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

Does the Second Amendment Apply in Chicago?

(GunReports.com)--Damon W. Root, writing on Reason.com, says, "Last year’s landmark Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller definitively settled the fact that the Second Amendment secures an individual right—not a collective one—to keep and bear arms. Yet that ruling applied only to the federal government (which oversees Washington, D.C.). Does the Second Amendment apply against state and local governments as well?"

He continues, "Through a series of legal decisions handed down over the past century, the Supreme Court has gradually held that most of the protections in the Bill of Rights apply to the states via the 14th Amendment, which declares, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Second Amendment, however, has been glaringly absent from this process, leaving state and local governments free to systematically violate gun rights.

"Until now.

"Later this term, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, a case that centers on whether the Windy City’s notorious handgun ban violates the 14th Amendment. As we’ll see, it most certainly does. The text of the 14th Amendment, the historical events leading to its adoption, the goals of its framers, and the statements of purpose made both by its supporters and by those who ratified it, all point in the exact same direction: The amendment was designed to secure individual rights—including the right of armed self-defense—against abusive state and local governments."

Reader Comments

If the 2nd doesnt apply to Chicago, then we should sell the city and its political offal to Canada, and use the money to help wounded veterans.

Comment by: P V B | March 4, 2010

As I understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is no question that all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights pertain, without reservation to "all of the people". That said, "all of the people" means the people in every state of the USA. It really shouldn't require the collective wrangling of nine Supreme Court prima donas to figure this out, however this is the system we have espoused, so now we await the outcome. Changing focus a bit.....Since we keep hearing that the Heller decision reaffirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms only in DC, because it is a federal enclave under federal jurisdiction, an interesting corollary comes to mind. All US military installations are federal enclaves operating under federal jurisdiction. In view of that, is anyone considering a legal challenge to the archaic military regulations that prohibit the carry of functioning, loaded weapons on the individuals as they carry on their day-to-day activities on these installations? It is obvious that had the folks at Fort Hood been exercising their rights on 5 November, the terrorist Hassan would have been brought to bay long before any duly authorized police officers took him down. I wonder if there is a rich attorney or organization that has the moxie to bring that litigation to bear.

Comment by: canovack | March 4, 2010

Canovack - I have heard from reliable sources that some installations have beefed up security by having designated CCW's whenever they have large groups. Unfortunately, tat didn;t help Ft Hood. Though I am not a huge fan of how restrictive the military typically is, I do (and did when I was sworn) respect their sovereignty on the issue. Most distasteful was having to register your firearm with PMO (Provost Marshall) if you wanted to bring it aboard. If you live on base housing and collect guns....

Some questions - What would you do with personal firearms when a unit has to deploy on short notice? What would you do with a personal firearms when the member deserts or is medically evacuated?

Comment by: P V B | March 4, 2010

I once sent a Marine to two separate courts martial. He was a deserter, who was "awarded" a BCD, and upon his release bought a 1911 look-alike BB gun from the PX. He used that BB gun to shoot at other Marines in the squad bay. I got the CO to authorize a probable cause search, found that "weapon" along with several others, and sent him back to court. Another 6 months in the brig, another BCD. Had he not started shooting at other Marines, he'd have been discharged the next day.

I also had a scout sniper draw his personal handgun from the armory, per protocol, to use over the weekend. When he returned from the range, the OOD (Officer of The Day) was not available to turn it in, again per protocol, so he held on to it until Monday. The problem was, Saturday night (actually Sunday morning), after some heavy drinking, he and his buddies decided to take it "out back" and bust some caps. Fortunately, the hillside absorbed all impacts, which combined with his service and combat record, kept him out of a court martial, though he was busted and restricted. Unlike my first scenario, this man was a Sergeant of considerable experience.

Though aboard federal installations, service members typically have to comply with state law as as well; such as driver's licensing, marriage, and drinking.

Finally, as we are going to espouse that we should trust our troops sent into harm's way, so too should we trust the commanding generals to make the right decisions for their bases and units.

