Educating fellow Jews about the sporting and defensive use of firearms. Especially Jews in North America, too many of whom are instilled with the belief that guns aren't for nice Jewish boys and girls.
If you know of notable Jewish shooters that should be documented on the blog, even if it is only at the local club level, I am happy to report and profile them. And don't be shy if that person to be documented is you! Please drop me a line at jewishmarksman at gmail dot com. Also follow me on twitter @JMarksmanship.
As readers will recall, I blogged about my first range session with the Glock 17 pistol a few weeks ago, and I found that several things on the gun needed improvement, like the trigger and the sights. I am not really much of a combat or self-defense shooter with pistols, in the sense that I don't really train much for those kinds of scenarios and am more interested in long distance target shooting. Granted, that kind of training is definitely helpful and makes shooting closer targets like taking candy from a baby. But there is a lot more that goes into defensive shooting than just being fast and accurate (well maybe that is 80% of the battle), so don't read too much into what I am writing here as advice in that area. I am just exploring what I think would work for me as a home defense gun and range toy, not a hard-core defensive or carry gun. In fact, a .357 revolver is still our family's go-to pistol for home defense until I become convinced that I can trust the Glock 110%.
First about the trigger...
Since that last post, I did some modifications to the pistol's trigger. I polished some parts pursuant to what is known as the $0.25 Glock trigger job, which you can find on youtube. I also replaced the connector with a 3.5lb. connector. The result? Well, the trigger is definitely "better". It breaks a little bit crisper and some of the mushy-ness is gone. It is not a target trigger, and I doubt it ever can be. There is still some feel (which is also audible) of something rubbing plastic, either the trigger itself rubbing it's housing in the frame, or the transfer bar along the the inside of the frame. I am guessing it may be possible to smooth this out or eliminate it, but at this point I'm satisfied with the Glock's trigger. It was definitely fun to completely strip the pistol and learn about how every part functions.
Replacing the factory sights...
I also replaced the sights and replaced them with Trijicon HD night sights, opting for the set with the orange ring around the front sight. Putting these sights on made me realize how bad the factory sights really are. The Trijicon sights have tiny capsules of tritium inside that glow in the dark. I also really like how wide the rear sight is relative to the front sight, which makes it much easier to center the front sight, and the sights are also a bit taller than the factory sight. I replaced the sight myself using a sight pusher I purchased for the task.
Shooting with the new iron sights...
So right off the bat, at 50 feet I put five rounds right through the 2" x-ring on the Bullseye targets I use, so happily I did not have to adjust the rear sight for windage. Did the trigger job tighten my groups as well? Hard to say, but definitely I felt like I was getting shots off a little bit easier with the lighter trigger.
On to the reflex sight...
The next phase was to install a red dot reflex sight. What is a reflex sight? It is sort of a heads-up-display, where basically a dot is projected by an l.e.d. onto a clear screen that the shooter looks through. It is not a laser sight, in that nothing is projected onto the target and only the shooter can see the dot on the screen. There are many products out there that are a variation on this approach, including traditional scopes (magnifying or not) where the shooter sees an illuminated dot instead of cross hairs.
This kind of sight is uncharted territory for me. My entire shooting career has been with iron sights of various styles, but never with a scope or red dot. But my eyesight has been ever-so-slightly declining, so I've been wanting to experiment with electronic red dots. Also because this handgun is destined for self-defense, I wanted to experiment with the latest trend in defensive handgun configuration. So after some research, I decided upon the Sightmark Sure Shot, which is a cheap entry level reflex sight. I figured I'd give an entry-level model a try and see how I feel about red-dots. Also, my wife can give it a try and see what she thinks. High end reflex sights like those from Trijicon run several hundred dollars, so I decided to test the concept first. In order to mount the sight, I used a hard plastic sight mount that is manufactured in Israel. The cool thing about the mount is that it leaves plenty of room above the iron sights so you can use them if needed.
The sight offers several sight pictures, I chose the picture that has big circle with a dot in the middle, with cross-hairs on the edges of the big circle. I shot with both eyes open. The target above shows that after guestimating the zero using the iron sights, the first shot was low. I made some adjustments to the reflex sight, and then proceeding to shoot-out the x-ring with the about 15 rounds, with a little drift to the right:
I found it to be a very different experience to use a reflex sight. First of all, it is different because with iron sights, to shoot with precision you focus on the front sight and the target is blurry. With reflex sight you just look at at the target. I found that with both eyes open I would sometimes get a double image, but I could still see the target and dot fine. I also find that sometimes my eyes would tend to focus on the dot, instead of the target, or jump back and forth. The best result was when I just totally relaxed my focus, looked at the target and just shot. Rapid-fire shooting was maybe a little faster as well, because I could see the dot falling back onto the target after recoil and could begin my trigger pull for the next shot a bit faster.
Longer range shooting was a little different. At 75 feet I found it a little harder to just look at the target, and kept finding my eyes focusing on the dot. At 50 yards I had mixed results. Sometimes I would hit the 8" steel plate 4 out of 5 times, sometimes 1 or sometimes 3 out of 5. Perhaps I need to zero the sight a little better for better accuracy at longer range. When I have time I'll shoot at a paper target at 50 yards and see if I can get a good zero. Also complicating matters is that I have not ascertained how accurate the gun itself really is at 50 yards. Don't get me wrong, I could see hits in the berm just barely missing steel, so you are still getting minute-of-bad-guy at 50 yards, I just don't know about head shots.
