Pedantistry

Is that a word?

No, but it should be.

Intersections

My last post mentioned some of my interests. Based on the title of the page (and this post and this post) you can guess I am into guns, as well. I'm also into cars. I'm not a gearhead or grease monkey, by any means. I just like cars.

Well, I like cars I can't afford. And I like listening to bumbling, sarcastic Brits prattling on about said cars I can't afford. So, naturally, I watch Top Gear.

And while Jeremy Clarkson may take the piss out of James May for getting overly pedantic regarding cars, engineering, physics, and design, it is entertaining because they DO IT TO BE ENTERTAINING. They are in on the joke. They expect you to be in on the joke. They expect the audience to understand the humor of a scraggly-haired car nerd at a white board describing the innards of a hovercraft.

Another example of Top Gear acknowledging their personal foibles is Clarkson going on about power, speed, and guns in his exuberant, pseudo-jingoistic manner (imagine a twelve-year-old with a monster truck fitted with rocket launchers and you will have a good idea).

Where I come to the point

So, I happen across a Top Gear video of Clarkson and May racing sport wagons on a biathlon course because of course they will. As part of this race, they do the shooting element of the course, firing the prone targets from inside the back of the car because of course they will. Clarkson, however, forgoes the standard Anschutz for a Heckler & Koch MP5 submachinegun because of course he does. 

Let the theatrics commence. I can wait. 

I showed the video to a friend. This led to questions about biathlon rifles. This led to biathlon, itself. I then happened across a great video produced by Sturm, Ruger & Co. Featuring Annelies Cook from the US biathlon team, the video shows a typical biathlon rifle and the use of it, including the unslinging and slinging (watch all of the various manual checks and manipulation a of covers).  There is some awesome footage of the shooters, proper form, and discussions of how they do what they do.

Really good stuff there.

Abandon hope, all ye who enter here...

A mantra of mine regarding YouTube: 

do not read the comments.

do not read the comments.

do not read the comments.

After viewing this video, I accidentally neglected my mantra. And this one time, it was gold.

Gun Guys in the audience will recognize some incorrect usage (clips, bullets, shells, and the like). As can be expected, some of "those guys" make an appearance on the comments lamenting the use of perceived incorrect terminology, America's lackluster biathlon performance in the Olympics, and what can only be described as a cross between "kids these days" and "get off my lawn!"

One of my fave Gun Guys - Steve Fjestad from Blue Book Publications

During my time as the Curator of the Cody Firearms Museum, one of my favorite activities was talking to Gun Guys. One of my least favorite activities was talking to Gun Guys...

The following dialogue from the YouTube comments on the Biathlon video (screen-capped for posterity) made my day. It involves BOTH types of gun guys.

David W. is my new Hero of the Interwebz.

He used his wittiness, knowledge, and snark to defend against the demons of pedantistry. As another associated the woman's use of firearms terminology with reasons behind how America sucks at biathlon, David W. kept his calm and poked the troll in such a manner that he started using all sorts of unrelated arguments (the supposed wealth of Olympians, his military experience, and the use of the word 'Libtard' - the hallmark of all well-planned defenses).

David W. won the internet.

In search of a common language

While watching this discourse, I began to ask myself why we cannot progress beyond this argument of pedantic terminology. I remember getting into arguments about this more than three decades ago - as a GRADE SCHOOLER!

I think we are at a point in the shooting world at which we can recognize that language is malleable. Language changes. Language moves. Language bends. Language becomes new.

Yes. A magazine and a clip are, pedantically, two different things.

Yes. A bullet and a shell and a cartridge are all different things.

But people (most people) use them interchangeably. Most of us (students of firearms history and related esoterica) prevent ourselves from getting the vapors when we hear someone describe how they load bullets into a clip. We stop ourselves from hollering at people "It's a Magazine!!!"

You should too.

How much ammo does one person need?

Guns and Ammo

No, I'm not talking about the magazine. I am talking about Guns and I am talking about Ammo.

Actually, I did already talk about these once today. I had a great time on internet radio with Bennet Kelley (and here) on the CyberLaw & Business Report. We spent a half hour discussing some of the various points of purchasing guns and ammunition online. In light of last week's shooting (no, I'm not linking to it), we looked into the various rules and regs of buying guns, magazines, and ammunition.

