Uncategorized

The 30-40 Krag Rifle

Image result for The .30-40 Krag rifle
Image result for 30-40 krag round

Image result for us 30 40 krag rifle
Krag-Jorgensen .30-40 Krag rifle and cavalry carbine

Service history
Type	Rifle
Place of origin	United States
In service	Army
Used by	United States
Production history
Designed	1892
Specifications
Case type	Rimmed, bottleneck
Bullet diameter	.308 in (7.8 mm)
Neck diameter	.338 in (8.6 mm)
Shoulder diameter	.423 in (10.7 mm)
Base diameter	.457 in (11.6 mm)
Rim diameter	.545 in (13.8 mm)
Rim thickness	.064 in (1.6 mm)
Case length	2.314 in (58.8 mm)
Overall length	3.089 in (78.5 mm)
Case capacity	58.0 gr H₂O (3.76 cm³)
Maximum pressure (C.I.P.)	47,137 psi (325.00 MPa)
Maximum pressure (SAAMI)	not established
Maximum CUP	40,000 CUP

The .30-40 Krag (also called .30 U.S., or .30 Army) was a cartridge developed in the early 1890s to provide the U.S. armed forces with a smokeless powder cartridge suited for use with modern small-bore repeating rifles to be selected in the 1892 small arm trials.
Since the cartridge it was replacing was the .45-70 Government, the round was considered small-bore at the time.
The design selected was ultimately the Krag–Jørgensen, formally adopted as the M1892 Springfield. It was also used in M1893 and later Gatling guns.

History and development[edit]

Though the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps had adopted limited numbers of smokeless powder, bolt-action rifles, the .30-40 was the first cartridge adopted by the US Army that was designed from the outset for smokeless powder.
After a brief experiment with a 230-grain bullet loading, the .30 Army loading was standardized in 1894 using a 220-grain metal-jacketed round-nose bullet with 40 grains of nitrocellulose powder.
This loading developed a maximum velocity of 2,000 ft/s (610 m/s) in the 30-inch (760 mm) barrel of the Krag rifle,^[2]and 1,960 ft/s (600 m/s) in the 22-inch (560 mm) barrel of the Krag carbine.
The rimmed .30-40 round was also known as .30 Army, or .30 U.S. Although the .30-40 Krag was the first smokeless powder round adopted by the U.S. military.
It retained the “caliber-charge” naming system of earlier black powder cartridges, i.e. a .30-caliber bullet propelled by 40 grains (2.6 g) of smokeless powder.
The first use of a smokeless powder round by Winchester was a single shot in 30-40, and it was one of only three rounds chambered for the 1895 Winchester lever action, introduced in 1896.^[3]
From the outset, the .30-40 cartridge proved popular for hunting, and was chambered in a variety of firearms.
In 1899, a Krag in .30-40 caliber was used to shoot the world-record Rocky Mountain elk. The record stood until the latter half of the 20th century.
In October 1899, after reviewing the experiences of the Spanish–American War.
U.S. Army ordnance authorities developed a new loading for the .30 Army used in the Krag rifle, in an attempt to match the ballistics of the 7×57mm Mauser cartridge employed by Spanish forces in that conflict.
The new loading increased the muzzle velocity in the rifle version of the Krag to 2,200 ft/s (670 m/s) at 45,000 psi.
However, once the new loading was issued, reports of cracked locking lugs on service Krags began to surface.
In March 1900 the remaining stocks of this ammunition (some 3.5 million rounds) were returned to the arsenals, broken down, and reloaded back to the original 2,000 ft/s (610 m/s) specification.
In 1903, after recommendations from the infantry Small Arms Board, the U.S. Army formally adopted a higher-velocity .30-caliber replacement for the .30-40 or .30 Army cartridge.
The new cartridge was designated by its year of adoption, the

A replica of the McKeever-pattern .30 US Army cartridge case.

All About Guns

Some more Colt Porn

Colt 1860 Army Model, Civil War-Era, Inspected, Replated 8” Single Action Percussion Revolver MFD 1863

In its day. This was the Glock. That & it is just amazing that its in such good condition to boot!

Colt 1860 Army Model, Civil War-Era, Inspected, Replated 8” Single Action Percussion Revolver MFD 1863

Gear & Stuff

A Good Rant from Kim!

