They may be familiar to some, but not every gunsmith knows the ins and outs of drill bits. Here are the basics.

The graceful, light, and distinctive L.C. Smith Hammerless Double sidelock is a favorite of American shotgunners. Here’s how to fix its most common problems. If you own a Smith and want to make it suitable to shoot again, or if you are presented a Smith to repair, here’s what you need to know about the shotgun.

In June 2010, Kahr Arms purchased Minnesota-based firearms manufacturer, Magnum Research, Inc., maker of the Desert Eagle Pistol and BFR Revolvers in .44 Magnum, .45 LC/.410 or .45/70. Kahr Arms offers a selection of other niche-type firearms, such as the “Tommy Gun” and Auto-Ordnance line of M1 .30 caliber carbines. In this video, Gun Tests Contributing Editor Roger Eckstine shows off two of the company’s big-hole BFR wheelguns.

Beretta USA introduced the BU-9 Nano as its entry into the pocket 9mm pistol category last September. Initial shipments of the American-made pistol left the Accokeek, Maryland factory beginning in November 2011, with a suggested retail price of $475. In this video, Gun Tests’ Contributing Editor Roger Eckstine gets a detailed explanation of how easy the Nano is to break down for maintenance. The Nano's modularity provides for simple disassembly and easy cleaning. Safely disassemble the pistol by first engaging the striker deactivator, a patent pending safety mechanism that eliminates the need to pull the trigger prior to disassembly.

Gun Reports - News

Jeff Knox

Evil + Stupid = Bipartisan

We are now just a couple of months from the midterm elections and the political gamesmanship has begun to heat up. It was former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson (a Republican) who declared that in America we have the Evil Party, and the Stupid Party, adding that he belonged to the Stupid Party. For those committed to restoring and protecting the rights of gun owners, the labels are broadly accurate. While there absolutely are Democrats who are personally committed to individual rights, the Democrat Party itself is not only opposed to gun rights, they lie about it. There are two basic policy positions for Democrats on guns and they both start with politicians declaring, "I strongly support the Second Amendment."

Members of the first group are generally part of the "Blue Dog" caucus, representing rural areas. Most of them are hunters and gun owners who actually believe that they support the Second Amendment, but they also tend to support their party on what they call "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership and possession reasonable restrictions which are clear violations of the Second Amendment. Under no circumstances does their support for the Second Amendment trump their obedience to Party Leadership either. Granted, the existence of "pro-gun" Democrats probably helps to reduce the amount and severity of gun control proposals introduced or advanced in Congress, but it's been a long time since a "pro-gun" Democrat broke party discipline to help pass a pro-rights measure, defeat an anti-rights bill, or block confirmation of a rabidly anti-gun presidential appointee.

The other group of Democrats who "strongly supports the Second Amendment" are those who are simply lying.

John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama fall into this group. Even notoriously anti-rights Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has claimed to support the Second Amendment.

There might be a few Democrats who haven't been able to bring themselves to declare support for the Second Amendment, but the official party line is broad support for the constitutional right, while interpreting it in the narrowest terms, and doing all they can to undermine and dismantle it.

Appointing and confirming Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices who are hostile to the Second Amendment – or any other part of the Constitution – is a travesty and an unforgivable sin, yet we see Democrat Senators who claim to be staunchly pro-gun like Tester and Baucus of Montana, Casey of Pennsylvania, and Webb of Virginia, casting votes for the likes of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Republicans, on the other hand, are generally supportive of the right to arms, but few of them have any more understanding of the issue than do the Democrats. They definitely lack the resolve and the backbone to vigorously oppose the Democrats' attacks on the Constitution and the President's appointments of radical extremists to the courts and high level government positions.

Under the new Democrat power structure the President will be able to simply declare his desire and his minions in the various bureaucracies will fulfill his wishes – without all of the mess and smell of going through Congress.

The next such bypass could directly impact shooters as the EPA is considering a petition to ban all traditional, lead-based ammunition from hunting and possibly even target shooting. The petition claims that raptors such as Bald Eagles are eating remains of game animals and contracting lead poisoning from remaining bullet fragments. The fact that there is no scientific evidence to back up this claim is unlikely to interfere with enacting a lead bullet ban because doing so would help further two fundamental objective of Democrat leadership: making the "environmental movement" happy, and making it harder, more expensive, and more troublesome to own and use firearms.

