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

New Law Allows Cross-Border Gun Tracking by Mexico

(GunReports.com) — President Obama has signed into law a border security measure that allows weapons tracing across the U.S.-Mexican border.

The president signed the Southwest Border Security bill August 13.

Regarding the measure, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual said that it is crucial to control the flow of arms from the United States to drug traffickers in Mexico. The weapons are being used to “confront authorities and to intimidate and extort citizens.”

Both the ICE and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms ( ATF ) are cooperating on weapons seizures, and ATF’s eTrace database now has a Spanish-language interface that is allowing Mexican investigators to trace weapons known to originate in the United States, he said.

Pascual highlighted the August 10 sentencing of Alejandro Medrano, a 23-year-old U.S. citizen, and other members of a group that conspired to purchase firearms from gun dealers in Arizona on behalf of a member of the Sinaloa drug cartel. The ATF’s use of eTrace allowed U.S. law enforcement personnel to identify the gun traffickers and track the movement of the weapons.

Reader Comments

Does anybody know - factually - if this give Mexico access to information we provide when legally purchasing a firearm?

Comment by: P V B | August 26, 2010

I don't see anything new here except we have bowed to the Spanish language.

Comment by: LARRY J | August 26, 2010

allowing Mexican investigators to trace weapons known to originate in the United States! How do they know they originated in the US, before the trace?

Comment by: NDA | August 26, 2010

Looks like we are opening the door to the UN sanctions that obama wants. We do a little bit like letting mexico come in and check our weapons and then they make up some numbers and confiscate a few and whoopi, we are bad people and have to give up all or our guns because the mexicans and the world are the good guys. Like a frog in a warm pan of water on the stove.

Comment by: dgray64 | August 26, 2010

I am suprised that the NRA or the other pro-gun organizations have not issued any official comments on this. I do not agree with giving Mexican authorities that kind of information.

Comment by: 38special | August 26, 2010

P V B identifies a crucial point re: is this new Obama-supported law giving Mexico access to the information we supply when purchasing a weapon from a licensed gun dealer? AND, it sets precedence for giving into the UN's desire to undermine and circumvent our Second Amendment rights. Looks like we all missed taking action against the Southwest Border Security act; now we need to find out what else is tucked away in this bill. Gee, another example of Obama-creep.

Comment by: ShadowTx47 | August 26, 2010

Obama-creep - nice double entendre Shadow!!

Comment by: P V B | August 26, 2010

What about that we hear about this on Gun Report and not from the NRA. They are going to hear from me on this one. The Second Amendment Association, NSSF and some others that I send money to. I want to hear the details on this. I suggest that as many of you write to them as can. At least they will know that someone is paying attention. Thanks Gun Reports . . . .

Comment by: CHUCK H | August 26, 2010

I'm going to assume the drug cartel removes the serial number from these guns. What identifying factors are left to trace? It appears the Mexicans will have access to records in identifying large purchases. Its possible If you purchase a gun each week your name would be filtered to the top of the list.

Comment by: Jeff W | August 26, 2010

I agree with those comments asking where was the NRA, NAGR, GOA, SAF, CCRKBA, etc when this rubbish was being formulated? Could it be that our "transparent government" may have hidden it?

Comment by: canovack | August 27, 2010

There is a real danger in this. The Mexican govt, military and police are rampant with corruption. Now the fool we elected has given them a shopping list of where and who has the most and best privately owned guns. How long before we see an increase in thefts, burglaries and home invasion take overs with the weapons stolen ending up in Mexico. "There are few things worse than an idiot with authority"

Comment by: AJAX | August 27, 2010

Just a thought. the Mexican govt, military and police are rampant wth corruption. Now they will have an inventory of private US citizen's firearms which they can use as a shopping list. How long before we see an increase in thefts, burglaries and home invasions and the stolen guns ending up in Mexico. "There are few things worse than an idiot with authority" Fritz S.

Comment by: AJAX | August 27, 2010

If Obama signed it, I suppose congress passed it. We should find out how our reps voted on this one.

Comment by: Dan B | August 27, 2010

Has anyone here actually READ the bill? Or is everyone basing their arguments on rampant hysteria? Read the bill, then comment something useful...

Comment by: August | August 28, 2010

I'm not a big fan of President Obama but the guy cant win with most of this crowd. First off, it's sad that being the Information Age, so many people are uninformed. Within minutes of looking you can read, in its entirety, House Resolution 6080 and not depend on some stripped down blurb that some website feeds you. Do your own diligence!

Secondly, this bill is an attempt to beef up border security, an effort that the conservative crowd is demanding. So he enacts some legislation but now he is the devil for doing so.

It's the same thing when he overturned more federal anti-gun laws in one year than President Bush did in eight. Any kudos for that? Nope. This President and his administration will fail because half the country wants him to. Pretty damn short sighted folks...