I would say that with a little more practice, I could see myself becoming a red-dot convert, especially on a home-defense gun. I definitely understand how these optics are the future, once the more durable models become more affordable. Especially as eyes age, reflex sights are an alternative to custom shooting glasses. More importantly, with a reflex sight your eyes are focused on the target, giving you better situational awareness, and better ability to pick a precise aiming spot on the target. Unlike a laser sight, nothing gives away your position and the reflex sight can work in all lighting situations (and will not disappear on a bad guy wearing red clothes).
An interesting question is whether I would introduce a new, first-time shooter to shooting with a red dot or shooting with iron sights. Certainly shooting with iron-sights is harder, and more "sporting." But shooting with a red-dot is probably going to be easier for beginners, and a way to quickly build confidence and accuracy. There is also the "cool factor" that will draw interest in the sport. I have to say that at the end of the day, I would probably have a new shooter learn with a red dot. Especially for older shooters or anyone with "bad eyes", a red dot is a great way to get into recreational shooting.
Today's Jewish Marksman profile is of "Nelson Smith," which is not his real name but a pseudonym for security reasons. Nelson is our first 3-Gun competitor profiled on the blog:
1. Where did you grow up, and where do you live now?
I was born in Chicago and I lived there until one month after my Bar Mitzvah. My family then moved to Phoenix due to my fathers employment situation. I have lived in and around the Phoenix area ever since.
2. What do you do for a living?
I am a commercial airline pilot.
3. Who introduced you to firearms? How old were you the first time you went shooting?
I was introduced to firearms by my father and his work friend (another Jewish guy) who competed in a local "combat" pistol league. I was 13 years old and was hooked after the first shot. I saved up every dime I earned that summer and bought a Ruger .22 pistol that I still proudly own. This is the same pistol that I taught my now adult daughter to shoot with when she was 10 years old.
4. How did you get involved in shooting sports?
The range that I live by offered an IDPA style match that caught my interest. They offered a one hour class covering the rules, techniques and scoring so I signed up. My first few match scores were horrible but I kept showing up for them. I practiced a lot and closely watched what other shooters were doing. After a few months I found that my shooting was improving and that my scores were as well. Some of the other guys that I shoot with suggested that we try shooting carbine matches and multigun matches. I shot my first carbine match (a charity match for the AzCDL) and did pretty respectable. From there, it went to multigun matches, pistol, rifle and/or shotgun. Most everybody runs M4 type rifles with or without an optic, semi auto pistols and either a semi auto or a pump shotguns. Three gun/multigun is absolutely the most fun a shooter can have! Three gun matches are shot using a pistol, rifle and a shotgun. Depending on which class you shoot in, you have iron sights, non magnified (red dots) or magnified optics. Some stages involve using one of the three guns and other stages a combination of two or more guns. Targets are a combination of paper IPSC paper targets and steel targets. The stages involve moving from place to place, shooting from behind cover or while walking/running between cover. Shooting positions can be from sitting, standing or prone positions or any combination of. Distances are from a few feet out to several hundred yards. It truly is an ever challenging sport.
5. What shooting sports have you competed in? Have you earned any awards or classifications?
In the past I have competed in IDPA style matches and subgun matches. I currently compete in pistol steel matches and multigun matches. I occasionally drag along my Rabbi friend (who I taught to shoot) to the pistol steel matches. I met the rabbi through a work friend who knew that I was an avid shooter. The rabbi's friend was killed in the Mumbai attack and he wanted to learn how to defend himself. I taught both him and another rabbi how to shoot and we hit it off as friends. The rabbi got his CCW and I helped him find the right CCW pistol.
6. What do Jewish family members and friends think about your shooting?
I go to an orthodox temple so most members are "right leaning" Republicans. They not only support the 2nd Amendment but they are also gun owners, collectors and enthusiasts. I have invited a few members to join me but I think they are a bit intimidated by match shooting. I do shoot weekly with a Jewish friend who also shoots matches with me. Over the last six months we have converted his brother from a gun hater to a pistol shooter and an avid sporting clays shooter. My immediate family members are not active in the sport but will from time to time shoot with me.
7. Any interesting stories about your daughter shooting? Did she like it? Does she still shoot? Grandkids yet?
My daughter is a recreational shooter. She shoots the occasional pistol carbine or pistol steel matches. She also shoots sporting clays several times a month with me and my friends. No grandkids or husband at this time. She needs to finish college and/or get a job first.
8. What do you like most about the shooting sports?
Ninety percent of the people I compete with are half my age and many have real combat experience. I like to see where I stack up in the group and learn from what they have learned.
9. Do you have any goals right now in the shooting sports?
I want to build on the good foundation that I have and to keep improving my overall score. I have worked with multiple coaches and will continue to seek out any expert advice I can find.
10. Do you reload ammunition or work on your own guns?
I reload 9mm & 45ACP. I also do most of my own gunsmithing. I have built all but one of the AR rifles that my daughter and I shoot. I also built the Saiga-12 that I use in Three Gun.
11. Is there anything else you would like to say to the readers?
When I see fellow Jews badmouthing firearms and the 2nd Amendment it makes me sad and ashamed. Hitler disarmed all his countries people and then marched the Jews to their deaths. Can you imagine if those 6,000,000 fellow Jews had the ability to resist their captors? Firearms are not evil, the people who misuse them are. Please join the NRA, JPFO, GOA or any local pro gun organization if you are not a member already. Your kids' kids will thank you!
