Category: Guns

Mini 14 Accuracy

The Davidson’s Circassian walnut Ruger Mini 14. It was a limited production item offered for sale about 10 years ago.

My Mini 14 quest for accuracy is over.  I have the answer and an honest-to-God 1.5 MOA Mini 14.  With open sights.  At 100 yards.  Yippeeee!

It’s been an interesting journey.

Davidson’s Circassian Mini 14

I like rifles with fine walnut, and about a decade ago when Davidson’s (a large Ruger distributor) offered a limited quantity of Mini 14 rifles with Circasssian walnut stocks, I had to have one. Most of the Circassian Mini 14 rifles had very plain wood, but when I saw the one you see here, I pulled the Buy Now trigger.  That’s a light trigger, I’ve learned.  If it’s for a rifle with highly-figured walnut, in my case you might even say it’s a hair trigger.

Another shot of the Circassian walnut on the Davidson’s Mini 14. That’s a Springfield Armory M1A in the background. I like fancy walnut.

The problem I had is that Davidson’s Circassian Mini 14 wasn’t legal in California because of its two 30-round magazines and flash suppressor.  Here in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia (Gavinland, if you will), we can’t have mags that hold more than 10 rounds, and semi-auto rifles with flash suppressors are verboten.  So I had the rifle shipped with no magazines to an outfit with a Class III license, and they replaced the flash suppressor with a muzzle brake.  Then I had to wait my state-mandated 10-day cooling off period.  After I had chilled sufficiently, the rifle was mine.

The muzzle brake on my Mini 14. It may seem silly to have a muzzle brake on a .223 rifle, but if you fire this rifle and then a Mini 14 without a muzzle brake, there is a perceptible difference in recoil.

I think the muzzle brake looks better than the flash suppressor, and I don’t need a 30-round magazine.  I hated the idea of leaving those 30-round mags with the guy I bought the rifle from (they were worth about $80), but hey, our mush-minded legislators think they made the Golden State safer and that’s what matters.

My rifle has a 16-inch barrel (most Mini 14 rifles have 18-inch barrels), which looks cool but it is not conducive to great accuracy.  There’s nothing inherent to the shorter barrel in and of itself that hurts accuracy, but what that shorter barrel does is reduce the sight radius.  A longer sight radius offers an accuracy advantage, a shorter one can work against accuracy.

The bottom line?   The rifle is beautiful.  I shoot it a lot, and whenever I’m on the range with it, folks are taken with it.   It draws a crowd.  You just don’t see Mini 14 rifles with  wood like mine.  But it wasn’t terribly accurate.  I was going to change that.  And I did.

The First Accuracy Mod:  Tech-Sights

I did not like the standard rear sight on my Mini 14.  To adjust elevation, you had to loosen the windage adjustment and then rotate the entire rear aperture, and to adjust windage you had to loosen both Allen screws at the base of the sight and move it.  There was not indexing for windage, so where you ended up was only repeatable with a repeated fire, check the point of impact, loosen the sight, adjust, tighten the sight, fire again, and repeat until you were happy.  I also didn’t like the range of elevation adjustment on the stock sight; it seemed liked the aperture had to be way too high to bring my shots to the point of aim.

The Tech-Sights rear sight on a Mini 14. It’s a first class product, and it is much better than the stock Mini 14 rear sight.

The hot setup is a replacement rear sight from Tech-Sights.  It was about $70, but it was well worth it.  The Tech-Sights rear sight is click adjustable for both windage and elevation, and it is repeatable when I make adjustments.  It’s a much better mousetrap.

Mini 14 Accuracy Loads

I tried different reloading recipes until the cows come home, and over the last decade, I’ve converged on two that gave the best results in my Mini 14.  Both use inexpensive Hornady full metal jacket boat tail bullets.  The first is the 55-grain Hornady FMJBT with 26.2 grains of IMR 4320 propellant, a Winchester small rifle primer, and a cartridge overall length of 2.255 inches. That’s a near max load, and the only reason I don’t run it up to the max load is the 26.2 grains damn near fill the .223 case.  The second favored load is the Hornady 62-grain FMJBT bullet with 23.2 grains of ARComp propellant.  I use the same primer and overall cartridge length as the first load.

