Don’t give up if a replacement firing pin is unavailable from your catalog suppliers. Instead, use these tips to solve the problem.

Here are all the items tested in Gun Tests magazine from 2011 back through 1999.

The group Media Matters for America hates NRA. Few organizations have more strongly proclaimed their disdain for our right to keep and bear arms and self-protection, says the NRA-ILA.

Lethal Force Institute’s Massad Ayoob gives a lesson on what to do if you are stopped with firearms in your vehicle. These essential tips will teach you how to safely interact with police when carrying a firearm while driving. (3:47).

Gun Reports - News

SHOT Show Rides
High-Gun Sales Figures

(GunReports.com) -- Nearly 60,000 firearms industry professionals made their way to the annual Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show (SHOT Show) Jan. 17-20 in Las Vegas to get a first look at the new products and services debuting in 2012.

The $4.1 billion industry continues to be a bright spot in the anemic U.S. economy, as sales in 2011 topped the previous year's. Through December, adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check statistics, an indicator of industry sales, showed 19 straight monthly increases over the same period of the previous year, and background checks for Black Friday, Nov. 25, set a new one-day high.

"We are grateful and proud that our industry has helped maintain jobs from the manufacturer through retail levels during these difficult economic times," said President and CEO Steve Sanetti of NSSF.

The 34th annual SHOT Show will take place for the third straight year at the Sands Expo and Convention Center. The largest trade show of its kind in the world, the SHOT Show attracts buyers from all 50 states and more than 100 countries.

Tweet

Reader Comments

So many guns, so little time.

Comment by: david b | January 19, 2012

Yes, the sales data for December were historic; 1.5M NICS with 500,000 the last 6 days. December 23 was 2nd highest after this year's Black Friday which was 32% above prior Black Friday 2008 record...achieved "days after Obama was elected!"

With a Wall Street, Cayman Island tax dodging MA Rockerfellar Republican who increased firearm ownership cost 400% while in office, "created and implemented the precursor to ObamaCare," and seeks "global warming carbon taxes"....payable via a Goldman Saxe owned exchange....OR a serial adulter, an ideological promiscious beltway insider whose "home wrecker wife" is counting on being 1st "Lady".......expect 2012 to also be a "banner year" for guns and ammo!

Comment by: DAVID D | January 19, 2012

I sure liked the modified AR that Red Jacket built last night on their show.

Mitt will be just another asshole.

Comment by: Cecil B | January 19, 2012

I sorta share your concern about Romney, Cecil. I figure that guys like Romney and Christie, who call themselves Republicans, but who are elected in states dominated by Democrats, are likely to be RINO.....Republican In Name Only. Now, before all the Democrats start yelling, I am well aware that many of them are staunch defenders of the Second Amendment, just as we are. The thing that peeves me about guys like Romney, and all of the other so-called "front runners" is their failure to take a stand on the Second Amendment. The NAGR has been hounding them to complete their survey concerning Second Amendment rights, but in true politically expedient fashion, they have failed to respond.

Comment by: canovack | January 19, 2012

Colonel - I don't think Romney is 'your guy' on guns. He's not even my guy on guns. I got this in today's e-mail: http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/mccain-opposition-research-gives-further-insights-into-romney-on-guns?CID=examiner_alerts_article

It's just a damned shame that the GOP's 'most electable' guy is pretty much just a pale Obama, huh? And the rest of the field is clowns.

Can't you GOP guys PLEASE find a nice, conservative but not insane, Goldwater kinda guy? America would jump at any reasonable alternative to the kind of guys who get to Washington these days. Why do you think Ron Paul is polling so well after all these years of being ignored? It looks like he'll make the primary, and I'll be there to vote for him. But not for Romney, not for Gingrich, not for in-Sane-torum. I won't vote for a theocrat, won't vote for a serial liar and marital cheat who changes his mind more often than my daughters, and won't vote for a republican who's not a shade different from Obama. If I want Obama again, I'll vote for Obama - but I don't.

Comment by: david b | January 19, 2012

I know, david b. It just seems that all things political have just turned to shit. I will vote for anybody who goes up against Obama, because I just cannot abide another four years of his arrogant socialist shit. It is really hard to get enthused about this election.....

Comment by: canovack | January 19, 2012

David - can't you Dem's find a decent, respectable candidate??? ;)

Comment by: PVB | January 23, 2012

Methinks we are ALL depressed. Another 4 years of Buckwheat and I will be ready to move to Panama. We have really screwed the pooch this time.

Comment by: Cecil B | January 23, 2012

P V B - I don't know. Nobody is trying. They've got BO in the White House, so they're not looking for anyone else - just like there was no GOP contender other than Bush in '04.

