Gun Shooooowwww!

This version of the rebel yell is very often heard in my home whenever the POTC (President of the Compound) and I hear there is a gun show coming up.

The Yeti

The Yeti

We ready ourselves by withdrawing the cash from the bank and gassing up the Yeti.  Whoops and high fives over, we board the landing craft and head out.

So we headed off to the gun show this weekend on Sunday, due to the POTC being on a trip and I was working on Saturday anyway.  The place was mostly empty, and the show was rather disappointing.  The only highlight of the trip was the cool VA Beach cops that zip tied my GLock at the door.

Has anyone else noticed how gun shows are more like garage sales?  There is everything from food to jewelry at gun shows these days.  Some of the jewelry is firearms related and that is cool.  I can also see some of the food stuff applying to hunters and outdoorsmen.  But we actually saw a guy selling gutter guards at a gun show once, go figure.

Share your gun show stories with us, we’d love to hear!


300AAC Blackout and 6.8SPC

A fairly interesting question was posed to me by a co worker yesterday afternoon. He wanted to know which round is bigger, 6.8SPC or the .300AAC Blackout? I had to say, I honestly didn’t know, since both rounds had been developed and came to the public view after I had retired from the military and I had no knowledge of them in my military career. Having worked as a firearms instructor, I should have know, but I didn’t.

So I decided it was time to find out.

The .300 AAC Blackout round is an AR platform round, developed to be used with silencer equipped firearms. The size of the .300 is 7.62x35mm. Anyone who has fired a .308 knows what this means. The round is measured by the diameter of the barrel of the firearm it is intended to be fired from. A barrel is typically measured by the distance between grooves in the barrel, although it can be measured as the distance between lands as well. When the distance is measured in inches, we typically will hear the term “cal” being used to describe this measurement, as in .308 cal. When the distance is measured using metrics, we will typically hear “7.62x39mm” or “7.62x54mm”. The number expressed in mm’s is the length of the cartridge, while the decimal number is the distance between the grooves in the barrel. So a 7.62X39mm is shorter than a 7.62×54, but the diameter of the round is the same. NOTE: BE VERY CAREFUL FIRING .308 THROUGH A GUN RATED FOR 7.62X51. WHILE THE CARTRIDGES MAY LOOK IDENTICAL, THEY ARE NOT. THE CHAMBER PRESSURES ARE DIFFERENT FOR THESE FIREARMS AND USING THE WRONG AMMO CAN RESULT IN DAMAGE TO YOUR GUN. GENERALLY, YOU CAN FIRE 7.62X51 IN A .308 SAFELY.  CONSULT YOUR OWNER’S MANUAL OR A GUNSMITH IF YOU HAVE DOUBTS.

So now that we understand how rounds are measured, let’s compare rounds. The .300AAC Blackout round, as mentioned previously is a 7.62x35mm. The 6.8SPC is measured as 6.8x43mm. So the answer to the question is clearly that the 6.8SPC is longer than the .300AAC. However, the .300AAC is wider than the 6.8SPC.

So now that we have come to understand the difference between the two rounds, let’s discuss why they were developed in the first place.


The .300AAC Blackout was developed by Advanced Armament Corporation to meet the need for a round in the .30 cal range to be used with suppressed firearms and and have the same energy properties as the 7.62 Soviet rounds. The .556 has been found to be lacking in stopping power, so AAC began development of new round that had the increased power at a shorter distance equivalent to the 7.62 rounds. The unique thing about the .300AAC is that it can be used with a simple barrel change, as opposed to the 6.8SPC, which requires a barrel, bolt and magazine change in order to be used.

Remington Arms developed the 6.8SPC in response to the need for a longer range round for the AR platform. The new round developed outperformed the Soviet 7.62 round. The need for a round that would perform well in the current short barreled M4 platform had become apparent to the military. The 6.8SPC does this well, but a complete upper conversion is necessary in order to make it work.

AR Platform Rounds



The work to find a new AR platform round that would meet the needs of today’s military has generated both of these rounds, and while they are both unique in their own way, they are definitely different. The question remains which one will eventually come out on top. The unique characteristics of firearms today mean that both rounds are available to anyone who has the time or the passion to convert their existing AR platforms for whichever round they prefer.

To Carry Or Not To Carry, That Is The Question

The answer is simply this:  it’s a choice.  It very simply should remain a choice.  No one is being forced to carry a gun on their hip unless they work for an agency that requires it, and I have never heard any police officer that I have worked with or around say “I hate guns”, or “I wish I didn’t have to carry a gun”.

That being said, there are individuals in our society that want to see our right to choose taken away.  It really amazes me that we live in a world where everyone is so wrapped up in other people’s choices.  Why is that?  What motivates someone who knows nothing about me as a person to make my choices for me?  Why does anyone think they have the right to dictate to another the choices they make in life, so long as they are not harming anyone?  A person’s feelings about something being negative does not give them the right to take away from another person.

