After some thought, you have made the decision to purchase your first handgun. You have visited with friends and read several articles on various guns. While you may believe you are ready to head to the register, I would suggest we make sure you are buying what you really want and need. There are several things that people rarely consider when they head out to buy their first blaster. So grab a seat and let me share a few things to consider.
1: Small guns are not always the best guns.
The number of micro pistols on the market has grown exponentially and is showing no sign of slowing. These guns can be very well made and easy to carry, but they are also, in most cases difficult with which to train. Their super small size reduces mass which in turn puts more felt recoil into the hands of the shooter. The word “snappy” is used quite often when discussing these small guns. If you absolutely must have a small gun for concealed carry, then this may still work for you. Just make sure you try before you buy.
2: “I carry a .45 because they don’t make a .46.”
The “which caliber is best” argument is still raging, but modern ballistic testing has proven that the 9mm round performs on par with its chubbier .45ACP counterpart. The upside is higher magazine capacity with the 9mm. The .45ACP is still a formidable round, but I would lean towards having additional ammunition in the magazine.
3: Just because your new handgun has a place for a weapon light, laser, bayonet and blender doesn’t mean you should put it all on there.
While some full -size handguns are designed to accommodate accessories, these items add weight and bulk. If this is going to be an everyday carry gun, I encourage you to dress it up with everything and see if you can carry it concealed. Chances are the gun will be back to bare bones in short order.
4: The price of a handgun generally correlates with the overall reliability and function of said gun.
The purchase of a handgun should be considered an investment. This is especially true if it is a personal defense weapon. If you come across a handgun at bargain basement pricing, you should ask yourself if you are willing to trust it to defend your life. The adage of “buy once, cry once” really applies here.
5: Feel matters.
What this means is that no matter how many people are telling you to buy gun X or gun Y, it needs to be a personal decision. How the gun feels in your hand is very important and honestly one of the biggest things you should weigh. As long as you stay with a respected manufacturer you cannot go wrong by using “feel” as your final decision point. If the gun feels good, you will perform better with it and in turn enjoy your new purchase even more.
For several years the FBI has been operating a shadow gun ban regime whereby Americans who are not prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law are being denied their Second Amendment rights without due process. This extralegal practice was brought to light again in recent weeks in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit case Turaani v. Wray. The case revealed that the FBI’s current administration of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System amounts to a may-issue gun purchasing scheme that is incompatible with the proper adjudication of a Constitutional right.
For more than a decade, gun control advocates and their allies in Congress have pushed legislation that would prohibit those on one of the federal government’s watch lists from purchasing firearms through the NICS system. As the federal government’s watch lists are oftenerroneous and the procedures for placing an individual on them are nebulous, opaque, and do not comport to any reasonable standard of due process, such legislation would empower the government to extinguish Americans’ Second Amendment rights with nearly unfettered discretion.
Given that such measures are a threat not only to Americans’ Second Amendment rights, but also their First and Fifth Amendment rights, NRA has been joined by the American Civil Liberties Union in opposing this dangerous legislation. NRA is not opposed to prohibiting dangerous individuals from possessing firearms, but the government must be forced to prove that an individual is dangerous by securing a conviction against them in a court of law.
Despite Congress having repeatedly rejected this may-issue scheme for gun ownership, the FBI has pressed forward with their shadow gun ban.
In 2013, the Congressional Research Service published a report titled, “Terrorist Watch List Screening and Background Checks for Firearms.” The document made clear that the FBI was checking the government’s watch lists during NICS background checks. Moreover, if a person came up on a list the transfer would be flagged and delayed. The report explained,
As part of the background check process, NICS typically responds to a federally licensed gun dealer, otherwise known as a federal firearms licensee (FFL), with a NICS Transaction Number (NTN) and one of three outcomes: (1) “proceed” with transfer or permit/license issuance because no prohibiting record was found; (2) “denied,” indicating that a prohibiting record was found; or (3) “delayed,” indicating that the system produced information suggesting that there could be a prohibiting record.60 In the case of a possible watchlist match, NICS sends a delayed transfer (for up to three business days) response to the querying federally licensed gun dealer or state POC. During a delay, NICS staff contacts immediately the FBI Headquarters’ Counterterrorism Division and FBI Special Agents in the field, and a coordinated effort is made to research possibly unknown prohibiting factors. If no prohibiting factors are uncovered within this three-day period, firearms dealers may proceed with the transaction at their discretion.