If Republicans don't discover some spine soon and start fighting Democrat assaults on our system of government and our way of life, the voters might be so frustrated and fed up that they shift to third-party candidates or not to bother voting at all. Either way, that would leave Democrats in control and the destruction of the Constitution would be accelerated.

The Republic is in grave jeopardy and the "leaders" in Washington are either participating in its destruction or uselessly wringing their hands.

Reprinted with permission.

Full text is available at www.FirearmsCoalition.org. The Firearms Coalition is a grouping of organizations and individuals committed to the restoration and defense of firearms civil rights. The Coalition comprises over 3000 individual members and almost 1000 member organizations.

Reader Comments

Yes, and the lead from a deer hunter's bullet got into the ground water and poisoned millions as well! When WILL the Republicans grow a spine in regard to gun control and the 2nd?????? The Republicans had a convention to discuss apathy and no one showed up.... Let's hope for a better showing in the upcoming Nov. elections. Semper Fi

Comment by: Sharps | August 19, 2010

I'd love it if the GOP grew a spine. They seem to confuse bitching about everything with backbone. Besides, I'd also like to see them stand up to corporate interests and vote for their constituents' benefit, instead of lining bankers pockets with our money.

Maybe then I could switch parties - but right now I consider the corporate buy-out of Congress to be the biggest threat to our national survival, period. And I can't join the Big Biz party girls over there at the GOP until they go straight.

Comment by: david b | August 19, 2010

Well jeez, david b, just which party would you be switching from? Your comments about the GOP are spot on, but the Dems are even Bigger Biz party girls then the GOP, just a different core of businesses, not to mention unions, gays, and everything else corrupt! I would imagine few here are fans of the GOP at this point in time, but if you enjoy freedom, you can NEVER vote Democrat!

Comment by: gunsdontkill | August 19, 2010

The answer, my friends, is TERM LIMITS. More "lame duck" politicians means they might actually vote in their constituents' best interest and worry less about being reelected (and adherence to party doctrine to continue receiving financial support from their respective national committees). We would see less embedded corruption as with Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters, or Tom Delay from the Stupid Party. "Congressman-for-life" was not what our founding fathers had in mind.

Comment by: JOHN R | August 19, 2010

A majority of the American voting public lack the intelligence and/or the will to enforce term limits at the ballot box. W. Turner

Comment by: solipsist | August 19, 2010

Its going to be an uphill battle for several years to overcome what academia has done to our country>>>If your canadite does not KNOW and SUPPORT the WHOLE Constitution--Show him/her the door...

Comment by: Carl Casino | August 19, 2010

gunsdontkill & John R - Amen!

Comment by: P V B | August 20, 2010

Term limits for Congress certainly has been the common cry as of late, and it sure sounds GOOD! But, I’m not convinced that it is the answer to our Constitutional offenses and all associated woes. While George Washington set the example that ultimately led to term limits for the Presidency (to prevent a tyrant from maintaining office), I’m not aware of any such example for Congress. The Executive office is one thing but our representatives are quite another. What if we were to elect a representative who was truly loyal to the Constitution and, at the same time, served his [non-corporate] constituency well? Wouldn’t we want to keep him? I can’t imagine that our extraordinary and divinely inspired framers could have forgotten Congressional term limits if they were indeed good and necessary. Besides, how do you get disloyal Congressmen to vote for their own demise by enacting their own term limits? These greedy cowards in office won’t even vote against their own pay raises [IN THE WORST OF ECONOMIC TIMES]!

It seems to me the ONLY way to take back our country, return to the God inspired ideas of the framers and heal our land is to put an end to the corporate lobby for ALL parties, nullify the 17th amendment, and educate our children on tyranny, freedom and our blessed Constitution. If all of these were met, we wouldn’t need (nor want) Congressional term limits and could return to a pre-Woodrow Wilson America!

Am I wrong comrades..er, uh, I mean, brothers?