Hornady 55-grain full metal jacket boat tail bullets. The boat tail reduces aerodynamic drag and allows a flatter trajectory, or so the theory goes. These are accurate bullets with the right load.

Either bullet (Hornady’s 55-grain or 62-grain FMJBT) can usually be purchased for something between $7.50 and $8.00 per hundred when they are on sale.  I probably get 10 emails a day from the different reloading houses advertising their sales, and when they throw free shipping into the mix, I’m in.  You usually have to order above $100 in stuff to get the free shipping, and that’s why I have 1400 of the 62-grain Hornady bullets inbound.  I’ll burn through those in 6 months or so.  Yeah, I shoot my Mini 14 a lot.

I don’t crimp the bullets in either of the above loads, and I’ve found that what kind of brass I use doesn’t make a difference in group size.  Using brass from different manufacturers does move the group around, though, so when I load, I do so using only one kind of brass for each lot of ammo.  For me, that is usually either Remington or military brass.  I have a good supply of both.

Factory versus Reloaded Ammo in the Mini 14

There may be good factory ammo out there that groups well in the Mini 14, but I haven’t found it.  I buy bulk factory only to get the brass (believe it or not, when loaded bulk ammo goes on sale, I can actually buy it for less than what unprimed brass costs).  When I shoot the bulk factory ammo, the accuracy is truly abysmal.   At 100 yards from a bench rest, a 20-shot Remington bulk ammo group spans about 12 inches.   For all you keyboard commandos out there…I know, you can do better.  One guy keeps commenting that he can shoot the lock off a Cadillac with his Mini 14.  Whatever.  I’m reporting my results, and with factory ammo, they’re terrible.

With either of the two reloading recipes described above, I can get the group size down to about the size of the 9-ring on a 100-yard target.  That’s a big improvement from factory ammo and the other loads I’ve tried.  The problem, though, was the rifle wasn’t consistent.  I could get a good group, but then the next one would open up.  Then I’d get another good group, but it would shift on the target from the last group.

Bedding the Mini 14 Action

Past accuracy quests with bolt action rifle always included bedding the action.   What that means is creating a glass-fiber-impregnated epoxy bed for the barreled action in the stock.   It’s a lot trickier on a Garand-style rifle (which the Mini 14 is) than a bolt action, because the Garand-type action doesn’t have a conventional recoil lug or action screws.  On the Mini 14, two tabs on the receiver fit into sheet metal inserts in the stock, and the trigger group’s trigger guard pivots to lock the whole mess (barreled action, stock, and trigger group) together.  On my rifle, I could detect a minor amount of play between the stock and the barreled action, both fore-and-aft and left-to-right.

The jeweled bolt on my Mini 14. This photo doesn’t really add to the story and the bolt jeweling does nothing to improve accuracy, but I love the look. The jeweling was done by my good buddy TJ at TJ’s Custom Gunworks. I locked the bolt to the rear for the next photo so you could see the glass bedding.
That brown stuff is the glass bedding below the action, between the receiver and the stock. Bedding a Mini 14 is a bit tricky, but it worked out well for me.
You can just barely see that there is Acraglas bedding beneath the receiver, between it and the stock. The reason you can barely see it is because I did it well.

I used Brownell’s Acraglas as the bedding compound, and after reading and watching everything I could on the Internet about glass bedding a Mini 14, I did so with mine.  It turned out well, I think.  There is zero play between the barreled action and the stock now.

ASI’s Mini 14 Gas Port Kit

I wrote about this before in a previous blog.  The Mini 14 throws brass into the next county, and that’s a real pain in the ass.  I’ve actually dented cars behind the firing line with brass ejected from my Mini 14.  The reason the Mini’s ejection is so violent is that Ruger overdesigned the ejection approach to make the rifle reliable.  Ruger uses a gas port with an approximate 0.085-inch-diameter opening to port propellant gas to the op rod, and that pretty much guarantees that no matter what type of ammo you’re shooting, the rifle will function.  It’s way more gas pressure than the op rod needs, though, and the ejection is so energetic that the barreled action doesn’t stay in the same place after each round.  That hurts accuracy.