But heck, one out of one is hit or miss, but 0 out of 8 is pretty darned bad. Isn't there anyone in the GOP who will run and doesn't sound like Comedy Central when they talk? You almost had a chance with Ron Paul, but he's not really a Republican now, is he? Still, if the GOP voters push him in the primary, I'll vote for him.

Comment by: david b | January 23, 2012

Correct for now; but in 2008 the Dems didn't exactly have any winners either, nor in 2004 before that. The problem is not one of party affiliation; rather it is the overall dysfunction of the process, how it affects who is willing to run, and how those potential candidates are vetted by the party bosses. When is the last time you were able to vote for a candidate you liked, and not one who was the lesser of two evils?

Comment by: PVB | January 23, 2012

Agreed about the process, and I'd be more than happy to see space aliens descend on that town and take them all away for food or something. The only problem with that is that those aliens would probably suffer the same symptoms we do when we eat a bad burrito. And THAT would fall from the skies - but maybe they'd get to Chicago before having to flush the blackwater. (Hmm. Is that name a coincidence do ya think?)

Last time I liked a candidate? Goldwater - but I was in high school then. Last time I could VOTE for a candidate I liked? Since then I've voted for a few I thought I liked, but found out each time that I'd been lied to. Once they say "I do" (as in promise to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the US), they DON'T. I'm a victim of multiple counts of false advertising! But then, so is every other American living under those presidents. Me - I can't think of a single one since Kennedy that I'd vote for today if he was running again. Carter and Ford both seemed relatively innocuous, but not very effective either. The rest can 'eat (stuff) and die', as they say.

Comment by: david b | January 23, 2012

I honestly don't know where we are heading. We just cannot abide another four years of BHO, but the field of possible contenders is so weak..... Whoever gets the Republican nomination will get my vote, since I cannot feature Obama in a secure position as a lame duck. I think he will get really dangerous if that happens.

Comment by: canovack | January 23, 2012

Colonel, I too will vote for the Republican and hope it isn't Gingrich cause I would hate to vomit on a voting machine.

As for the "aliens" you mentioned david, perhaps just a rectal probe. LOL.

Comment by: Cecil B | January 23, 2012

What is it that we often hear from the establishment lackeys....."for the greater good"? Well, Cecil and all, a vote for whoever is the Republican nominee.....against Obama.....is "for the greater good".

Comment by: canovack | January 24, 2012

Well, let's hope that if the opponent is Gingrich, then the party potentates will assign him a good VP candidate. Impeaching Gingrich for extra-marital hanky-panky would be a slam-dunk because it's like an addiction to him. He'd get a dose of what he gave Clinton, in spades, and in a hurry. Talk about a guy who can't keep it in his pants - Newt is THAT guy.

I'm not so sure, in fact, that he and the circus that will follow HIM are for the greater good Colonel. America's interests are not going to be well served by a quick impeachment for playing around, and the months of bad press that will come out of it, and the black eye this will give to 'social conservatives' who vote for him, put him in office, and then try to justify him poking his business where it doesn't belong and explain how that is about the 'sanctity of marriage'. This will not do the nation any good whatsoever. As much as you dislike Obama sir, I suggest that there may be devils WORSE than the one you know. And of course, they will lie to you and say they aren't devils at all, until you've elected them. That's what devils do.

Comment by: david b | January 24, 2012

Now here is a thought from someone who is not that bright (me). Let's take whatever the Republicans throw at us, just to send BHO packing.

It will take the new guy 2 years to find all the shitters in the white house, so he won't do much.

Then, perhaps SOMEONE, can come up with a viable, Harry Truman type to run the next time. Hell, they can't mess things up too much in 4 years and for us old farts, it just won't matter much in anything they do.

Comment by: Cecil B | January 24, 2012

What ever might follow Gingrich into the White House, if he IS the GOP candidate, isn't likely to be as hard on the USA as the current occupant is now and will be if he has another four years with which to screw up the country. I cannot, and really, WE cannot permit Obama a second term in which he will go unchallenged in his quest to lead us into a socialist totalitarian quagmire. Yes, guys, I believe a vote for ANY candidate who is running against Obama is a vote "for the greater good".

Comment by: canovack | January 24, 2012

Agreed.

Comment by: PVB | January 24, 2012

Just watched BHO's State of the Union; early into his 1 hour long diatribe he stated that "Cost's in China are going up and he was just told by the CEO of a Milwalki based company has now hired more workers and running full steam"....The CEO was the CEO of MASTERGUARD........America's PADLOCK King!