Let’s look at it from another viewpoint.  Let’s pretend that guns are lollipops.  Some people LOVE lollipops.  They know that lollipops can be dangerous, they can cause cavities, add extra calories to your diet, even cause your blood sugar levels to rise (this is all supposed to be about facts).  But while these people know  that lollipops are not good for them, they want them anyway.  They make a conscious choice to eat lollipops.  But they aren’t harming anyone else by eating those lollipops.  I won’t eat lollipops because I know how bad they are for my teeth, but I won’t be criticizing those who make the choice, knowing that they are bad, to eat them.

So why is it any different with guns?  Because guns are really dangerous to others as well “they” say.  Okay, I can buy that….but you are leaving out what I call the ‘human factor’ , (I am certain someone said it before me, don’t get your feathers all in a ruffle), the inherent part of every gun argument that seems to constantly get glossed over.  Let me put it to you another way:  I can lay a loaded gun, any type of gun, on a table in a room and walk away.  So long as no humans enter that room, that gun will just lay there, peaceful as a lamb.  But once you introduce a human into the equation….now you have potential trouble.

So the problem ladies and gentlemen is not the gun, nor the ammo, but the individual holding the gun.  So some people’s answer to that equation is that “if you take all the guns away, there won’t be anymore gun crime”.  I won’t get into the back and forth of what has happened in other countries that have tried this, because it’s just ridiculous.  Basing laws in our country on what other countries have done is just plain ridiculous.  Our society here in America is not the same as Great Britain, or Australia.  Get over it.

The bottom line here is that if an individual, who has been trained and given a thorough background check – including a mental health evaluation, chooses to carry a gun legally, that is their choice, not yours.  Let’s stop concerning ourselves with people’s choices in this country and start worrying about the things that really matter, shall we?

The Inherent Need to Prove Our Rights

Humans can be rather foolish.  In America, we have been granted “rights” that were guaranteed by documents written in the late 1700’s.  The writers of these documents, called the Constitution of the United States of America and the Declaration of Independance, felt that in order for a society to be free it must have a guide to refer to in order to declare the rights of all citizens.  Of course, at the time this meant white men who owned land, despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence declared that “all men are created equal”.  The key word in that phrase was ‘men’, because women had no rights.  If they had been inclusive in this phrase, we would not have a 19th Amendment to the Constitution.

The problem we currently have in this country is the modern day interpretation of a set of documents that was written well before the advent of certain aspects of our legal system, the inventions of electricity, phone, internet, transportation, etc.  I will be the first to admit that trying to use modern interpretations on documents written long before modern day advents is extremely trying.

The largest issue with interpretation as it stands is that we rely on others in our legal system to do the interpretation for us.  While these people should be doing the job of interpreting these laws and rights from the Constitution and the Declaration should be unbiased and impartial, we know that that is not always the case.  It is part of the human condition to want to put a little of yourself into something you are part of; most everyone does this, whether they are conscious of it or not.

The general public also does this, it is not specifically tied to lawmakers.  Some people in our society feel it is up to the individuals to make their own interpretations of what their “rights” are.  These boundaries on what is ‘right’ versus what is a “right” commonly get blurred today.

Take for instance the gentleman who reportedly showed up at a Georgia children’s baseball game with a gun in his holster.  While that in itself isn’t a terrible thing, what he did next is.  According to the news report, he walked around the adjacent parking lot approaching people and saying: ‘See my gun? Look, I got a gun and there’s nothing you can do about it’.  Now, I wasn’t there so I do not know what was actually said or done.  The paper did not interview the individual that was actually involved. They did speak to the Sheriff who stated that the man was within his rights, but stated that his behaviour was inappropriate.  The lawmen on scene also said that they could not legally ask him to leave.

Now, here is my opinion on such behavior.  It is totally unacceptable to use your “rights” to frighten, harass or act in a threatening manner with a firearm, it simply isn’t necessary and it goes against order and good judgement.  Society set up rules in order that everyone should be able to go about the business of their day in relative peace, and as long as we follow those rules, there should be no major problems.

Then comes along some individual who just has to make a political statement.  Someone who feels compelled to do something that will just cause disruption, knowing full well what the result will be. Trying to make a point while creating disruption in our society is generally not well tolerated.  Our political system evolved to help prevent people from doing this.  You want the laws to change?  Contact your local NRA and donate money, attend meetings and let them do the political wrangling to get that done.  This is why we have PAC’s and lobbyists.  This is why we have state and federal lawmakers.

Individuals that pull stunts like this make legal gun owners and people who carry for their own protection and the protection of others look bad and give the impression that everyone carrying a firearm is to be viewed with mistrust and suspicion.  The bottom line is that acting like this often backfires and does more harm than good.  There are better ways to project your “rights” without creating a scene.