FN HERSTAL BELGIUM: The Israelis contracted FN to build them roughly 1000 of these dedicated .22 LR training rifles. It is purpose built with matching bolt. These were not fabricated from existing K98's in 8mm these actions, barrels and bolts were made just for this project. They were built on a FN single shot frame. These things are unbelievably rare and only a handful were imported about 10 years ago or so.
I have seen these around occasionally, and have also heard of people making them from existing Mauser parts.
The bidding starts at $1300, with a buy-now of $1500. I think at those prices, the auction will only draw collectors. In that range a new or used Anschutz or lessor .22LR target rifle can be had. In my mind, part of the fun of an Israeli Mauser is firing it with a "real" cartridge like .308, so for me this rifle would get boring fast. Even for sentimental value, meh...these rifles almost certainly never saw combat, or maybe they trained a few IDF troops or Israeli kids. Given that it is a single shot rifle, I'm not even sure what the training value was.
Last weekend I finally teased an Expert class score out of my 1940 Israeli Mauser in an NRA High Power match (reduced course 100 yard match)! Expert class starts at 89%, suggesting the shooter is hitting mostly 10s and 9s. Originally the goal was much lower, but as I started hitting each classification I nudged it up just to prove what the rifle was capable of. It took me roughly six or seven months, with a match each month, to achieve this goal.
Why an Israeli Mauser
So why did I do it? I think a few shooters in the club thought I was a little crazy at first. After all, I was shooting solid Master scores with the Service Rifle, on my way to High Master, and I just completed building a Remington 700 match rifle that has been sitting in the safe unfired. Why waste months on getting the Israeli Mauser to do something it was never intended, and essentially drop out of being a serious contender in matches during that time? Not to mention the money expense of getting the Israeli Mauser match capable?
I suppose one could say I have 6,000,000 reasons for doing it. The rifle was originally crafted by a nation that at one time sought to exterminate the Jews from the face of the earth. The steel receiver was probably made from iron mined in that same country. It is highly probable that soldiers from that nation used the rifle to fight Allied forces, kill Allied soldiers, and maybe even to kill Jews. But after WWII, the captured rifle made its way to Israel, a Jewish homeland born from the ashes of WWII. What the rifle may have been used for there is anyone's guess. Was it used by Jews in Israel's war of independence Did IDF soldiers use it for training thereafter? Was it the trusted companion of some frontier Jewish kibbutznik? And where did it go after Israel?
Now, you could argue that those are good reasons to acquire the Israeli Mauser as memorabilia, but not necessarily for using it. So what is the significance of using the Israeli Mauser? I think for me, it adds a new chapter to the rifle's life that hopefully my great, great, great grandchildren will remember and perpetuate. My use of it, and someday my daughter's use, and so on, serves to remind us that Jews must not only always be armed, but we must develop the skills to use those arms with precision and safety. A rifle that rusts away in a safe is useless. But a rifle used in sport develops the Jewish shooters' skills so that if someday, G-d forbid, we are ready. Of course, any rifle can serve the purpose of training, but there is something primal and especially memorable about actually using a 70+ year old rifle that has a history of its own. In my case, the Israeli Mauser was actually the first center-fire bolt action rifle I ever shot, and also the first in .308.
Still a Potent Weapon
And make no mistake, in the right hands the Israeli Mauser is still a damn capable rifle for hunting, and I dare say combat in a pinch. I never performed any formal testing, but based on my slow prone targets, I would say the rifle is mechanically capable of just over 1MOA (1" groups at 100 yards). Here is my prone target from the last match, the actual diameter of the aiming black is 6.35":
Yes, it only has an internal 5-round magazine, but I got to be very quick with my reloads using stripper clips. Remember, in High Power the sitting stage is 10 rounds in 60 seconds, with a reload. Here is my sitting stage target from the last match:
And here is the rapid prone target:
So the idea that you can't be fast and accurate with an Israeli Mauser is demonstrably false! And keep in mind this is just with aperture-style Mojo Sights, which are not really up for high precision target work. With a scout-style scope or better target sights....
What's Next?
As I've been hinting, for several months now a fully ready Remington 700 configured as a competition match rifle has been patiently waiting in the gun safe. I am hoping that 2013 will be the year I earn my High Master card, and I'm feeling good about the R700's ability to get me there.
I apologize to those readers who primarily visit this blog to learn about Jewish athletes involved in the shooting sports. I assure you that such was the original intention of this blog, and that I fully intend to return its focus to those profiles, as well as my own shooting sports exploits. But...
Unfortunately, we are at a critical moment in the history of the United States which demands the attention of all Jews who know world history. Although I am somewhat well versed in instances of armed Jewish resistance to tyrannic government, there are other places on the internet where you can study that issue (google "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising" for a start). I firmly believe that Americans must have some degree of parity of arms with government forces. The AR-15 and other so-called "assault rifles" (which I've blogged about) are required to maintain that parity. If you have any doubts, you need only study the history of Afghanistan and present events in Syria to realize that the "people" do not necessarily need tanks or fighter planes, but they do need rifles. A group of motivated riflemen can, at least by today's standards of military technology, overcome a superior armed force. There is absolutely no historical precedent for Jews to not eventually become the targets of first discrimination, and ultimately physical abuse and murder.