Comment by: P V B | March 4, 2010

As a retired Army officer serving from 1963 to retirement in rank Lt Col in 1984, I have maintained a collection of firearms throughout my career. Yes.....I did have to register my pieces with the PMO, thereby providing me the where with all to shoot regularly on post. When the collection became too large, the PMO gratiously required me to register only the pieces that I intended to use on post.....with the proviso that any unregistered weapons would have to remain in my quarters. For married soldiers, when they deploy, their weapons remain with their dependents. The problem for nonmarried soldiers is where do they keep the pieces. I'd guess that when single soldiers deploy with their unit, their personal weapons simply stay locked up in the unit arms room, unless the single soldiers live off post. That situation could likely be ameliorated by trusting the pieces to friends or by having them locked in the unit arms room. When any unit or individual deploys to a combat theater, they are denied the use of their personal arms, so they must leave them behind. I recall when I went to Vietnam, I did want to take a personal weapon with me as a "belly gun" (I have been a supporter of back-up firearms for all of my adult life). I simply slipped it into my baggage, and nothing detrimental ever came of it. Bringing it home, along with some other pieces I gathered from my exploits, also presented no problem. I do figure that I may well have enjoyed the fruits of being a commissioned officer, and that enlisted troops have a much more difficult time with personal weapons. Anyway, I still believe there is an accommodation that can and should be made for carry of personal weapons on a military installation. For openers, it might go something like the recent decision concerning national parks. If the state in which the federal property is located provides for carry of personal concealed weapons then the federal property could follow suit.

Comment by: canovack | March 4, 2010

Our procedures were pretty similar for deployment, though the single guys - troops or officers - had the big challenge, especially on short notice. In an entire battalion armory, I don't think I ever saw more than a handful of personal firearms.

I always lived off base (long waiting lists for housing), so the only toys I needed to take to PMO were ones I intended to shoot at the base ranges. They (toys) also needed to go to the armory for an LTI. One exception was at The Basic School in Quantico. Their approach was since "you are all officers and have 'special trust and confidence' we trust you" to be professional and responsible. My Model 29's and Colt 1911 got some serious workouts there!

One of my CO's (full bird Vietnam vet) told me off the record that PMO didn't know about everything he had in his quarters. I don't blame him one bit, since any LCpl who gets access to the log knows right where to go. Frankly, that detail (who has access to know what I have) was my main objection at the time.Gð

Comment by: P V B | March 4, 2010

Whenever we went overseas, it was nearly impossible to sneak anything, even certain periodical publications. The MP's and customs gave us a good look-see on both ends of the trip. When we left Somalia, every single seabag in the battalion was dumped and inspected for contraband. Every mount-out box was inspected by customs and sealed. (The weapons the Somalis had were all unserviceable by most standards, so I wouldn't want any of them anyway.) The MP's and NIS had a field day when we started finding AK's in the gear that came off of MPF shipping.

I agree that some concealed carry options would be beneficial. At least one branch of the service has had that going on, probably since 2001 - it started at the direction of the CG. Probably select NCO's or above carrying M-9's under their cammies, but that's better than nothing.

A buddy of mine and I got hassled big-time at the gate when returning from a training area in a properly registered POV during Gulf I because we had K-Bars on our warbelts. We were in uniform, and had our ID. While we being hassled, pizza deliveries, Sears vans, taxis, etc. drove by with barely a wave from an MP. Yup - the PMO got a phone call on that one.

Needless to say, my Sergeant scout-sniper's actions had me (I was H&S Co Cdr) and the S-2 doing one helluva tap dance to keep him out of the brig! We did, and he made a great driver/ police sergeant after being yanked from STA Platoon. I don't know what happened to his .357 though....

Comment by: P V B | March 4, 2010

Col. Novack, I had the same problem you mentioned being single living on base. Long story short, I got in trouble for having my 1911 locked up in my locker in my dorm room while I was deployed. They did a random drug search and the dog alerted on my locker because of the gun powder, cut my lock and found my 1911.

Comment by: Robert J | March 5, 2010

Robert J - As you saw (the hard way) the pragmatic aspects of private firearms ownership by service members, especially in deploying units, usually mean single guys leave their guns at mom and dad's.

Another point - most service members turn 21 toward the end of their first enlistment, thus aren't able to legally purchase a pistol.

Comment by: P V B | March 5, 2010