Rush will have a field day with this tomorrow!

Comment by: DAVID D | January 24, 2012

I watched it too. To me, it was just more bullshit from Washington. But then, I am very cynical.

Comment by: Cecil B | January 24, 2012

Well, Cecil, ya don't have to be cynical to see that Washington just isn't doing what we pay it to do. That's why I am spreading the ABI (Anybody But Incumbents) idea. While I am not a Tea Partier, if the ABI concept catches on, and people really follow it, we could effect changes in Washington..... Changes that we can live with and work with, and maybe even of which we can be proud.

Comment by: canovack | January 25, 2012

You got me on board. But we need to do some more housecleaning too. I was thinking about this after I got my latest NRA mag. Chuch Schumer, M. Bloomberg and Diane Feinstein are all beating the drum against the 2A. All are Jews. What I find interesting is that in Israel, EVERYONE has an Uzi (for good reasom I might add), I just found it to be intersting.

Comment by: Cecil B | January 25, 2012

Cecil B - That's not all that strange. There is a 'thing' in Jewish culture that is self-destructive in that they would prefer to be defenseless and rant about abuse over defending themselves. Rabbi Bendory at the JPFO.org writes about this issue, as did it's founder Aaron Zelman. Both decry this attitude, write about religious instruction requiring self-defense, and Mr. Zelman even mentions that it's the patriotic duty of American Jewry to arm themselves to protect this nation, as it's the best home Jews have had since Rome took over Israel - in spite of the anti-Semitism they sometimes encounter. So I too find that contrast with Israeli culture, um, puzzling at the least.

But, they aren't the only anti-gun folks in Congress. Curiously, most black representatives of the people are anti-gun as well. Apparently they don't realize either that their best defense against racial violence is to own a gun and use it.

And then of course, there are those who are just dumb on their own about guns with no cultural reason for it!

So is anyone on this board either Jewish or Black - or both? Would you care to try to explain some of this cultural stuff to the rest of us?

Comment by: david b | January 25, 2012

Agreed, david b. I have never been able to figure why those populations who have been the most victimized are the ones who are usually most vociferously against anybody having the ability to defend themselves. Perhaps it is a Utopian view that if everybody were disarmed, everybody would be better off. Since realistic thinkers know that is fallacious thought, one must then consider some sort of genetic predisposition to fallacious thought might be extant in those populations. Or, perhaps there actually is some sort of socio-religious flaw prevalent in the populations who have been most victimized. Whatever it is, it boggles the mind, and it is even more frustrating, because we all personally know of people from those populations who do embrace the concept of armed self-defense, while most of their brethren are quite willing to turn the other cheek.

Comment by: canovack | January 25, 2012

We need Gaviota's psychiatric expertise on this one...

Comment by: PVB | January 25, 2012

canovack - I'm not entirely sure it's so much genetic or socio-religious in nature. I suspect it's more of a human psychology thing, like Stockholm Syndrome - where a captive begins to associate favorably with the captor. I think it may be a sort of "they used guns to exact this violence upon us, so if they didn't have guns we'd have been safe" kind of thinking.

Of course, it would be more logical and true to think that guns on both sides would have made for mutual respect or at least tolerance - and would have avoided the violence - but that doesn't seem to happen in the minds of victims. Once victimized, it seems a victim seldom thinks rationally about the experience.

Comment by: david b | January 25, 2012

Or perhaps, simply a fear developed as a result of the harm; like someone being afraid of dogs because they were charged or bitten as a child. (Probably kinda what David was saying.) It could also be a completely irrational fear of the unknown, like being afraid of the dark. In both instances, an open mind can overcome these fears, but it requires an open mind, and positive experience. In my experience, "haters" seldom have an open mind....

Comment by: PVB | January 25, 2012

I think the key word that keeps appearing is "IF". And to that, I say, if frogs had wings, their asses wouldn't hit the ground when they hop.

I also point to our problem, South of the border. Does anyone think the cartels could have intimidated the Mexican population as they have done, if the Mexicans were as heavily armed as we are in the United States? Kind of like Hitler marching through Europe.

Comment by: Cecil B | January 25, 2012

I hope I didn't give anyone the impression I was making excuses for anti-gunners - I was really just trying to figure it out. I think that if you can understand why somebody believes what they do, you have a mutual understanding (not necessarily an Agreement, just an Understanding), and from there you can try to change their thinking because you know where to approach their beliefs in your efforts. If you can find 'common ground' at that place, you may win them over - or at least change them from enemies to something more tolerant or even friendly.