So in that vein, Jewish political commentator, radio talk show host, and attorney Ben Shapiro recently confronted one of the most vile human beings on American soil, Piers Morgan, and did rather well:
Today's Jewish Marksman is Chuck Klein of Ohio. Klein is a former police officer and firefighter, and also an author and firearms instructor. His written works include books on police work, self-defense, as well as fiction. He has also written many articles and essays, including "Klein's Laws", which is a collection of Klein's acquired life wisdom reduced to single sentences, and while not quite as deep as Pirke Avot, is a good read. An online Jewish magazine gave Klein's book "The Badge" a generally positive review.
JPFO: ... Do you have any final thoughts on solutions to the problems facing American gun owners and those who feel the need to carry concealed weapons?
CK: Yes. I'm concerned that there are far too many restrictions placed on the decent law-abiding citizen who wants or needs to own and carry firearms. Not only that, but these laws, statutes and court decrees are confusing and not universally applied. Even our 2nd Amendment - our beloved 2nd Amendment - is subject to subjectiveness by persons who have the power to enforce restrictions.
There are people out there who are working everyday to pass restrictive firearm rules and when they can't muster legislative support they connive to twist and usurp what legal, plain language protections we now have.
Citizens who carry must not only be aware of local as well and national laws, but they must have the wherewithal, the grit to defend themselves in a court of law should some police officer or prosecutor, well intentioned or not, charges them with a gun related crime. Belonging to some of the gun rights organizations, is one way to keep abreast of the intricacies of firearm related legal rulings.
Robert Avrech is a screenwriter (Body Double, A Stranger Among Us, The Devil's Arithmetic) and describes himself on his blog, seraphicpress.com as follows:
I'm an Emmy Award winning screenwriter. I'm also an observant Jew, a religious Zionist, a conservative Republican, and a member of the NRA. I've been writing and producing in Hollywood for over twenty-five years. But the focus of my life is my family: my radiant wife, Karen—with whom I have been in love with since I was nine years-old—and my two daughters, who, thankfully, look like Karen. Not too long ago, we had three children. But our son, Ariel, died at the age of twenty-two from cancer. We miss him terribly. We think about him practically every minute of every day. People tell us that time heals, but Karen and I know this is not true. Time grinds away doing its terrible work. Ariel is gone. Yet absence becomes presence.
He blogs on a variety of topics, most of them unrelated to guns in any way. But a few excellent postings that every Jew and gun owner should read:
Definitely a blog worth following! The first essay "Jew without a Gun" above is an excellent story that explains, in part, what brought him into the fold of gun ownership.
I am a big fan of podcasts and internet-based radio. I can download audio to my smartphone or listen live online, and then via bluetooth use my car speakers or a headset. I listen while I drive and jog, but also while I practice shooting and at the reloading press. Unfortunately, the tools I use to access the podcasts and audio are a bit hodgepodge. I use Google Listen, which integrates with Google Reader (a great web and phone-based RSS reader), also tunein.com and now stitcher.com. Here are a few of the things I listen to:
There are a few sample .mp3 files on the site, but you have to pay. The great thing is though, you can pay once and they make it easy to download all of the past .mp3 lessons. So I paid for 90 days or something like that, and downloaded all the past lessons, which should keep me busy for a year or so. I think this podcast is the right way to learn a foreign language, which is to listen to conversations, repeat them, repeat them, repeat them, repeat them, repeat them... This is how children learn. Learning a language is not an intellectual exercise...like shooting skill it is a habit mastered by rote. Last year's new year's resolution to become fluent in Hebrew failed...hopefully this year these podcasts will help me get there!
I really like the former Saturday Night Live and NFL commentator's daily radio show. His style is not for everyone, but give him a try, he might be an acquired taste. I use the tunein.com app on my phone, but also on a TV where I practice shooting dry fire via the tunein channel on a roku.com box.
This podcast is by Rev. Ken Blanchard, a Baptist pastor. Rev. Blanchard is a scholar, a gentleman, a tzadik and a mensch. Trust me when I say that if you tune in for a few episodes of his podcast, it will not be what you expect. Here is how he describes it:
It is here that I passionately, positively and persistently produce this podcast to encourage, educate and enlighten people around the world that want it.
I sing, I joke, I interview interesting people I have met or hear of that are not afraid of coming on a show where they might find a new friend.
The podcast is not just about guns its about the people behind the guns. It’s the unsung heroes of our communities. It’s the women, mothers and sexy grandmothers that choose to arm themselves. It’s those that hunt and compete too, (the women) that folks like to ignore or pimp only on special occasions.
This show is about all nationalities, ethnicities, white, black, brown, yellow and every combination in between that shoot, own guns and fight to do so because of misinformation and racism. It’s for the urbanite and rural shooter. It’s for America.
I would tune in even if he never talked about guns, it's that good. There are several ways to hear the podcast, lately I have been using stitcher.com on my phone, I have mixed feelings about that app as I used to use Google Listen which was easier to deal with. I think there is a way to use tunein to get it as well.
I am part of the "conservative" sect of American Jews, so I do not belong to a Chabad schul, but every time I have been to one I have felt welcome, despite the fact I am far less observant or versed in the siddur (prayers) or kashrut (kosher laws) than more observant, orthodox Jews. I don't take the label of me as "not yet frum" as an insult at all. To be blunt, anybody who tells you Chabad is a cult has no clue what they are talking about, and are probably just insecure in their own beliefs. So don't be afraid, give their web site a try.
Well in any case, Chabad has excellent Torah study podcasts for every level of Torah knowledge and every learning style. Want to take a textual approach? They have a podcast for that. More into the emotional and spiritual? They have a podcast for that. Only have 2 minutes a week? They have a podcast for that.