Mini 14 gas ports. The three on the left are ASI’s 0.035, 0.040, and 0.045-inch diameter ports. The fourth port in the kit (a 0.050-inch diameter port) is currently in my rifle. The port on the right is the stock Mini 14 gas port. You can see its ID is huge.
There are four Allen bolts securing the upper and lower Mini 14 gas blocks. You have to remove the barreled action from the stock and unscrew these four bolts to replace the gas port.
As delivered by Ruger, the gas block Allen bolts are staked in place. Getting them out (and back in again) takes some muscle.

As an aside, the Mini 14 is kind of like the AK 47 with regard to its ejection energy.   Both rifles have excess margin in the extraction and ejection gas porting design to make sure they always work.

The ASI gas port kit includes four bushings with different diameter ports, and the idea is you try each one to find the bushing that gives you reliable function.  You want to use the smallest one possible consistent with reliable operation.  I’ve tried all four and I’m now at the 0.050-inch port (the largest one in the ASI kit), and it is usually reliable, but not always.  I still get an occasional failure to extract.  I may take the smallest one (with its 0.035-inch bore) and have it opened up to 0.060 inch, but that will come later.  I’m not going into combat with my Mini 14, so I can tolerate the occasional failure to extract.  I like to think of my Mini 14 as a SHTF rifle, but truth be told, I’m more concerned about shooting tiny groups than I am about doomsday scenarios.  Your mileage may vary.

I think the reason the largest of the ASI ports still sometimes fails to extract is because my rifle has that short 16-inch barrel, which imparts a little less of a gun gas pressure pulse to the op rod than would a rifle with an 18-inch barrel.  It may be another disadvantage of the shorter barrel.

ASI Gas Ports and Glass Bedding

My last Mini 14 blog was on the effects of both the glass bedding and the ASI gas port.  Both of these upgrades made a difference, but the rifle still wasn’t where I wanted it to be from an accuracy perspective.  Interestingly, the dispersion got smaller top to bottom, but it was still about the same left to right as it had been with my preferred 62-grain bullet load.

Better, but still no cigar on a 100-yard target. Glass bedding and the 0.050-inch ASI gas port reduced vertical dispersion to about 3 inches and brought the lateral dispersion down to about the size of the bullseye, but I still wasn’t where I wanted to be.

5.56 NATO versus .223 Ammunition

Ah, here’s where things start to get both technical, and to ballistics geeks like me and you, extremely interesting.  You might be wondering why this blog is suddenly going tangential into a discussion of 5.56 NATO ammunition and the .223 Remington commercial cartridge.  Bear with me and it will all come together.

As we proceed, keep this in mind:  Even though the Ruger Mini 14 is marked as a caliber .223 rifle, it has a 5.56mm NATO chamber.

For starters, there is a difference between the two cartridges (they are loaded to different pressure levels, with the 5.56mm NATO cartridge loaded to higher pressure than the .223 Remington cartridge), but the 5.56mm NATO and commercial .223 Remington share identical exterior dimensions.  Military (i.e., NATO) ammo has thicker case walls, which means the interior volume decreases slightly, but on the outside, the dimensions are the same.

Okay, the above addresses the two cartridges.  Now, let’s consider the two chambers (the part of the rifle that surrounds the cartridge).  There are lots of differences between the chambers in a 5.56 NATO rifle versus a rifle chambered for the .223 Remington cartridge.  The first is the leade (the distance between the case mouth and where the rifling begins in the barrel).  Rifles chambered for the 5.56 NATO round have approximately twice the leade as do rifles chambered for the .223 Remington cartridge.  That’s what allows the 5.56 NATO round to be loaded hotter than .223 Remington cartridge (it’s exactly the same thing you see in a Weatherby rifle; they are cut with longer leades to allow loading the cartridges hotter for more velocity).  Because longer leades allow loading a cartridge hotter (the bullet is free to move a little more before the rifling resists it), the longer leade allows higher muzzle velocities.  But longer leades may allow the bullet to tilt a bit before it hits the rifling, so rifles with longer leades tend to be less accurate.  In a bolt action or single shot rifle, you could account for this by seating the bullet out further in the cartridge case to get it closer to the rifling, but you can’t do that in the Mini 14.  If you seat the bullet out further, the cartridges won’t fit in the magazine.