The best thing about this is that I was able to walk Bennet and his listeners through what it takes to purchase these online, talk about how more regulations won't necessarily be a good thing, and how some common sense and education would definitely be a good thing.

Note to Gun Guys: DO NOT EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER sell a personal firearm to someone across state lines or who even jokes about not being able to pass a NICS check without going through an FFL!

As a sidenote, I want to give a nod to HARO (Help A Reporter Out). This is a website set up to help reporters get into touch with subject specialists. I jumped on the mail list and within a few days I was on the web (and getting hits as a result).

Now on to business...

How much ammo does one person need?

Over the last few days I have been in a few conversations about the shooting in Aurora (nope, still not linking it). Each one included the question, "Why did he need six thousand rounds?"

*sigh*

A little voice in the back of my head snarked, "Because he couldn't afford seven?"

I had to ask why that was a problem. It wasn't like the shooter needed much. By all of the reports I have heard, the C-Mag in his M&P 15 jammed - but we have not heard when. His shotgun likely carried 5-8 rounds (several versions of the Remington Model 870 exist). The standard magazine for the Glock G22 holds 15 rounds. There are extended magazines available (similar to those used by the shooter in the Tucson Shooting), but there have been no reports of these being used. Totaling that, we are looking at about 123 rounds (barring any backup magazines or loose shotgun shells). With some number of those not being fired, this is less than 2% of his ammo stash. 

I'm just damn glad it wasn't stadium seating and that the C-Mag jammed. Seconds here... seconds there...

Shooters and Ammunition

I remember years ago (as a young Liberal Gun Guy) buying a box of shells,  going to the range, and shooting EVERY LAST ROUND. How many rounds were left at home? none. I couldn't afford any ammo other than what I put into the cinder cliff behind the target. Now? I'll shoot about half of what I buy (maybe). If I'm in a 100-round trap shoot, I'll get 150 shells and come home with 40-some. Sure, those extras get shot at some point, but they build up.

As a result of the conversations recently, I did some mental calculations. Given range bringbacks and the odd lots I have picked up along the way, I think I have about 1500 rounds of different types - 40 S&W, 12 gauge, .410, .30-06, 7.62x54R, .303, and .22. I think I also have some loose .45ACP (which I don't even have anymore...). Don't think I'm the only one. I didn't intend to get there. I just did. Now, if I was an active shooter (in a local-gun-club-regular-shoot-winner), I would be buying or reloading hundreds of rounds a week (high power rifle maybe being a little less).

Shotgun sports, 3-Gun, Cowboy Action Shooting, name it. If these folks want to stay on top of their game at the local/regional level, they will shoot (conservatively) 300-500 rounds a week - often a non-standard round. That is somewhere around 5,000 rounds in a few months. This is a supply that can't be supplied by your FLGS (Friendly Local Gun Store) or Wal-Mart.

Kim Rhode, two-time Gold Medalist in Double Trap, shoots 500-1000 rounds A DAY. Even on the south side of that (and taking a couple months of over the year), this comes up to more than 150,000 rounds over a year. Take that order to the Gun Shop up the street.

EDIT: I was reminded by a Facebook Friend that another reason competition shooters buy in bulk is to ensure that the ammunition is part of the same production lot. This ensures that differences from cartridge-to-cartridge and box-to-box are kept at a minimum.

Unfortunately, these aren't the folks we hear about. We hear about the folks stockpiling against armageddon, further government regulation, and zombies... OK, maybe not necessarily the last.

Also, unfortunately, we have the guy in Colorado. I don't know his deal. He had a lot of ammo. He also had a lot of issues (based on numerous articles and his appearance at his hearing. It does reflect poorly. I want to stress that while he had lots of ammo, he didn't apparently have a plan for it except to leave it in his apartment to burn it. This may give a tip to his knowledge of guns and ammo.

Ammunition in a fire will go nowhere - it needs a chamber to prevent a splitting case and a barrel to give direction. I have seen the aftereffects of a house fire on several hundred rounds of .30-06 stored in a wood case. It was a beautiful, semi-artistic piece of lead, mangled cartridge cases, and copper bullets.

The Upshot

Seeing as how he passed a series of background checks while purchasing four firearms over the previous several months, the knucklehead in question would have undoubtedly passed any sort of check someone would want to create for ammunition. There are legitimate reasons (sane or otherwise) to obtain or store bulk ammo. Registering bulk purchasers would be tantamount to registering gun owners. To my mind, this seems to be something that the majority of gun owners would oppose. I don't mind some regs and laws, but I don't want my name on a list.