Pack Sizes

OCTOBER 3, 2017 KIM DU TOIT THE GUN THING

As manufacturers of consumer products juggle the balls of sales, cost and price, they come up with all sorts of schemes to “fool” customers — the snack bar people like Cadbury or Hershey are experts at this, decreasing the product’s size without raising the price thereof, so that people think that they’re still paying the same for that chocolate bar, and they are, except that they’re in essence paying more per ounce. It’s an old game, and one that I’m fully familiar with (and one that everybody should be fully familiar with, by the way). And as long as it happens with non-essentials like snack bars, I’m indifferent.
Unfortunately, now we seem to be facing this nonsense in our most basic of commodities, .22 ammo. Here’s an example, in an online flyer I received in the old Inbox just yesterday:

We’re all used to the venerable 500-round “brick” (as seen in the Remington Thunderbolts), of course, which is basically just a combo pack of the normal 50- or 100-round boxes. But we also see CCI’s little sneaker: the 300-round box which keeps it well below the $25 price point and Federal’s 275-round box which keeps the purchase below the $20 price point; but on a per-round basis, the ammo is horribly expensive. For those who don’t want to do the arithmetic:
Thunderbolt — 6 cents per round
CCI — 6.25 cents per round
Federal — 5.8 cents per round
Likewise, at the bulk end of the scale, we find products like this:

…which equates to 7.9 cents per round. Note that the quantity is 1,575 rounds and not the “three-brick” 1,500 rounds, making brick-by-brick price comparisons impossible without a calculator.
Indeed, all this pack-size differential seems to be designed on just that basis: to confuse the consumer. Certainly, it’s not to overcome pack design constraints or anything like that. So here’s my call to the ammo manufacturers:

Quit fucking us around with this nonsense. Sell your ammo in quantities of 50, 100 and 500, just like you always did, and quit trying to hide the fact that your company’s .22 ammo has become too fucking expensive to support a plinking habit.

I note, incidentally, that Lucky Gunner helps its customers by ranking their .22 ammo on a cost-per-round basis, which makes me smile because you can get to the heart of the matter easily when faced with a choice like this:

…just in case you didn’t notice that the “lower price” on the Browning applies to 400 rounds and not, like Aguila’s, to 500 rounds.
By the way: I love what Lucky Gunner is doing, but they are not always the cheapest, e.g. on the aforementioned Remington Thunderbolt 500-round brick, where the flyer’s price is $29.99, and LG’s is $38.75. But to be fair, the flyer’s price is a “closeout” deal (like they’re going to ever quit selling Thunderbolts — it’s probably a one-off loss leader ad item, more likely) whereas LG’s price is an everyday price.
Also, caveat emptor: a lot of times, the “great deal” you get on ammo isn’t, once you factor in the S&H costs — which differ widely between suppliers.
I’ll be talking a little more about the .22 LR thing in a later post. And just for the record: unless I’m buying target .22 LR, I refuse to pay more than 8 cents per round for the stuff. Even that price sticks in my craw, but I reluctantly accept the fact of supply and demand, and inflation, albeit with snarling hostility. My go-to CCI Mini-Max 40-grain ammo used to cost $5.99 per hundred — I have ummm several boxes with the price tag on them, dated 2006 — and now it costs $7.99. It’s like the ammo manufacturers don’t want us to shoot anymore.

(Note that in all the above, I’ve used 40-grain bullets as the common factor, and ignored any perceived quality differences in the brands. Frankly, .22 LR ammo is plinking feed, and unless you get a dud rate of more than 0.5%, they’re all pretty much of a muchness. Target/match .22 ammo is another story, and I’m not talking about that here.)

All About Guns

A Uberti Model 1873 in Caliber .45 Long Colt

Post author By Grumpy
Post date January 6, 2018
No Comments on A Uberti Model 1873 in Caliber .45 Long Colt

California Well I thought it was funny!

In Oregon it is now legal to offer self-service gasoline

Post author By Grumpy
Post date January 6, 2018
No Comments on In Oregon it is now legal to offer self-service gasoline

This state is even crazier than California in some ways!

Well I thought it was funny!

Not for those guys!

Inline image 1

Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! California Cops

You have a better chance with the lottery!

Post author By Grumpy
Post date January 6, 2018
No Comments on You have a better chance with the lottery!

Connected, Skirts Own Policies

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2017

L.A. County Issues Carry Licenses to the Well-Connected, Skirts Own Policies

With 42 states and the District of Columbia now recognizing the Right-to-Carry, California’s retrograde may-issue Carry Concealed Weapon licensing regime is atypical.

However, a recent state audit of three of California’s CCW license issuing authorities shows that Los Angeles County does operate much like another large jurisdiction, New York City, when it comes to granting licenses.

That is, licenses are reserved for the well-connected and officials don’t bother to follow the rules when issuing them.

Under California law, a sheriff of a county may issue a CCW license to an applicant upon receiving proof,

(1) The applicant is of good moral character.

(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.

(3) The applicant is a resident of the county or a city within the county, or the applicant’s principal place of employment or business is in the county or a city within the county and the applicant spends a substantial period of time in that place of employment or business.

(4) The applicant has completed a course of training as described in Section 26165.

Statute does not further define “good moral character” or “good case,” which gives a local sheriff’s department significant discretion to determine the criteria necessary to acquire a permit in their jurisdiction.