All that business above about the 5.56mm NATO chamber’s longer leade is interesting, but it’s not the primary concern here.  The bigger concern as it pertains to the Mini 14 (and its 5.56mm NATO chamber) is that the 5.56 NATO chamber is slightly larger than is a chamber for the .223 Remington cartridge.  That’s to meet the military’s combat reliability requirements (a rifle with more clearance between the chamber and the cartridge is less likely to jam).   The difference in the two cartridges’ chamber dimensi0ns is shown in the chart below.

In particular, note Dimensions C, D, F, and L, which govern the length, neck location, and diameter of the chamber.  As you can see above, they are all larger for the 5.56mm NATO chambered rifle, and like I said above, the Mini 14 has a 5.56mm NATO chamber.  The cartridge has a lot more clearance between the case and chamber walls in the Mini 14 than it would in a rifle with a .223 Remington chamber.  The cartridge can move around in the Mini 14’s chamber, and that hurts accuracy.  Big time, as it turns out.

With one exception in the Mini 14 family (that was the Mini 14 Target, which was kind of a commercial flop), the Mini 14 has a 5.56mm NATO chamber, because Ruger designed the rifle to work with either 5.56mm NATO ammunition or .223 Remington commercial ammunition.  What that means to us is that the rifle is not optimized for accuracy.  There’s a greater bullet jump from the cartridge case to the rifling, and there’s more clearance around the cartridge due to the slightly larger chamber.  Both work against optimal accuracy.

Neck Sizing Mini 14 Brass

Well, that chamber issue sure had my attention as a potential significant contributor to the Mini 14’s accuracy woes.  It made me wonder:  Would neck sizing the brass (rather than full length resizing) make a difference?  Maybe the Ruger’s chamber is just too loose to be accurate, I thought.

So what is neck sizing?   There are two approaches to resizing brass during the reloading process.  The first is that you full length resize the brass, which brings it back to factory specification.  The entire case is resized, including its diameter along the full length of the cartridge case, the case neck diameter, and the location and angle of the case shoulder (you know, where it necks down to the part of the case that holds the bullet).   The other approach is to neck size only, and the idea here is you leave most of the case (in its post-fired condition) alone and only resize the part of the case that holds the bullet.  The concept is that the case has formed (we call it fireforming) to the exact dimensions of the chamber in which it was fired, and resizing only the neck assures a near perfect fit of the reloaded cartridge in the rifle that previously fired it.  It should be a near perfect fit around the case diameter and from the case shoulder to  the bolt face. It should theoretically improve accuracy because the cartridge and its bullet are in exactly the same position for each shot.

I know you usually would not ordinarily neck size brass for ammo to be fired in a semi-auto rifle, as it could degrade reliability.   But my thinking was maybe the Ruger’s chamber is so big it would work.  As a first step, I tried an empty case that had been fired in the Mini to see if it chambered and extracted easily.  It did.

.223 cartridge cases that have been neck sized only. Only the area between the arrows has been resized. The rest of the case is left in its fireformed condition. It will more closely match the dimensions of the Mini 14 chamber in which it was fired.

There are two approaches to neck sizing brass.  One is that you can use the full length resizing die, but you don’t screw it into the press all the way.  The intent is that it resizes the case neck but not the case body.  The problem with this approach is that it is hard to get most of the case neck without the full length resizing die contacting the cartridge case body.  I tried this as a first approach, though, and the results on the target were dramatic.  Using the last of my 62-grain Hornady FMJBT bullets and 23.2 grains of ARComp propellant, I was now reliably getting groups I could mostly keep in the black at 100 yards.  Yowzers!

Progress at 100 yards! Neck sizing the .223 cases using a full length resizing die got the group sizes down to the size of the bullseye. Things were moving in the right direction.