I like the weekly lectures by Elimelech Silberberg, because he gives a run down of the text (helpful for those many, many weeks I fail to read it) and then transitions to the practical and spiritual applications. I also like Moishe New, who gives a spiritual, kabbalistic lecture on the week's portion.
5. BBC World News
Although I do watch the CBS nightly news (in my opinion it is one of the more fair and balanced mass media outlets out there), I also like the BBC world news podcasts and streaming through tunein.com. The BBC is not always fair to Israel, but overall I don't think there is a better news outlet out there for what is happening around the world.
So with that, have a Happy New Year and keep 'em in the 10 ring!
As we were travelling towards the Red Sea, there was one Mosollam in the company, a Jew, and one of our horse-guards, that was looked upon to be very brave, and a famous marksman with bow and arrow.
As they were advancing on their way, a soothsayer, that took upon him to foretell the fortune of their voyage, bade them all stand, and they did so. This Jew asked them what they stood for. The cunning man, showing them a bird, replied, "If that bird stands, you are to stand; if it rises, and flies on, you are to go forward too; but if the bird takes its flight the contrary way, you must all go back again."
The Jew, without any more words, let fly an arrow, and killed the bird. The diviner and his companions fell presently upon the Jew in most outrageous terms.
"Why certainly," says Mosollam, "you are all mad to be thus concerned about a foolish bird. How shall that poor wretch pretend to tell us our fortune, that knew nothing of its own? If this bird could have foreseen good or evil to come, it would have kept itself out of the way of this arrow."
It has not escaped notice of many gun owners that Jewish politicians like Dianne Feinstein (D-California) are contributing to the efforts of late to destroy Americans' gun rights. However, many are unaware how prominent Jewish attorneys have been in protecting those rights. Here are a few examples:
Alan Gura is a sort of superstar in the fight for 2nd Amendment rights. First he won the 2008 case United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, which finally settled the notion that the 2A provides a right to firearms ownership independent of membership in any organized "militia." Then in 2010 he won McDonald v. Chicago, which held the 2A and Heller applied to the states. His most recent 2012 win is Moore v. Madigan, where a federal district court held that Illinois' ban on concealed carry (the only state to ban all concealed carry) is unconstitutional.
Gura, in contrast, said statistics indicate that gun ownership tends to reduce crime and increase public safety. Moreover, self-protection is a fundamental right, he added, because citizens cannot always depend on the government to protect them from criminals or tyrannical rulers. He said Jews, in particular, should take note.
"We should examine our history and see that our reliance on governmental officials to preserve our liberties has not always worked out so well," explained Gura, who considers himself a libertarian. "There is still anti-Semitism. The sad fact is that many Jews have the option of being armed or dead and not that many prefer to be armed."
Asked why Jews seem disproportionately opposed to gun ownership, Gura said, "It's puzzling. Many Jews seem to prefer heavy government intervention, and it's not a good thing." Jews, he said, often have the mistaken belief "that the government is a beneficent force to always do good and help people out."
An Israeli native now living in Alexandria, where he attends the Conservative Agudas Achim Congregation, Gura, 37, came to the United States with his family when he was 7. They settled in Los Angeles. He received his undergraduate degree in government from Cornell University and his law degree from Georgetown University. Gura, whose law practice, Gura and Possessky, has offices Alexandria and D.C., focuses mainly on civil rights and intellectual property matters.
Gura, who with his wife has a 1-year-old son, first became a gun owner in the early 1990s because, he said, he wanted to be able to defend himself against crime. Among the contributing factors in his decision to buy a weapon were the 1992 riots in Los Angeles, which Gura said he watched on TV "with a great deal of concern" while he was in college at Cornell. He said he has never used the gun in self-defense.
Gura was hired to handle the case in 2003 by social acquaintance Robert Levy, a nonpracticing attorney and libertarian scholar. Levy and another lawyer recruited the plaintiffs, six D.C. residents who wanted to own handguns.
The Jewish judge writing the majority opinion in the Madigan case was none other than Richard Posner. Posner's opinion is very good for gun rights, because he wrote that "...a ban as broad as Illinois's can't be upheld merely on the ground that it's not irrational..."so substantial a curtailment of the right of armed self-defense requires a greater showing of justification than merely that the public might benefit on balance from such a curtailment, though there is no proof it would." That language is critical because the Supreme Court's Heller opinion did not explicitly tell courts what test to apply when determining whether certain laws restricting gun rights are constitutional or not. Lower courts are still feeling out the parameters, and Posner's opinion is a step in the right direction towards strict, or at least intermediate scrutiny.
Finally, Alan Gottlieb is not an attorney (according to Wikipedia) but is is the Chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. The SAF, as I understand it, funds Gura's and other gun-rights lawsuits, but also promotes knowledge of the 2A and its history.
I recently wrote about my experience with a new Glock 17, and on my lunch hour today I played with a new model 19. They are very similar, except the 19 is smaller in several dimensions.
Overall, I was not as thrilled with the 19 as I was the 17. Not that there is anything wrong with the 19, but in the ways that matter to me, the 19 is inferior. The sight radius is shorter, and today with overcast skies I had a hard time getting a good look at the sights. The trigger on this gun is heavier and mushier than the 17, and I found myself nudging slightly left given how much force it takes to get the thing to fire. It may be one of the worst triggers on a pistol I've ever handled.