Therefore, the FBI delays, as a matter of practice, firearms transactions involving individual for whom they have no information suggesting they are prohibited from possessing firearms. This would be bad enough if it involved a temporary delay, however, the FBI does not clear the delay. Rather, the non-prohibited individual must rely on the Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL or gun dealer) to proceed with firearm transfer once three business days have elapsed since the NICS check was initiated, as they are permitted to do by law. Such “default proceed” transfers are at the FFL’s discretion and some FFLs are reluctant to transfer a firearm under these circumstances. If a person delayed in this manner is unable to acquire the firearm from a reluctant FFL after a default proceed, the FBI has denied a non-prohibited individual their right to purchase a firearm.
In Turaani v. Wray, the FBI went a step further.
According to the facts presented in Judge Jeffrey Sutton’s opinion, in 2018 the plaintiff (Turaani) attempted to buy a firearm from an FFL. The requisite NICS check resulted in a delay. Then, as Sutton described,
The next day, FBI agent Jason Chambers went to the dealer’s house, which doubled as his place of business, to speak to him about Turaani. Chambers wanted to see what information Turaani had provided about himself and explained that “we have a problem with the company” Turaani “keeps.” He showed photographs of Turaani with another person of apparent Middle Eastern descent, whom the dealer did not recognize. And Chambers left his contact information with the dealer.
Turaani followed up with the dealer a few days later to purchase the gun. The dealer explained that he had received a visit from the FBI. While he “technically could sell the gun” because the three-day delay had passed without further prohibitions on the sale, the dealer told Turaani that he was “no longer comfortable doing so.
To recap, the FBI delayed the firearm transfer of a non-prohibited individual merely due to “the company” he “keeps.” Then the FBI paid a visit to the FFL that all but assured the firearm transfer would not go forward. Of course, freedom of association is an essential component of the First Amendment right.
Following the FBI’s actions, Turaani then filed suit, claiming that the federal government had impermissibly restricted his rights. However, the Sixth Circuit ruled for the government, claiming that while the FBI did share information with the FFL that made the dealer reluctant to transfer the firearm, they did not force the FFL to halt the transfer.
What the court failed to fully appreciate is that FFLs are licensed by the federal government and subject to its oversight. There is an obvious measure of coercion attendant a visit from the FBI to an individual whose livelihood is directly regulated by another branch of the Department of Justice.
The FBI’s shadow ban regime could be used to target any number of politically disfavored groups and individuals.
Consider the 2009 U.S. Department of Homeland Security report “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” The report explicitly targeted Second Amendment supporters and returned military as potential terrorists, stating,
The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
Further targeting gun rights supporters for heightened scrutiny, the report went on to explain,
Weapons rights and gun-control legislation are likely to be hotly contested subjects of political debate in light of the 2008 Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the Court reaffirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but left open to debate the precise contours of that right. Because debates over constitutional rights are intense, and parties on all sides have deeply held, sincere, but vastly divergent beliefs, violent extremists may attempt to co-opt the debate and use the controversy as a radicalization tool.
In recent months, rhetoric about using the federal government to target those with divergent political views as “terrorists” has reached a fever pitch. The ACLU and other civil libertarians have warned about attempts to empower the federal government to pursue a new and misguided domestic war on terror. Former CIA Director John Brennan even suggested that the national security apparatus be turned on libertarians.
As bad as the current shadow gun ban regime is, there is legislation moving through Congress to make it even worse. H.R. 1446, would eliminate the three-day default proceed on NICS checks and would empower the FBI to indefinitely block FFLs from transferring firearms.
Under the bill, there would no longer be a set timeframe under which the FFL could proceed with a transfer if the FBI failed to give a definitive answer to a NICS check. An unresolved delay would become a presumptive prohibition on the transfer, even if the FBI never identified a disqualifying record.
Instead, the intended transferee – who already filed the Form 4473 with the FFL – would have to file a second petition with the government making the exact same declarations of eligibility and, once again, asking the FBI to rule on the matter.
But what would happen if the FBI didn’t resolve the follow-up petition?
In that case, the bill would require the FFL to wait at least 10 additional business days from the date the intended recipient filed the petition to consider making a default transfer. How the intended recipient is supposed to prove to the FFL the petition was even filed in the first place is not specified. This onerous and nebulous appeal procedure would only serve to exacerbate the threat posed by FBI’s current abuses.
The prejudices and unproven hunches of federal bureaucrats should never determine the exercise of a Constitutional right. That is why NRA members and other gun rights supporters must continue to work to oppose legislation that would give the federal government further discretion over the exercise of Second Amendment rights or compound the government’s current abuses.