I ordered the RCBS neck size only .223 die on Amazon and when it arrived the next day, I loaded ammo with what had been my best load with the 55-grain Hornady FMJBT bullet (and that was 26.2 grains of IMR 4320 propellant).   How did it work?  Read on, my friends.

My new RCBS .223 neck size die. It cost just over $30.

The Sweet Feel of an Accurate Mini 14

Ah, the sweet feel of success.  I was out of my 62-grain Hornady bullets (more are on the way as I write this blog), so like I said above I used my other favorite load with Hornady’s 55-grain bullets.  That load worked even better, and surprisingly, it required no sight adjustment from the 62-grain bullet load.

Good times with an iron-sighted Mini 14 at 100 yards. That group on the right looks like it could have been fired with a scoped rifle, but it wasn’t.

I had two targets set up at the 100-yard line (the two you see above), and I first shot the target on the left.  I could see the holes with my 20X spotting scope, and it felt mighty good to see them all plunk right into the bullseye.  Then I fired on the target on the right, and when I checked it in the spotting scope, I thought I had done well, but I wasn’t sure.  The way the light was hitting the target I couldn’t count five holes through the spotting scope.  At the next line break, my buddy Greg and I walked down to the targets and at first, I was disappointed.  I could see only four holes in the target on the right, and I thought I had missed altogether with my fifth shot.   I mentioned that to Greg, and then he pointed to the fifth hole.  It was hiding right alongside the X.

100 yards, iron sights, and a Ruger Mini 14. I have this rifle dialed in now.

As I said at the beginning of this admittedly long blog, this has been an interesting journey.   I think everything I did to this rifle helped to improve its accuracy, but the major contributors have been finding the right load, glass bedding, and neck sizing.  Your mileage may vary (every rifle is different).  I’ve found what works for me.

See Our Other Mini 14 Blogs

I mentioned several earlier Mini 14 blogs.  Here are links to our Mini 14 posts:

The Quest for Mini 14 Accuracy Continues
Politics, Pundits, and More
Mini 14 Marksmanship
TJ’s Custom Gunworks
Do You Feel Lucky?
A Tale of Three Garands
Refinishing the Mini 14

See Our Other Tales of the Gun

We have lots of cool gun stories on both handguns and rifles.   You can see them here!

The Quest for Mini 14 Accuracy Continues…

If you follow the ExNotes blog, you know I’m still chasing accuracy improvements for my Mini 14.  The latest upgrades include glass bedding the receiver and installing a smaller gas port.  They helped, as will be described here.   What’s next?  Read on.

The Accuracy Systems International Gas Port Kit

I bought a new set of Mini 14 gas ports from Accuracy Systems International, an outfit that specializes in Mini 14 accuracy upgrades.   The gas port is essentially an orifice that restricts the flow of combustion gas to the rifle’s op rod.   The stock Ruger gas port orifice is huge (it’s probably something like 0.090 inches in diameter).  That is because Ruger wants the rifle to function with any kind of ammo, but the huge stock gas port throws spent brass into the next county and it slams the barreled action around in the stock (that hurts accuracy, as the receiver may not be sitting in the same spot after each round).  The ASI gas port kit costs $30, but it’s more like $40 after including the shipping and handling charge.  That’s a rip because the thing fits in a business envelope, but hey, it is what it is.

Glass Bedding the Mini 14

I bought an Acraglas bedding kit from Brownells and glass bedded the receiver in the stock.  I’ve glass bedded bolt action rifles before, but I had never done a Garand-type action.   There’s no recoil lug like a bolt action rifle has, so the glass bedding involved delicately laying in the epoxy on the interior sides of the stock and the area above the stock that mates with the receiver. This was something new for me, and I don’t mind telling you that I was plenty nervous about getting the barreled action out of the stock after the epoxy cured.  I need not have worried; the release agent worked like it was supposed to and the bedding job turned out well.  There is zero movement between the receiver and the Mini 14’s Circassian walnut stock now, and that’s what I wanted.