Above is my target at 50 feet, two hands standing, about 60 rounds, some slow fire some semi-rapid fire. Slow fire I basically shot out those two large holes, rapid fire was a little dicier as the lighter gun likes to jump a bit more than the 17.
Now I know some will say that at 50 ft. that is a good target for 60 rounds (mostly fitting in a dollar bill), but I'm used to them all in the 10 ring. I think the sights may need just a nudge to the right for me, and I do have a sight pusher tool, but the verdict is not out yet as to where the problem lies. I was not able to ring the 50 yard steel plate at the range as consistently as I could with the 17, even with a very slow and steady trigger pull. I just had a hard time seeing that front sight center up in the rear, and the trigger took like forever to break. (I know, I know, a Glock was not meant to be a target gun, and if I track the rear sight just a smidge right I'd have a nice ten-ring concentration and maybe wouldn't be complaining at all.....) The elevation (vertical spread) of the shots does look pretty good, especially because I was doing some quicker shooter where elevation can be tough to keep tight anyway.
At the advice of one my readers I did order 3.5# connectors for both the 19 and the 17 and will install them soon. From hundreds of reviews I've skimmed by others, this simple swap totally transforms the trigger feel of the gun and size of the groups one can produce, so I'm looking forward to that. I'm also thinking to modernize at least one of the pistols with a 3-dot sighting system with night sights and start practicing for more speed at closer range as opposed to being "that guy" who likes ringing steel at 50 yards with a gun never meant for that purpose. Kind of a culture change for me...
Last but not least, I left the range with more brass than I came with, which is always a good day for a frugal Jewish marksman!
One of the cornerstones of the Jewish faith is Tzedakah, sometimes translated as "charity" (although I think the real meaning is far more complex). Like many Americans, I sometimes wait until the end of the year to make financial donations. Aside from the various donations our family makes to various causes (animal shelters, various Jewish causes), this year I added a few more given everything going on in the world of firearms.
It may surprise some readers that up until today I was not a member. Why? I typically do not like to donate to charities unless there is easy-to-access detailed transparency as to how the money is used. I looked on JPFO's web site, and did not see any financial disclosure information. But now more than ever, I think the message the JPFO puts out is critical and must be heard. I gave less than I might if more detailed financial information had been made available, with a simple one year membership. I am thinking about buying one of their bumper stickers which reads "Gun Control is not Kosher".
I have known of this organization for some time, but had not contributed or joined due to the fact that I already maintain a membership in the NRA. Besides the political arm of the NRA, it is the controlling body of the shooting sports I participate in. But given the current politics of "gun control," I became a one-year member in GOA.
The case has fallen out of the news, but Zimmerman is the man accused of murdering Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman claims he fired in self-defense. In my opinion the Florida State Attorney has conducted itself deplorably in this case, and based upon all of the publicly available information, in my view at this time it appears Zimmerman did indeed act in lawful self-defense under the laws of Florida. So I made a small donation.
“I’m a marksman, which means I’m a pretty darned good shot with a gun and a rifle.”
Today's Jewish markswoman is Fran Saltzman, who had the distinct honor of being the first Jewish woman in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). In a recent article she described her experiences in the 1970s:
Saltzman likened her six months of boot camp to scenes in the movies Private Benjamin and GI Jane. As if their rigorous training wasn’t hard enough, women were on the receiving end of every form of sexism, from belittling comments to outright hostility and sexual harassment, she said. Saltzman recalled that one trainer introduced them to ammunition by explaining, “The bullet is like a lipstick; the pointy end goes in first.”
As the first female Jewish officer in the RCMP, Saltzman said, “I experienced very little antisemitism... My major battle was proving that women could do the job. The issue was gender and not religion.”
She spoke of one ugly incident that occurred when her troop was taught how to use gas masks. They donned the equipment and prepared to enter a small building in which gas would be released. According to Saltzman, the sergeant asked, “Are there any Jews in this troop?” When she “proudly” raised her hand, she said, he responded, “Hmm, Aronovitch, your people like gas.”
She refused to give him the satisfaction of crying but was so shaken that she failed the test. However, she stressed, this “was the action of one ignorant, prejudiced sergeant, and was not representative of the attitudes of the RCMP as a whole.”
Short answer: Banning so-called assault weapons will not save lives. Such bans are nothing more than an "assault" on a sub-culture that some do not understand, and therefore fear and demonize.
I. Digression on cosmetics. A. Color
I have written before about how so-called assault weapons like the AR-15 have been maligned by many simply according to its cosmetics. It "looks" like something evil and menacing, no doubt due to it's black color (sorry, but the fact is that throughout the history of Western culture, the color black is associated with evil, death and disease) and prominence in violent Vietnam-era war movies like Full Metal Jacket.
So first let's look at some examples of fully functional AR-15s which are cosmetically less menacing:
Do you see how powerfully colors effect human perception and emotion? Changing the color allows you tho view the AR-15 rationally and with intelligence, as opposed to emotion. It took Americans hundreds of years to overcome using color as a basis to judge human beings, and some of them haven't quite made it all the way. Why would the public consciousness about black rifles be any different? Now you are equipped to use your intellect instead of emotion.