Comment by: August | August 28, 2010

It may appear that Mr Obama is yielding to the conservative demands of strengthening border security. And he may actually be doing something like that, but the inclusion of gun trace provisions in such legislation is easily recognizable as one of Obama's pet projects to infringe on firearms ownership.

When the guy shows us a long record of support for anti-Second Amendment policies, programs, and legislation, we shouldn't be fooled by this disguise of his actual intentions. As a community organizer, as an Illinois State Senator, and as a US senator he leaves an audit trail of repeated support for anti-Second Amendment activity. He can afford to openly proclaim his respect for the Second Amendment, but the actions of his minions such as Eric Holder and Rahm Emmanuel reveal his actual commitments.

This president has broken essentially every campaign promise he has ever made, so let's not be fooled by his charismatic sleight of hand. His record speaks loudly and clearly as an enemy of the Second Amendment.

Comment by: canovack | August 28, 2010

Have you actually read the bill?

Comment by: August | August 28, 2010

As I stated in my post, Mr Obama may be actually yielding to conservative pressure to strengthen border security. I have not read the bill, and I am not commenting on the content of the bill. I am commenting on Obama's long record of anti-Second Amendment activity and predisposition.

As far as kudos for his overturning federal anti-gun laws, the rider concerning the carry in national parks was left over from a Bush era congress, and Obama had to sign the bill for its' other content.....not the carry provisions in national parks. Obama also gets no kudos for what the Supreme Court did with Heller v DC and McDonald v Chicago, since the judiciary is still a separate and coequal branch of the government.

If there is more that Obama has done on behalf of gun owners in this country, please enlighten me. As an aging retired Army officer and retired educator.....yup, an old fart.....I subscribe to the philosophy that any day in which I do not learn something new is a day wasted. That said, I have learned my share of new things today, but if there is more to be learned, I am never too old to do that.

Comment by: canovack | August 28, 2010

Well to be fair you said:

"I agree with those comments asking where was the NRA, NAGR, GOA, SAF, CCRKBA, etc when this rubbish was being formulated".

But then you said " I am not commenting on the content of the bill".

Sounds like you called it rubbish. How do you know it is rubbish if you never read it? Everybody is up in arms about legislation they never actually read. That is my point.

I like to deal with facts, not hype and hyperbole. Riders, pork, ear marks, whatever. He signed the bill. I'm pretty sure if his sole purpose was to ban all guns, he would be restricting rights, not broadening them.

"Obama also gets no kudos for what the Supreme Court did with Heller v DC and McDonald v Chicago, since the judiciary is still a separate and coequal branch of the government"

Who the hell ever said anything about Supreme Court cases? Why would the President get kudos for that? Very odd statement...

"If there is more that Obama has done on behalf of gun owners in this country, please enlighten me."

-I forget the bills numbers but he signed into law that Amtrak would lose its federal subsidies if it doesn't put a system in place by early next year to check and track firearms so that passengers can legally put the weapons in their checked baggage. And he did break a campaign promise to repeal the Tiahrt Amendments and on December 16th, 2009 he signed the Brady record destruction provision into law.

Comment by: August | August 28, 2010

With all the corruption in the Mexican Government, Military and Police I just wonder what can happen mainly with the gun owners in the border states. I really worry about Commiefornia with all it's stupid gun laws because it would make it alot easier to get honest gun owners guns. Also as one poster put it this could be the first step to the UN treaty to get all Our Guns. Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.

God Bless America and Our Troops Past Present and Future.

Keeping to My Oath Locked Loaded and Keeping My Powder Dry.

Comment by: bear1 | August 28, 2010

Supreme court? What about Kagan? She is a noted anti-gun person and obama pushed her into place. Obama stood by smiling while the president of Mexico ripped us up one side and down the other and no one objected. Seems like neither Obama or the legislature was pro American that day. No, Obama gets no kudos, because each act he performs covers something sinister. Got to take that back, he has taken 7 vacations this year and he lets his wife have more assistants than the the head of the senate. He loves to spend our money. Must be a positive there somewhere.

Comment by: dgray64 | August 28, 2010

I am calling "rubbish" the part of the bill that deals with giving Mexico access to US firearm transaction records, since that's what the article on this page is talking about.

As far as what Obama has done positive for gun owners, that he "did break a campaign promise to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment" is about as "odd a statement" that appears in this forum. When do presidents get kudos for not doing what they said they were going to do?

I am glad you are such an astute citizen who reads every facet of everything that goes into print from the Potomac Country Club. You should be in Congress to serve as an example to the rest of that body, since few if any of them ever bother to read the legislation that they process to passage.

As for the Supreme Court, dgray64 adequately expresses the Obama connection to that body through his nomination of two Second Amendment antagonists to the high court.....Sotomayor and Kagan.