Weak close, I know, but I had a good (long) day and I am glad I got to teach some folks about guns.

Museums and Firearms - why I do what I do

Well, today finds me in Montana, relaxing at my in-laws place. Tomorrow will find me at the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman (where my museum career effectively began). I will be presenting my day-long seminar on Museums and Firearms at the Museums Association of Montana (MAM) Conference.

The first time I did this presentation was for the 2004 Mountain-Plains Museums Association (MPMA) Conference in Casper, Wyoming. I had been at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center as the Firearms Curator for about a year-and-a-half. I was leading a charmed life. I had my (at the time) dream job, I was being paid to talk to people about guns, history, and museums, and I was starting to build some great friendships in MPMA.

Anyway, here I am, almost eight years later. I moved on to a great (and in many ways better) job at a different museum. I am still involved with MPMA (I've been a board member for 6 of the last 8 years). I still love talking to people about guns!

Part of what I love about this is that I get to help cross the great divide - the divide between the gun guys and the Museum world. It's not that there are no gun guys in the museum field or museum folks who like guns. However, this is a small slice of a huge Venn diagram. There are lots of gun guys out there who like - but misunderstand - museum operations. There are many museum professionals who are responsible for firearms in their collections but don't fully understand them as objects or have concerns about guns and their accoutrements.

Unfortunately, the channels of communication between the two groups are limited. There are about a half dozen titled Firearms Curators in the country. I know most of them by first name. Some of these guys, by choice or job description, don't have the opportunity to talk to the general museum field. The museum field, tending to skew politically liberal, are often not gun owners. I, on the other hand, fall into both areas to a certain extent. As I have titled the blog, I am a Liberal Gun Guy.

Having set myself apart and acknowledging this difficult and sometimes tenuous position, I am more than happy to talk to both groups about how we can all get along. Tomorrow will be the sixth time I have presented this specific seminar. It has been seen by about 100 museum professionals and others to this point. I had several hunters skip the opening day of deer season to catch the talk in Bismark, North Dakota (thanks to the State Historical Society of North Dakota). I have had input from the (at the time) Firearms Conservator from Springfield Armory National Historic Site. I even have done the unthinkable - I enlist the aid of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

With the aid of these folks (and the host organizations I have dealt with), I get to talk to 20 more people about two of my loves - museums and firearms. Safety and identification, legal issues, conservation and care, and exhibition and curation will all be covered.

It'll be a great day!

Non-gun guys talking about gun stuff

OK - After writing my last post, I saw this and this today...

The second article - from MSNBC was decent and helps fill in some holes.

The first, however, confuses the issue. The unfortunate thing about folks who don't know about guns asking gun questions, is that they are often on a deadline or don't know what other questions to ask.

Most of the Slate piece is good enough until the author starts talking about the mechanics of shooting. His characterization that snipers don't usually engage targets at ranges of 100 feet is incorrect. Although they are trained to engage at ranges beyond 500 yards, most shots - especially those taken by law enforcement - are typically within 100 yards.

I also would correct his description of the flightpath of the bullet and the effect of sighting in at 300 yards. With most .30 caliber-class rifle cartridges, sighting in at 250-300 yards results in the bullet striking the bullseye or a hair high (1/4-1/2") at 100 yards. What this means is at the range encountered by the SEALs, they would have been able to aim dead-on with the cross-hairs.

The comment regarding the angle is a moot point. Shots at angles above or below a level plane should be adjusted for as if the target was at a location on that level plane directly above or below the target.

In other words, think back to your high-school trigonometry class and draw a triangle with a line from the shooter to the target (the hypotenuse - H), a line from the target to the plane on which the shooter rests - at a right angle to the plane (the opposite side - O), and a line from the intersection of that line and the shooter's plane to the shooter (the adjacent side - A). Instead of adjusting for the distance to the target (H), adjust for the distance to where a vertical line from the target would intersect the shooter's plane (A). At 100 feet, this is negligible, even at a 20-30 degree angle. At longer ranges, you would need a ballistic calculator (such as this one for the iPhone from Knight's Armament Company) to nail down the appropriate solution to attain first-shot hits.

OK - I have officially spent too much time wonking on this topic...

LGG