B. Cosmetic/Ergonomic Features
Our legal system is governed by statutes and regulations, not feelings. This means law makers must define what makes one rifle an "assault rifle" and another not. Uninformed law makers having conjured up the term "assault rifle" simply fall back on cosmetic features. For example, a rifle's having a pistol grip is usually one element of being termed an "assault rifle." As you can see in the pictures immediately above, the shooting hand holds the AR-15 similar to a pistol. And this matters...why exactly? Below is an example of a M1A rifle, used by the US military prior to adopting the AR-15, and actually making a comeback because in most configurations it shoots a more powerful cartridge than the AR-15. Note that it does not have a pistol grip like most AR-15s have:
The pistol grip is just an ergonomic preference. Some people prefer them for comfort, some people don't. A pistol grip has nothing to do with the deadliness of a firearm.
Other "assault weapon" features lawmakers have identified is the presence of a bayonet lug. Yep, the fact that a bayonet can be easily attached to the rifle is, supposedly, a great threat to public safety. Actually, the reason the bayonet lug remains on many AR-15s today is that tripod manufacturers have developed mounts to attach there, helping shooters who like to shoot from tripods. I don't know of anybody who has ever actually attached a bayonet to their AR-15, and I believe that 99% of AR-15 owners don't even own or care to own a bayonet.
As you can see, once you learn about these so-called "evil features" that define a so-called "assault weapon," you begin to see that behind the curtain sits an uninformed fool. The politicians who scrabble together the legislation have no education regarding firearms, and are navigating by feel. Now you know better.
II. Reasons why an assault weapons ban will not save lives.
A. Pistol vs. Rifle Caliber Irrelevant at Close Range
Modern pistol chamberings are more than effective at killing at close range, including but not limited to: 9mm, .45ACP, .40S&W and .357SIG. For example, on April 16, 2007, on the campus of Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people and wounded 17 others using a pistol chambered in 9mm as well as one chambered in .22LR, the latter being one of the weakest pistol calibers available. In 1999 the Columbine massacre primarily involved 9mm rounds. 9mm is by far the most popular handgun chambering round worldwide, with .45ACP a close second in the U.S. Therefore, concerns over weapons chambered in more powerful rifle rounds are moot, because common pistol calibers are already extremely effective. Banning certain firearms, in part because they are chambered in powerful rifle rounds will not save lives.
By way of analogy, this is akin to banning 500 horse power sports cars out of concerns that they have the ability to travel far in excess of a 75 MPH highway speed limit. Such a ban would be senseless because even a 250 HP motor can accelerate a car to dangerous speeds, and in fact even a 120 HP motor can. All modern cars can hit 125 MPH and above, even with only 4 cylinders, which is extremely dangerous on trafficked roads in the US. Worrying about and banning a car that can hit 150 MPH or 160 MPH is somewhat pointless, and in point of fact, AFAIK there is no legal limitation on horsepower or how fast a car is capable of going with respect to being sold, manufactured or possessed in the US.
Concern over cartridge power might be relevant if indeed mass shootings ever took place at distances of 100 yards or more, but these are extremely rare, and in any case, a typical hunting rifle would be a more effective tool for that task. In 1966, this is what a shooter did on a Texas college campus, killing several students from a tower at long range using a hunting-style rifle. It is true that in 2002 the so-called Beltway sniper used and AR-15, but in that case the rifle was used in a manner similar to a hunting rifle, i.e. one well placed shot for each kill and not as a rapid-fire weapon. The shooter took only a single shot from one location hidden inside the trunk of a car, and the driver then sped away to a completely new location.
B. Magazine capacity irrelevant and banning high capacity magazines will not save lives.
C. Semi-automatic irrelevant and will not save lives.
This argument is based on pure ignorance of what revolvers based on 19th century designs are still capable of, primarily because revolvers re no longer featured much in movies and TV. But some sportsmen still use them, and millions are still used for self defense. With practice, a revolver is just as capable of being a tool for mass murder:
Even a cowboy lever action rifle can inflict serious damage:
Again, this 1800's-era technology in the three videos above.
In conclusion, gun ban legislation is conjured up by folks who have very little or any knowledge of firearms at all. Clearly, any firearm is capable of killing large numbers of people in a short amount of time. Therefore, bans on so-called "assault weapons" is nothing more than smoke and mirrors designed to:
a. Give the public (and politicians) a false sense of security and control over violence.
b. Distract from the fact that the US has deplorable mental health care policies.
c. Distract from the fact that pop culture pumped out by Hollywood and video game makers contributes to a culture of violence.
d. Attack people on the conservative end of the political spectrum, who are more likely to own firearms and oppose gun bans.
e. Attack people who belong to the sub-culture of gun enthusiasts, who others don't understand and therefore fear and demonize. Jews have known and suffered this trait of human culture for centuries.
Short answer: banning high capacity magazines will not save lives.
1. Reason #1: Magazines can be quickly swapped, even before they are empty (i.e. when convenient for the shooter) such that whether a shooter carries one 30-round magazine or three 10-round magazines makes no difference. Check out USAMU member Travis Tomasie:
If you watched carefully, he only took 6 shots from each magazine! I think the video speaks for itself, case closed.
2. Reason #2: Magazines are based on the exact same design as a simple PEZ dispenser. It is very easy to either modify an existing magazine or make a new one into a "high capacity magazine." If someone set on mass murder cannot buy one, he/she will just make one.
It seems to me that most people who propose bans on high capacity magazines don't really know what a magazine is or how it functions. So hopefully some of them will read this. If as a kid (or adult) you ever ate PEZ candy with PEZ dispenser, you need to understand that firearms magazines are pretty much designed exactly the same way. The website collectingpez.com has this diagram of a PEZ dispenser taken apart (and what kid didn't take his/hers apart?):
And here is a Hello Kitty PEZ dispenser in action:
I think you can see it would not take a mechanical genius to create a "high capacity" PEZ dispenser. Just lengthen the inner sleeve and inner sleeve spring. It can be done with simple hand tools, or if you want to get serious, use a "3d Printer" (an inexpensive home CNC machine).