In my humble opinion, it is a pity that this excellent looking rifle was not chambered in a more standard caliber. Like say The 270 or the 308. Then this would be a really good and useful rifle. But instead it is in the VERY hard to find caliber of 280. But then that is the way the cookie crumbles I guess! Grumpy
This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (January 2013)
|Place of origin||USA|
|Variants||.280 Ackley Improved|
|Bullet diameter||.284 in (7.2 mm)|
|Neck diameter||.315 in (8.0 mm)|
|Shoulder diameter||.441 in (11.2 mm)|
|Base diameter||.470 in (11.9 mm)|
|Rim diameter||.473 in (12.0 mm)|
|Case length||2.540 in (64.5 mm)|
|Overall length||3.330 in (84.6 mm)|
|Case capacity||67.9 gr H2O (4.40 cm3)|
|Rifling twist||1 in 10 in (250 mm)|
|Primer type||Large rifle|
|Maximum pressure||60,000 psi (410 MPa)|
|Test barrel length: 24″
Source(s): Accurate Powder
Having been released 32 years after the .270 Winchester, it had somewhat unspectacular sales. Remington renamed the cartridge in late 1978 to 7mm-06 Remington but just before the end of the year they renamed it again calling it the 7 mm Express in an attempt to increase sales. This resulted in people confusing it with the 7 mm Remington Magnum, and Remington changed the name back to .280 in 1981.
The .280 is based on the .30-03 necked down to accept 7 mm (.284 in) bullets, with the neck moved forward .050 in (1.27mm). The neck was deliberately moved forward to prevent chambering in a .270 Winchester rifle, as firing a .280 round in a .270 rifle could cause the projectile to get stuck in the barrel or rupture the barrel due to excessive pressure.
Original loads were 125, 150 and 165 grain bullet weights.
.280 Remington vs .270 Winchester
The .280 Remington is capable of generating slightly higher velocities in heavier bullet weights (150 grains and above) than the .270 Winchester due to a marginally greater case capacity. However the ballistic coefficient of equal weight bullets favors .270 caliber bullets over 7mm (.284) bullets of similar design. In the heavier bullets (150 grains and above) of similar design the .280 Remington has a slight edge in muzzle energy.
With equal weight bullets of similar design the .270 Winchester surpasses the .280 Remington’s long range velocity and energy due to the 270’s higher ballistic coefficient according to Federal’s ammunition catalog. There are also many more factory loads available for the .270 Winchester over the .280 Remington at a lower price point due to the .270’s much greater popularity.
.280 vs .30-06
The .280 Remington is capable of developing energy nearly equal to the .30-06 Springfield, but with lighter bullets having a better ballistic coefficient. The .30-06 produces more energy than the .280 with bullets heavier than 180 grains, though .284″ 175 grain bullets have a high sectional density of .310, compared to the 30-06 180 grain bullet with a moderate sectional density of .271. The .280 is suitable for hunting any game in North America with good shot placement.
SAAMI pressure limit for the .280 Remington is set at 60,000 PSI, 50,000 CUP.
Most American rifle and ammunition manufacturers catalogue the .280 Remington.
In Europe the .280 Remington is not popular in bolt action rifles since it competes directly with the 7×64mm, which is of the almost exact same size as the .280 Remington but has slightly more power, because of having a slightly higher maximum allowed chamber pressure. The .280 Remington does, however, have a larger than expected number of European users in imported self-loading rifles such as those by Remington.
The .30-06 is substantially more popular and manufacturers thus offer a much greater selection of loads at a substantially lower price point.
While it is true that a .280 Remington case can be formed from a .30-06 Springfield case, the case length of a .30-06 is 63.3 millimetres (2.494 in) while the case length of a .280 is 64.5 millimetres (2.540 in), the same as a .30-03 Springfield. However, “The slight difference in length of reformed cases doesn’t make any practical difference.” 
.280 Ackley Improved
One of P.O. Ackley’s earliest wildcats was the 7mm-06 Improved, which was made by necking down the .30-06 Springfield case and fire-forming it to have less body taper and a 40-degree shoulder angle. Soon after the .280 Remington came out, Fred Huntington reformed its case to an improved configuration with minimum body taper, a 35-degree shoulder angle, and called it the .280 RCBS. Since cases for the .280 RCBS could be formed by firing .280 Remington ammo in a rifle chambered for the former, Ackley abandoned the 7mm-06 Improved and started chambering rifles for the .280 RCBS. He then changed the 35-degree shoulder to 40-degrees and the .280 Ackley Improved was born. If barrel length and chamber pressure are equal, the .280 Ackley Improved is about 100 fps faster with all bullet weights than the standard .280 Remington. In 2007, ammunition manufacturer Nosler registered the .280 Ackley Improved with SAAMI and began providing factory loaded ammunition and rifles for it.