Tuning The Mini 14 Gas Port

After the bedding job, it was time to start playing with the different gas port orifices.  The Accuracy Systems International kit includes four gas ports (0.035, 0.040, 0.045, and 0.050 inches), and the drill is to find the smallest one that works.  The stock Ruger gas plug orifice is huge (as mentioned above), and ejection from a stock Mini 14 can only be described as violent.  I tried the 0.040 and then the 0.045, but both would occasionally fail to fully cycle. With the 0.050 orifice, the rifle didn’t have any failures.  I noticed that sometimes the last round out of a magazine just lays the brass on top of the follower after being extracted. That’s no big deal. My Mini 14 now throws the brass about 20 feet to the right (maybe less, because the brass was landing on concrete and rolling around a bit).  It’s a substantial improvement.

100 Yards From The Bench

I first fired at a 100 yard target from a bench rest.  Surprisingly, the bedding and the new orifice only shifted the group a little.   The rifle now shoots a bit high, but the group size (absent a couple of flyers, one high and one low, most likely due to me) is about the size of the 9-ring on a 100-yard target (and that’s an improvement). Most of the dispersion is lateral, and that’s a change from what the rifle used to do.  If I practiced a bit more, I’d do better.  If I drop the rear sight a couple of clicks I should be right on the money.  This was my 100-yard target from the bench:

The accuracy wasn’t the greatest I’ve ever achieved with an iron-sight rifle (my 80-year-old Mosin-Nagant will consistently keep its hits in the 10-ring), but it was an improvement over what the Mini 14 had done prior to the bedding job and the smaller gas port orifice.   Things are moving in the right direction.

The B-21 Department of Corrections Target

Next up was the California Department of Corrections B-21 target my CDC buddy told me about.  The California CDC uses the Mini 14 as an issue weapon, and the B-21 is their periodic qualification target.  I bought some of these targets at Alco last week and I wanted to see how I would to.  My CDC friend told me that CDC officers qualify with their Mini 14 rifles at 50 and 100 yards, from both the standing and kneeling position.

I put my target out at 100 yards and tried shooting from the kneeling position.  It felt very awkward to me and I was terrible.  Oh, I put rounds on the target, but this kneeling position is not my cup of tea. I used to be able to do it when I was in the Army, but I weighed 50 lbs less and I bent a lot easier in those days.  I’m not even sure what knee is supposed to be on the ground.  Maybe I need Colin Kaepernick to tutor me.

Then I went to the standing position, shooting offhand, and I found I could keep my shots in the bottle (as my CDC buddy described the target). I might be able to qualify as a CDC officer if I could get on top of this kneeling position business. The little .223 holes on the target below are a hard to see (my apologies for the cell phone photography), but trust me, they’re on there.  All the ones that are outside the bottle were from the kneeling position.

You know, when I first saw that B-21 target, I was amused at how big it is (it’s literally life-sized).   Try shooting it offhand from the standing position with iron sights, though, and the old B-21 suddenly gets a lot smaller.   At 100 yards, I couldn’t see any of the lines on the target.  It was just a big black mass, and I tried to hold in the center of it as I fired.   It was swimming in the sights, but I was able to connect.  Mind you, I had not shot offhand like this in years.  The rifle seems to be grouping a little high shooting offhand (as it did from the bench).  But it is, as the saying goes, close enough for government work.

What do you think?  Would I be able to run with the big dogs in the CDC?  My CDC buddy told me I’d qualify expert.  Maybe he was just being nice.

Future Mini 14 Accuracy Improvement Thoughts

I am thinking about what else might make a difference in accuracy on the Mini 14. The action is bedded and I’ve experimented with different loads until the cows came home (for your information, my best load is with a max ARComp charge and the Hornady 162 grain full metal jacket bullet). I sort and trim the brass I reload (and that makes a difference).  I’ve found the gas port that works best (it’s the 0.050-inch orifice).  So what’s left?

I’m wondering about the fit of the .223 cartridge in the chamber. The Mini 14 has a loose chamber to make sure everything feeds reliably, so I’m wondering if it’s too loose for optimal accuracy. My thought is to try neck sizing only. That’s when you only size the cartridge neck down (to hold the bullet in place) but leave the rest of the brass case enlarged, as it came from the rifle after the last firing.  I know you usually would not do that in a semi-auto rifle, but I’m guessing there’s plenty of room in that chamber. I’m thinking I’ll load 20 rounds with neck sizing only and see how that goes.  I guess I could try chambering an empty case previously fired in the Mini 14 and see if it chambers and extracts easily. If it does, neck-sized-only loaded rounds probably will, too.

