1394||77.616 %|
|6||Huggins, Rick||A88883||C||LTD||MINOR||N||N||N||N||417.1654||72.251 %|
|7||Huffman, Joe||TY29386||B||LTD||MAJOR||N||N||N||N||395.2001||68.447 %|
|8||Sherman, Tod||TY37515||C||LTD||MAJOR||N||N||N||N||379.3488||65.701 %|
|9||Huang, Jemy||TY71576||B||LTD||MAJOR||N||N||N||N||364.1748||63.073 %|
|10||Roessel, Gary||A2757||B||LTD||MINOR||N||N||N||N||340.5804||58.987 %|
|11||Domingo, Emilio||A86951||D||LTD||MAJOR||N||N||N||N||317.6713||55.019 %|
|12||Beaman, Earl||A91163||U||LTD||MAJOR||N||N||N||N||315.8587||54.705 %|
|13||Russ, Kimberly||TY59608||C||LTD||MINOR||Y||N||N||N||310.1970||53.725 %|
|14||Adam, Brandi||A73942||C||LTD||MINOR||Y||N||N||N||303.3375||52.537 %|
|15||Steward, Jim||A91246||U||LTD||MINOR||N||N||N||N||292.0199||50.576 %|
|16||Crumpley, David||A89435||U||LTD||MINOR||N||N||N||N||193.1871||33.459 %|
|17||Bregante, Carlos||TY4508||C||LTD||MINOR||N||N||N||N||158.8101||27.505 %|
I tested out video glasses I got from Amazon and have shooter point of view for all but one of the stages:
The configuration program for the glasses didn’t work so I couldn’t set the date and time on the glasses and I couldn’t turn off the time stamp. So all the video has the wrong time.
I forgot to turn the camera on for the stage that I messed up on the most. That is the stage I would have most liked to have the video for!
I attended a steel match in Renton today. I was feeling kind of weird. I hadn’t gotten much sleep then I was really rushed trying to clean two guns and then get to the match on time. I left nearly 30 minutes later than I planned and I think there was far more adrenalin in my system that I can tolerate without side effects. I was shaking most of the morning, my stomach was upset, and I was feeling strange in the head.
My shooting felt pretty good anyway and I was pretty sure I was doing well compared to everyone in my squad. I was shooting in both rimfire iron sighted pistol and centerfire iron sighted pistol.
The stages looked like this:
With Double Tap there was another USPSA target to the far left my camera couldn’t capture from the shooting box. The two USPSA targets were to be shot twice then the center target was the stop plate.
For those unfamiliar with scoring steel matches of this type you shoot the stage five times. Your score is the sum of your four best times. Hence you can determine the average time for a shooter to fire the five shoots on a given stage by dividing their stage time by four. If, for example, someone (like me when I shot rimfire) has a score of 10.14 for Closed Quarters it means I got five hits, on the average, in 2.535 seconds. Considering that it probably took about a second to get the first hit going from the orange marker on the ground to the first plate the other four hits took about 0.384 seconds each. I’m constantly amazed this is even possible let along that I can do this.
My standing in the match was somewhat surprising to me:
|Final||Name||SCSA||Class||Division||Time||Stage 1 Smoke & Hope||Stage 2 Closed Quarters||Stage 3 Round About||Stage 4 Double Tap|
|2||Miner, Bradley Jr||U||RFRI||40.14||8.92||8.86||10.20||12.16|
|25||Miner, Bradley Jr||U||PROD||65.68||12.65||18.78||19.14||15.11|
|48||Miner, Bradley Sr||U||LTD||95.62||18.57||29.57||23.38||24.10|
I’ve been wanting to get my classification stages completed so I could get a better sense of where I stand compared to shooters nationwide. But I keep getting repeats of stages I have already shot. This match was no exception. We had Smoke and Hope and Roundabout as the only two classification stages. At least I improved my centerfire times from my previous 18.76 seconds to 15.44 seconds on Smoke and Hope. But my time on Roundabout went from 18.67 seconds to 19.43 seconds.
With my rimfire pistol I came in 7th overall which is ahead of all the other pistol shooters, including open class pistol shooters. With my centerfire pistol I came in 23rd overall and 3rd among centerfire shooters.
I’m okay with that.
Several months ago Joycie expressed an interest in learning to shoot a gun. She had a couple scary incidents. One where she thought someone was in her house and another incident where a suspicious person was in her backyard.
Of course I immediately offered to take her to the range but for various reasons it didn’t happen right away. Finally Barb made the reservation for the training bay at the local indoor range and Joycie and her husband Michael put that time slot on their schedule. Here is the story from our time on the range last night:
They did the paperwork with the range, got the range safety briefing. We then walked through the normal range with stalls about half full of people shooting. Joycie jumped every shot fired but made it through to the training bay without chickening out. There we took off our hearing protection set up a table about 15 feet from the target line.
I’ve only one other student who was more nervous.
I started them out with the Ruger 10/22 with a suppressor so we could talk without hearing protection:
It was really too close for the scoped rifle, the target was just a little bit blurry, and the hits were an inch or so low from the point of aim. But these were new shooters and I wanted to make sure they could hit the paper without difficulty. They both did great with it.
Next I put the suppressor on the Ruger 22/45 and showed them how to shoot it:
Michael had no problems with it but it took Joycie a while to get the hang of getting both sights lined up on the target.
Next they tried the .22 LR revolver:
With no suppressor and such a light gun even the recoil from the .22 was intimidating to Joycie. She was able to settle down enough to get good hits by sitting at the table.
We were running out of time and I gave her the option of a 9mm or .40 S&W pistol or an AR-15. Joycie asked if the AR-15 was an Uzi and if it would shoot out all the bullets one after the other. I smiled and told her no. It was an AR-15 and it shot one bullet for each pull of the trigger just like the other guns she had been shooting. She chose the AR-15.
Michael emptied a 30 round magazine with excellent hits in probably two or three minutes. We were very short on time and Joycie fired maybe five rounds with decent hits before we had to pack up and leave before they locked the doors on us.
As is usual, there was the new shooter smile and Joycie wants to try that again:
Joycie also wants to see what competition is like and may show up to watch a pistol match sometime soon.