Los Angeles County has a written Concealed Weapons Licensing Policy that elaborates on what the sheriff’s department considers sufficient “good cause” to merit a license. The policy states,

good cause shall exist only if there is convincing evidence of a clear and present danger to life, or of great bodily harm to the applicant, his spouse, or dependent child, which cannot be adequately dealt with by existing law enforcement resources, and which danger cannot be reasonably avoided by alternative measures, and which danger would be significantly mitigated by the applicant’s carrying of a concealed firearm.

Moreover, the policy makes clear that “No position or job classification in itself shall constitute good cause for the issuance, or for the denial, of a CCW license.”

It is exceedingly difficult for a law-abiding citizen to meet Los Angeles County’s criteria for a CCW license. Los Angeles County has issued 197 licenses to its 10.2 million residents. This works out to about 1 license for every 50,000 residents.

The audit, conducted by the California State Auditor, researched samples of 25 CCW licenses issued by three sheriff’s departments, Los Angeles County, Sacramento County, and San Diego County.

For Los Angeles, the auditors concluded that the county “did not completely adhere to its policies when issuing any of the 25 CCW licenses we reviewed.” The researchers also determined, “Los Angeles issued all but one of these licenses without the level of documentation it expects to demonstrate that the applicant has met the good cause requirement.”

Rather than require the level of documentation for “good cause” outlined in their policy, Los Angeles County simply granted licenses to the well-connected. The auditors found the following,

22 of the 25 CCW licenses we reviewed were issued to applicants with professions that connected them to the law enforcement community: the individuals were former or current law enforcement officers, judges, court commissioners, retired federal agents, and deputy district attorneys.4

In fact, we found that of the 197 licenses that Los Angeles had issued that were active as of mid-August 2017, only nine were issued to applicants outside of that community.

As pointed out earlier, Los Angeles County’s written policy states that “No position or job classification in itself shall constitute good cause for the issuance, or for the denial, of a CCW license.”

The auditor’s report shares the story of a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge who did not provide information of a personal threat to his safety on his license application, as required under county policy.

This judge was granted a license. The report then contrasts this case with that of a worker who stated that he wanted a license because “he worked in undesirable and remote areas and carried large amounts of cash.” This individual’s application was denied. The audit report called Los Angeles County’s practices judging “good cause” for issuing licenses “inequitable.”

The auditors also found that Los Angeles County failed to obtain requisite documentation concerning some licensees’ residency, “moral character,” and training.

In contrast to Los Angeles County, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department has a more lenient policy concerning “good cause.”

At the direction of Sheriff Scott R. Jones, Sacramento considers self-defense or the defense of other sufficient to meet the “good cause” requirement.

This has resulted in far more permits being issued in Sacramento County than Los Angeles County. With a population of 1.5 million, Sacramento County has 9,130 CCW license holders.

Sacramento County’s shall-issue carry regime is part of what prompted the state audit.

In a letter responding to the auditor report, Jones explained that following the failure of legislation put forward by NRA F-rated Assemblymember Kevin McCarty that would have made it more difficult for ordinary Californians to acquire CCW licenses statewide.

The Assemblymember targeted Sacramento and other shall-issue carry jurisdictions for retribution. Jones’s letter notes, “Assemblymember McCarty threatened on social media on December 21st, 2016, to use the legislative audit function to intervene in my and others’ CCW permit processes because of his legislative failures. This audit is a consummation of that threat.”

However, the audit didn’t come to McCarty’s desired conclusions. The state auditor did not recommend that his legislation be adopted. Further, concerning Sacramento’s policy, the auditor report explained,

Although we believe the differences between Sacramento’s criteria for good cause and the criteria of the other two departments are most likely the reason for the higher number of licenses it issued during the period we audited, we cannot conclude that a higher rate of license issuance is necessarily a harmful effect of local discretion.

The California State Auditor’s office was right to describe Los Angeles County’s permitting procedure as “inequitable.” May-issue licensing regimes have always been ripe for this type of abuse.

In the early 20th century, New York’s Sullivan Law was used to prohibit immigrants from owning handguns. In the 1950s, civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. was denied a carry permit in Alabama.

This year, officials from the New York City Police Department’s License Division were indicted on federal corruption charges for what amounted to selling handgun licenses.

Members of Los Angeles County’s law enforcement community should be able to exercise their Right-to-Carry for the defense of themselves and others.

However, the county’s law-abiding residents should have that same opportunity. Until California and the small handful of holdout jurisdictions join the 21st century and respect the Right-to-Carry, these abuses will continue.

Of course, given ongoing federal litigation and legislative efforts on the Right-to-Carry, sometime soon the regressive politicians of these backwards enclaves may no longer have a say in the matter.

All About Guns