Most firearms magazines are no different. Here is a diagram of the internals of a Glock handgun magazine:
And here is a disassembled AR-15 magazine:
So unless you are the kind of person that struggles to change a light bulb, I think you can grasp the concept that magazines are primitive devices that can and are made and modified at home.
Very good condition WWII German 98k Mauser rifle that has the “ar 43” code on the receiver for production by Borsigwalde in 1943. This rifle was later reissued to Israeli forces after the war, where is was converted to 7.62 NATO, or .308, caliber. The Nazi eagle proof on the receiver was peened and replaced with a Star of David
Even if you're not in the market, it's worth a click to see the pictures of this special part of Jewish history. Current bid is $155, and my guestimate is that it will go for $300-$500.
As always, I have nothing to do with the auction and buyer beware!
(If you are researching Israeli Mausers, you can follow the Israeli Mauser tag to see all my posts on the subject.)
UPDATE: It sold for $405. Mazal tov to both buyer and seller.
A little late in reporting it, but a couple weeks ago I shot a smallbore match, this time with the Anschutz 1807, a rifle I had not touched in more than few months. The match started well, and I completed the Dewar stage of the match (20 shots at 50 yards, 20 shots at 100 yards) with an Expert score, dropping only 5 points. The rest of the match did not go so well score-wise, but only because I decided to conduct some experiments with canting the rifle a bit, because it felt more comfortable to do so. That tightened the groups and allowed me to relax more in position, but it took me some time to figure out the sight adjustments due to the canting. When you hold the rifle at an angle, then sight clicks are going to move in two planes, so for example, a right click will not click so far right as a level rifle, and will actually angle up a bit.
I think I am having to cant the rifle because the stock is too thick where I am gripping it. My stock was made for 3P, not pure prone, so it is thicker (taller) near the trigger guard and then gets thinner towards the muzzle, so that the rifle sits higher in the standing position. What I may do instead is try to move my hand further forward to a thinner part of the stock and maybe I'll feel less need to cant. Some people just take a file or rasp to the stock and thin it out where there hand is, but I'm not prepared to do that to this stock. I have been thinking that maybe my prone position is a little high off the ground, so moving that support hand forward is a good experiment for that issue as well.
Whatever the case, once I get settled in I'm pretty confident I can sustain an Expert score with just a little more consistent smallbore practice, instead of going months at a time between matches and never practicing with that rifle. I'm toying with the idea that after I finally shoot an Expert score with the Israeli Mauser I'll focus on making Expert in smallbore, then go back to High Power (with a new bolt match rifle I haven't even shot yet) and finally chase High Master XTC with serious prone skills.
Well, one step at a time, for now my focus is on the Israeli Mauser and proving it can shoot an Expert score in reduced High Power. I have had a minor breakthrough on the SCATT with the Israeli Mauser. I tried a narrower aperture in the rear Mojo sight, such that it creates a thin ring of white around the front sight. This has greatly improved alignment and on the SCATT I am shooting 95+% in slow prone. That is a major missing piece of the puzzle to making Expert with the Israeli Mauser, as all of my sitting and standing positions have both had 90%+ scores in matches, but prone has been dragging down the aggregate instead of lifting it (like it does for most shooters).
And readers, remember, I'm happy to report about your shooting competition escapades as well! Don't be modest and don't be ashamed!
In light of recent events, the "gun control" debate has resurfaced in the American consciousness. And with it, the search for who to blame for recent tragedies. To those who know Jewish world history, it would be surprising if some segments of society didn't blame the Jews. Well, sure enough, I suspect some hate-filled people may be headed down that path.
As I have previously written about, there are a (perhaps surprising) number of Jews in the firearms industry. I actually know of more than I've written about, but those folks have asked me to respect their privacy. We certainly don't dominate the industry, but like all productive and respected social endeavors (like business, science, academia, law, medicine) Jewish participation is disproportionate to our numbers. We are underrepresented in the welfare and prison populations. Both good things.
So today on Gawker.com, editor Drew Magary wrote an attack piece against the CEO of a gun manufacturer, whose name happens to be Ron Cohen. The piece is laced with profanity. All of the Elders of Zion themes are in play, where Magary portrays Cohen as a shadowy, greedy character hiding behind Gentile front men. The deceptive Cohen has deceived innocent gun owners into thinking they need guns, caring more about profit than human life. One senses a theme that Cohen is a hook-nosed puppet master destroying good, honest, Christian society. Magary writes [censored by me]:
And Ron Cohen—F**KHEADED A**HOLE RON COHEN WHOSE NAME SHOULD BE IN
BRIGHT SHINY LIGHTS ABOVE TIMES SQUARE SO THAT EVERYONE KNOWS PRECISELY
WHO MAKES THE GUNS THAT ARE USED TO KILL PEOPLE
Now, I am not the ADL--I don't cry antisemitism every time a Jew or Israel is criticized. Read the piece and decide for yourself whether some of the ancient antisemitic themes haven't been put in play. I think they are.
DISCLOSURE: I have no idea whether Ron Cohen is Jewish, I never confirmed it. But with a surname like Cohen, odds are he is Jewish.
Posts