It appears that defense of a well known antagonist of Second Amendment rights in this forum is one of two things: (1) The defender voted for the antagonist and is looking for some sort of absolution.....or.....(2) The defender is such a broad minded, learned, and selfless philosopher that everybody, even avowed enemies of our firearm rights, gets a pass.

Comment by: canovack | August 28, 2010

"I am glad you are such an astute citizen who reads every facet of everything that goes into print from the Potomac Country Club."

-No but I don't comment on a bill I never actually read. It's like calling a movie "boring and stupid" without ever having seen it. Or relying solely on Roger Ebert to tell me if I like it or not.

I am not going to draw a line in the sand and defend President Obama as a gun-toting NRA card carrying member or turn this into a thread about whether President Obama is this or that.

But I do think if his main goal is to ban all guns, he is going about it in a strange fashion. But whatever we can agree to disagree on that and its not really relevant to my main point which was:

How can you form a coherent, conclusive argument for or against a bill in which you never read? It's a basic tenant of reading comprehension. It has nothing to do with guns or Presidents specifically.

As for the Supreme Court cases, you brought them up not me. That's just confusing the argument at this point. You cannot react to something you don't understand. How can you argue in the defense of gun rights when you don't even know whats going on? That's my point.

As a Second Amendment purist and a "gun nut", I prefer our arguments to be based in fact and reason and not hype and hysteria because those can be easily defeated.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. " - John Adams.

Comment by: August | August 29, 2010

"How can you argue in the defense of gun rights when you don't even know whats going on? That's my point." I dont mean you specifically canovack, just to posters in general.

Comment by: August | August 29, 2010

Border defense is for the entire country.We, as a nation are being attacked from the south.I contend that if we can't adequately track the attackers, how in the world would we ever trace the guns they carry? If they are STOPPED at the border, the trace is irrelevant.The Congress is enacting laws every day over laws from decades ago and NONE are being enforced adequately, if at all. Why write it if you have no intention of enforcing it or making enough funds available for the enforcement procedure? Obama "The Skunk" has never been a friend of gun owners. Period Semper Fi

Comment by: Sharps | August 29, 2010

Well, August, as one who has been arguing in defense of Second Amendment rights since before the Gun Control Act of 1968 was visited upon us by Tom Dodd.....father of Chris Dodd, I and my associates have been pretty well satisfied with my knowledge of what's going on. If you wish to set yourself up as a paragon of analytical knowledge because you take the time to read every word of every bill that moves through the bowels of government, that's fine by us. At the risk of sounding like the old dog who cannot learn new tricks, with seven decades of life behind me, it isn't likely that I am going to change my methods because you or anyone else doesn't agree with them. I have never been particularly concerned with the opinions of me that others have had. Having had two very successful careers in public service and now being fully retired I am quite content to let you bushy tailed guys pursue your activism as you choose. My chosen methods of activism include this forum, along with membership and financial support of all of the major Second Amendment rights organizations, political organizations and campaigns, and Internet commentaries of a decidedly conservative nature.

Oh, by-the-way, for all who are not yet fully retired and who think old retired guys have nothing to do, think again. I was always mystified when retired friends used to tell me that they didn't have sufficient time in a day to do all that they wanted. Now, having been retired for a few years, I understand their claim, and I agree. So, August, in one sense there just isn't enough time in a day for me to read all that flows through our government, but I don't feel bad about it, since few in government take the time to do it.....and that's their job!

Comment by: canovack | August 29, 2010

Amen, canovack, from another retiree.

Comment by: dgray64 | August 29, 2010

" Why write it if you have no intention of enforcing it or making enough funds available for the enforcement procedure". I agree. A majority of legislation gets passed and then gets underfunded rendering it less or inefefctive..

But lets look at this bill, HR 6080. I presume no one else read it, so let me summarize it so we can talk facts and not feelings.

Allocated for 1 year is $39,000,000 for current staff of the Southwest border. $29,000,000 shall be for hiring additional U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers for deployment at ports of entry on the Southwest Border of the United States. In all its some $253,900,000 for staffing.

An additional $32,000,000 for 2 years for for costs of acquisition and deployment of unmanned aircraft systems. Another $6,000,000, to remain available for costs to construct up to 2 forward operating bases for use by the Border Patrol to carry out enforcement activities on the Southwest Border of the United States. $175,900,000 shall be for hiring additional Border Patrol agents for deployment to the Southwest Border of the United States, and $10,000,000 shall be to support integrity and background investigation programs.

So far we have like half a billion dollars to fund this legislation and we are still in Title I. But dont take my word for it. Read it here. It's like less than 5 pages long:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-6080

Comment by: August | August 29, 2010

"Well, August, as one who has been arguing in defense of Second Amendment rights since before the Gun Control Act of 1968" - I commend and your long history of standing up for the Second Amendment. That was never in question.

