by Dominick Pisano

I am convinced the answer is a qualified YES! First, some background. I can remember a time when you could purchase a Mauser M-98 almost anywhere, in every gun shop or hardware store. What’s more you could buy them in any of the models you liked, such as the Kar 98, large ring, small ring, the G 33-40, the Polish Radom or VZ-24 and the Argentine M-1909.You name it, they were available and the cost was only $29.95. I remember selecting a particularly excellent model M98 and then putting off the purchase because I knew I could come back later and still make the purchase, or better yet, find a finer specimen.

Those were the days and I admit that was a long time ago.. The point I am making is that while all of the above was true the supply of Mausers eventually dried up. Today you are indeed lucky to find a decent action for less than $200, and by “decent” I mean an action that is described as “NRA Good” with the caveat “requires a bit of TLC” attached.

That brings me to the Mosin-Nagant rifle.

Read more in our May 2013 issue. Back issues are available.

Don’t miss a single issue. Subscribe now or renew your subscription.

by Chick Blood

It was Wednesday at the Sands Convention Center. The annual Adult Video drink-as-much-as-possible- while- wearing-as-little-as-possible clambake wasn’t due in at the Hard Rock until Thursday. The store manikin wearing nothing but a bra had me thinking otherwise until I saw she was the centerpiece of the Deep Conceal booth in the lower level of the Sands. Then I noticed the bra was wearing something. It turned out to be a new product named BRAT. The Deep Conceal management type in attendance said it was, “Very easy to use and extremely comfortable.” I couldn’t find a live model to check out the claim so I took his word and switched my attention to another new product named The Stick Up. It’s a combination of a Velcro pad and a holster that make it possible to secrete a CCW under a chair, a desk and in a purse or briefcase. In another application, the Stick Up lets the CCW owner hide a small handgun on the sun visor of his or her car.

Speaking of concealing, by Friday there was a lot less of it happening at the Hard Rock. Proof positive this was fact dawned on me at about 4:30 PM up on the SHOT Show main floor. Manning in the hundreds of booths had morphed to minimal.

Read more in our May 2013 issue. Back issues are available.

Don’t miss a single issue. Subscribe now or renew your subscription.

by David W. Manney

A customer brought in a Western Field SD14A that was firing when the bolt closed. I first looked in the Numrich Gun Parts Brand Cross Reference guide and did not find it listed. It wasn’t listed in Jack First Gun Parts Reference Book, either. After examining a similar Savage/Stevens shotgun I was able to determine I had a Stevens 39A, essentially the same as the Stevens 59A, B and C with minor changes.

The Sears 101.125 and 101.600, Western Field 14 and SD14A are all basically the same gun. All of these guns were a .410 bolt action with a five shot tubular magazine. The model 39A was made from 1939 to 1947, while the model 59 was made into the 1960’s. The model 59 has the takedown screw in front of a stamped steel trigger guard. The 59B has a black forend tip. I was not able to find a 59C to know the difference from the others.

Read more in our May 2013 issue. Back issues are available.

Don’t miss a single issue. Subscribe now or renew your subscription.

Chiefs are at the beck and call of their political bosses, mayors and city councils. One interviewed chief stated, “We chiefs get our opinion on firearm ownership when it is issued to us.” An interviewed sheriff noted, “There is an active debate between sheriffs and chiefs that is affected by the big city chief culture because chiefs tend to emulate each other.”

If big city politicians are against gun ownership and the chief doesn’t agree, he could be fired or demoted by the mayor or city council. In most towns over 50,000 population chiefs are paid between $70,000 and $140,000 a year plus benefits and retirement, $200,000 plus in larger cities with some earning over $300,000. They want to hang onto that position and may appear supportive of those appointing them, even if these officials posture against citizen firearm ownership. Some chiefs may personally believe in gun control, especially if they were appointed by those in power at the time. Whenever an anti-gun official wants a show of supportive “top cops”, chiefs appear or advised to get their resume updated.

Sheriffs are a different breed. They are elected by the people and do not have to appease city council or mayor. Sheriffs represent the majority of citizens who directly voted them into office. Yes, there are some sheriffs that believe in gun control but nothing near the number of apparently supportive police chiefs. Most sheriffs take their Oath supporting the Constitution very seriously. While they currently follow and enforce Constitutional applicable federal, state and county laws, they reserve the power invested in their oath and position as elected officers of their county to resist or not to enforce Constitutional infringing law if or when that might come. If that were to occur, the state police and/or federal government may be ordered to step into that particular sheriff’s county to enforce those particular unconstitutional laws. The ramifications of those legal incursions might be very interesting to watch, especially, we were told, if that particular sheriff is actively supported by the citizens of that county.

The bottom line is city, state and federal chiefs sometimes bend to the will of their political masters. Something to consider in various anti-gun press conferences with police officers in the background.

Read more in our May 2013 issue. Back issues are available.

Don’t miss a single issue. Subscribe now or renew your subscription.

I know who the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense is. I know most of the other members of the President’s Cabinet. But I am unfamiliar with this Secretary of Need and am unsure about the Department of Need he—or she—heads up.

There certainly must be one because all I hear on television are officials in the US Government outlining what our citizens don’t need. For instance, I understand that we don’t need a “military-style assault rifle.” We don’t need clips OR magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Or is it 7 rounds? I’m sure they’ll let us know the final number of rounds we need.

I am so very thankful that we have a Government and a Congress there to make these important decisions for us but am concerned that the Secretary of Need is too narrowly focused on guns. He/she needs to provide further guidance on other questions of need. For instance:

Nobody needs a motor vechicle that goes faster than highway speeds. The Secretary of Need should limit all vehicles to a top speed of 5, maybe 10 miles over the highest speed limit. Imagine the number of lives that would be saved.

Nobody needs a closet full of shoes. I’m sure women—and men—can do with a few total pairs of shoes to cover all possible footwear requirements.

Nobody needs that many 24-hour news networks, and judging by the ratings of MSNBC it’s pretty clear that most Americans feel the same way. One less cable news channel won’t be missed.

Nobody needs a keg of beer. Unless you are a bar or restaurant there is absolutely no need for one of these high-capacity alcohol containers that are designed to do just one thing: Get people drunk as fast as possible. Countless lives have been lost due the the unrestricted access to these high-capacity alcohol devices. Limiting the capacity of alcohol containers available to individuals to something along the lines of just 6 cans or bottles would save lives. Even if we saved just one life, it would be well worth it.

Nobody needs the ultra-violence of professional football. With all the data on head and brain injuries and the off-the-field violence, especially towards women, removing the hitting from football and replacing it with, what is arguable the equally thrilling, touch or flag version of tackle football makes sense. Reasonable people can agree that eliminating the hitting in football doesn’t stop anybody from playing football. Even the President himself, as a parent, has voiced concern about tackle football, giving the Secretary of Need plenty of political clout to “tackle” this critical issue.

This is just a short list of things we don’t need but it’s ample evidence for why we do need a Secretary of Need to make for us the difficult yet important decisions. The Declaration of Independence identified the “unalienable Rights” of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” but the Founding Fathers didn’t mean “unlimited” life, liberty and happiness. Some reasonable restrictions must apply and we have the Secretary of Need to guide us…whoever they are.

Read more in our April 2013 issue. Back issues are available.

Don’t miss a single issue. Subscribe now or renew your subscription.