Comment by: gunsdontkill | August 20, 2010

Carl Casino, I think you are confusing academia with greed. It may take decades to overcome what greed has done to Congress.

Comment by: Sharps | August 21, 2010

Carl & Sharps are both right. Academia has infected the minds of our countrymen, and greed has ruled congress. What a mess. It's truly frightening. I meet people everywhere who don't even know what evil is. But all I can say is without an armed citizenry, it's game over!

Comment by: gunsdontkill | August 21, 2010

As some may recall, I once got into a fairly heated and protracted debate in this forum concerning party loyalty. My decidedly conservative outlook and approach has routinely seen me supporting the Republican Party. While I no longer am a member of the RNC, I cannot envision ever supporting a Democrat for the reason that most (but not all Democrats) are avowed enemies of the Second Amendment. Now, I suspect that if my choices of candidates included a pro-Second Amendment Democrat versus an anti-Second Amendment Republican, I would indeed support the pro-Second Amendment candidate. It is interesting that here, in Texas, we actually do have some pro-Second Amendment Democrats, however I am fortunate in that my representatives are pro-Second Amendment, and I do not have to cross the liberal stream to have my Second Amendment rights protected by my representatives.

Comment by: canovack | August 23, 2010

Just a thought- if you don't like "evil' or 'stupid' check out Libertarian. You might be surprised by some sensible ideas.

Comment by: John666 | August 26, 2010

Canovack, we seem to agree on the dangers within the RNC and DNC. Your comment here is well stated and understood. However, as vital to our freedom and country’s well being as the 2A is, the defense of the 2A is decidedly necessary but not the only basis for voting for a particular political candidate. Your comment states, contrary to this article, that there are Democratic candidates in Texas who are (or perhaps appear to be) pro-2A. So, my questions to you are; Are those Texas Democrats willing to break their Party’s line and forfeit the funding of their next campaign? Do those Texas Democrats, while alleging the support of the 2A, favor the redistributive entitlement programs that are destroying our nation and the American incentive? Are those Texas Democrats willing to spend your hard earned money to the point of bankruptcy? Just curious.

Comment by: gunsdontkill | August 27, 2010

Gunsdontkill, I get your point concerning the so-called "other issues" beside the Second Amendment. Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I might have been when I said that "I am fortunate in that my representatives are pro-Second Amendment, and I do not have to cross the liberal stream to have my Second Amendment rights protected by my representatives". My two senators and one congressman are all Republicans.....same for my state senator, state representative, and local pols. I agree that if the other issues you mentioned were at odds with my views, it would likely cause some degree of consternation in my selection of a candidate for whom I would vote. That said, however, since this forum is one in which we deal with the single issue of Second Amendment rights, I will reserve consideration of those "other issues" on a case-by-case basis. It is wise to keep in mind, however, that if we lose our Second Amendment rights, those "other issues" are likely to pale in comparison to what we lose when they come after our guns.

Comment by: canovack | August 27, 2010

As I have said before, if we lose our guns, it's GAME OVER!

Comment by: gunsdontkill | August 27, 2010

While I do agree with the spirit of GAME OVER, if we lose our guns, I believe, in practical terms, that whatever form our government may take, there are going to be lots of guns in the hands of private citizens for a long, long time to come. All one needs to do is look south of the Rio Grande for an example. Mexico has some of the most onerous gun laws on the planet, yet the nation is awash in firearms of every conceivable type.....in the possession of private citizens. Also try as their governments might, the Brits, Aussies, and Canadians still have firearms in the hands of private citizens.

Now, with the examples cited above, we estimate that there are between 80,000,000 and 120,000,000 gun owners in the USA. When you also consider that most of us who are really enthusiastic about gun ownership own lots of pieces per individual, it becomes a task of staggering proportions for a government to attempt to disarm its' populace.

The point I am enunciating is that Americans are not going to willfully give up their arms. A government may outlaw all private ownership of firearms, but that government will never be able to effectively enforce such laws. Hell, the IRS still can't effectively enforce our tax laws. Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto probably said it best when he opined "It would be folly to invade the United States of America, for there would be an armed citizen behind every blade of grass".

Comment by: canovack | August 27, 2010