"If you wish to set yourself up as a paragon of analytical knowledge." -Your words not mine.

"because you take the time to read every word of every bill that moves through the bowels of government" -Again, your words not mine. You are being hyperbolic and I am being serious. But when someone points at to me that a piece of legislation may infringe upon the Second Amendent, you are damn right I read every line of it. Consdering the lack of effort involved to do so, I'm shocked more people dont't do it. You google the bill number, follow the link, voila. The wonders of the Information Age.

"I have never been particularly concerned with the opinions of me that others have had" -And why should you? I haven't said a word good or bad about you. I clarified my statement of "when you don't even know whats going on" as being about people in general, and not me saying you do not know whats going on individually or devaluing any argument you have as it relates to gun control.

And I never made any statement about anyone being retired, good bad or indifferent. What you choose to do with your time and your life is your business. I was trying to aim my comments at this forum in general and not start a one on one confrontation. How can you have a valid discussion on a thread, about a piece of legislation, that no one read?

My secondary comment was about no matter what legislation President Obama signs into law, there is a group of people who will be up in arms about it. But the points tie together for me, that how can they be up in arms against it if they haven't read it.

Comment by: August | August 29, 2010

Very good point in your last statement, August!Well, since we have guys that do like to read every word of every bill that may or may not proceed through the legislative process, and since they are very willing to explain it all to those of us who either don't have the time or inclination to do so, we really don't have to do it. One way or another, we do get informed.

Comment by: canovack | August 29, 2010

I think this article is misleading. There is nothing in this bill that references gun tracing. The sole purpose of the bill is to distribute money to LE agencies, but there is a telling sentence in the article:

"...ICE and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms ( ATF ) are cooperating on weapons seizures, and ATF’s eTrace database now has a Spanish-language interface that is allowing Mexican investigators to trace weapons known to originate in the United States..."

What this says to me is that ICE and ATF are conspiring to give the Mexican authorities access to US gun sales data on their own recognizance, not under Congressional aegis.

You're being excessively defensive again, August. You're among friends here. It's not necessary to be defensive if you can remember not to beat us up.

Gaviota

Comment by: Lee W | August 29, 2010

I , for one , don't have to READ THE WHOLE BILL to KNOW the Mexican Government has NO rights to ANY information about a legal gun purchase that I made !!!

Comment by: GDC | August 29, 2010

No need to worry about this little issue anyway, since obama is prompting the EPA to regulate lead and make lead bullets, shot and sinkers illegal. This is obamas proposal even though the law says that the EPA does not have the right to regulate lead. Yea obamason. And when the going gets tough, he doesn't make a decision, he turns it over to the UN to regulate the US. What think you?

Comment by: dgray64 | August 30, 2010

Dgray64, I think you are echoing something that many of us, myself included, have maintained for quite a while. Obama is no fool. He realizes that he is politically vulnerable when he takes responsibility for any anti-Second Amendment actions, so he gets his minions in Congress, the White House staff, and his cabinet to do the dirty work for him. And.....oh yeah.....he nominates Second Amendment antagonists to the Supreme Court.

It appears, however, that he doesn't recognize that most of us will hold him accountable because he is the guy in charge. What happens on his watch is his responsibility, so when his administration (and allies in Congress and the Judiciary) does creditable things, he should get credit for them.....and when the results are detrimental, he should reap the criticism for them.

By-the-way, I know I said this in another post, but..... Welcome back, Gaviota, we have noticed your absence and have missed you.

Comment by: canovack | August 30, 2010

gary c, There's good news (if I correctly understood an update today) re: Obama's efforts to use the EPA's to ban lead bullets, shot, etc. During the EPA's public comment period on this subject, they got bombarded with commentary that doing so was NOT good (other descriptors like "idiodic, foolish, stupid, illogical, etc" were also used and printable in a public forum). Therefore, the EPA decided to pass on the effort to ban lead bullets, etc. and decided, too, that they may not actually have jurisdiction over the issue. It pays to write not only your Senators and Representatives but also respond when given the chance to be part of the public's outcry on such issues.

Comment by: ShadowTx47 | August 30, 2010

The money August talks about is not and will not reach the actual border patrol. It will be gobbled up by the endless bureaucracy before it ever actually aids in the apprehension of "illegal aliens". As it stands now, they walk across our borders by the thousands and are left alone to garner employment in any state and business that will have them . They are not enforcing the oldest immigration laws on the books. IMHO the LEO agencies are totally ineffective and complicit in the alien invasion. Arizona is a case in fact: rallies in Phoenix by ILLEGAL ALIENS that urinated on the American flag. The State Troopers assigned to police the rally were told "hands off" by the powers that be.The illegal alien protesters are lucky that folks like me were not present that day. Head em up and move em out! Semper Fi

Comment by: Sharps | September 6, 2010