P V B - you may have stated that fear of the result concept better than I did. Thanks. Yeah, I think that is it - and that kind of fear can be learned by children readily, so it continues long past the original harm.

Cecil B - IF frogs had wings, they likely wouldn't hop, so that not hitting their butts on the ground is a moot point there buddy. But I do think you're right about Mexico and Europe - if everyone were armed and confident about defending themselves there would have been no Hitler and there might be drug cartels but no murder epidemic. And if this country had constitutional carry laws and no gun restrictions, we'd have one heck of a lot less serious crime too. I'd say it would be virtually none.

Comment by: david b | January 25, 2012

Had to finish in a new comment to avoid being rejected for comment size....

And of course we'd have a smaller, more honest and more helpful government too - not to mention more responsible. But where evil feels it can act openly and without accountability, it will do so.

I have a Brit friend I met here on a visit from the UK shortly after 9-11. He made a comment about them not understanding 'American penchant for violence'. I didn't quite understand what he meant, but I think tonight I finally do.

He comes from a nation where they suffered a governmental fear of the result of weapons misapplied. So the government itself lobbied the nation for and got approval for gun restrictions. And the more the did that, the higher the crime rate went, so more and more people were suffering from the result of being violently attacked while defenseless - resulting in more and more demand for further restrictions.

No wonder they don't understand that Americans want to fight back immediately. We always could, always did, and still have that ability. So when attacked our first thought is not 'call the bobbies', it's 'how fast can I get my gun out?'.

Somehow, they've been conditioned to think that if they can't resist violence they have a better chance of survival, while we know that if we do resist, we do have a better chance of survival. You know, they depend on the kindness of a criminal to not be hurt. How stupid is THAT?

Comment by: david b | January 25, 2012

Jewish, Black or Mexican/Latin American, the commonality is a gross unfamiliarity and association with firearms or, actual/perceptional negative association/experience. Most Mexican immigrants were simply forbidden, or not in a socio-economic class as to be exposed to firearms at all. Black opposition is urban Black's and Jewish is predominately urban with a small percentage of educated professional well heeled surburbanites who were never exposed to firearms and culturally raised anti-firearm...by previously urban generations.

Rural and surburbanites, excluding Eastern Anti-firearm metropolitian areas, are overwhelmingly pro firearm ownership.

Comment by: DAVID D | January 25, 2012

Our "penchant for violence" is a myth spread by Hollywood and the media. Our violent crime rate is far lower than most other parts of the world, and the Brits have no room to talk, because every time I've been overseas, they are the first drunken fools to start a fight. Further, the crown has unleashed violence upon its subjects for centuries, to include very recent history, such as in Ireland. "We" are our own worst enemies!

Comment by: PVB | January 25, 2012

AND one has to remember Chamberlain, that went to Germany in 1939 and let Hitler blow smoke up his ass till the bombs started falling on London. Lots of bobbies carry firearms, illegally, because of that stiff upper lip horseshit that the Brits have been spouting for years. Man up Limeys. Bad people are bad people and for the most part, can't be reasoned with very well. Hence, lots of them in prison.

By the way guys, here in San Antonio, 2 home owners have smoked intruders in the past week. But, one good samaritan, I think in New Orleans, was trying to foil a car jacking in progress and got killed for his efforts. Might have had a different outcome had he been armed.

Comment by: Cecil B | January 25, 2012

And it is like MY hero (Dirty Harry) once said, "there's nothing wrong with killing as long as the right prople get killed".

ya just gotta love him.

Comment by: Cecil B | January 25, 2012

Cecil - that "made my day!"

Comment by: PVB | January 25, 2012

Wow. I didn't mean to get y'all stirred up, I was just telling a story there. We seem 'violent' to them because we resort to violence as a tool of self defense against violence. They resort to hoping they survive and hoping the cops catch the bad guy - so of course we seem violent to them. Anyone accustomed to a timid response would think someone who responded boldly was 'violent'.

Cecil - I thought that somewhere in the last 20 years the Crown had started issuing firearms to police, or at least permitting them to carry them. Am I wrong? Is it still illegal?

Comment by: david b | January 25, 2012

Not entirely david. SOME bobbies in SOME areas are armed but the majority are still going at it with a baton. But I hear that some that patrol the really shitty parts of London pack anyway.

And you didn't get us stirred up, LOL. It's just that the police don't stop crimes now, they just record them.

Comment by: Cecil B | January 25, 2012

That's fer sure. These days I think Barney Fife has a piece of chalk in his shirt pocket, where he used to keep his one bullet - back when he had one.

Comment by: david b | January 26, 2012