Sometimes you can seat the bullets out further in the case to improve accuracy.  You can’t mess around with bullet eating depth on a Mini 14, though. If you seat the bullets out any further, the cartridges won’t fit in the magazine, so that’s out as a potential accuracy improvement.

Next up is the muzzle brake. This thing has a gigondo muzzle brake (see the photo above) that I had installed to replace the stock flash suppressor.  I had to do that to bring the rifle into the People’s Republik of Kalifornia (a flash suppressor on a semi auto rifle is illegal in California, a stupid law if ever there was one). The muzzle brake does not make contact with the bullet on the way out of the barrel, but I’m wondering if it somehow disturbs the bullet’s flight as it exits the muzzle. I think I’ll Google “muzzle brake impact on accuracy” and see if there is anything out there on this.  (Note: I did, and there’s evidence that this can happen.)

The other thing I’m wondering is if the guy who installed the brake damaged the muzzle when he installed it. I can’t see the muzzle in there. It’s not going to be easy to get it (the muzzle brake) off the barrel, but that may be the next step.  The muzzle brake has to be affecting the barrel’s harmonics, too, because it is so massive. Maybe I’ll just take it off and see what that does.

The Mini 14’s bolt feels loose when the rifle is in battery, but my Garand is like that, too, as well as many of the bolt guns I have. I don’t know if that is playing an accuracy role.  There’s nothing I can do about it, though, so that’s something that will remain a mystery.

I’m wondering about the front sight, too.  It’s wide.  At 100 yards, the width of the front sight blade is three or four times the diameter of the bullseye.  My M1A has a much thinner blade for the front sight, and it seems to be a lot easier to shoot small groups with it. Looking at the 100-yard bullseye target shown above, most of the Mini 14’s dispersion is left and right; I’m thinking a thinner front sight might cut down on that lateral dispersion.

I’ve put a lot of lead downrange with my Mini 14, probably something well north of 10,000 rounds.  Maybe the barrel is just worn out.  Eyeballing it, though, it looks good, and accuracy keeps getting better with incorporation of some of the things I’ve done.  But that’s a lot of shooting.  It could be that a new barrel would make a difference.

Any other ideas?  Hey, let’s hear your comments.  I’ve shared what I know, and I could use your help.

See our other Tales of the Gun reports (including more on the mighty Mini 14) here.

The new Colt Python

Colt’s ad for the new Python. I have high hopes for this gun.

The Colt Python was the king of the handgun world back in the ’60s and ’70s.  It was the Rolls Royce of revolvers.  I owned two of them at different times in the mid-’70s.  I bought one while I was deployed overseas in Korea (we could actually order guns through the base exchange) and it was delivered to me in Korea.  I paid something like $150 for it back then, and it was sleek…deep bluing (Colt called it Royal Blue), a 6-inch barrel, and then I had to worry about bringing it back to the US.   I was told I would need a certificate signed by the Director of the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Bureau and I could only imagine how long that would take, but it didn’t take long at all.  I submitted the request and three weeks later I had a hard copy (this was the 1970s) signed in ink by the actual top guy at the ATF.   That gun came back to America with me in a duffel bag.  I remember that 10 grains of Unique behind a 110-grain jacketed hollowpoint Hornady tore one ragged hole at 25 yards.  It was phenomenally accurate.

I traded that Python for a new Ruger No. 1 in .30 06 and a couple of boxes of .30 06 ammo, and I still have that rifle.   But back at Fort Bliss I missed the Python.   Good buddy Roy told me I could order one through the Fort Bliss Rifle and Pistol Club, so I did (this time in nickel, but still a 6-incher).   It was stunning, with flawless nickel plating and a absolutely jewel-like, luxurious look.  The I sold that one when I moved to Fort Worth.  It was not my brightest move ever.  I’ve done a lot of dumb things in my life.  This was definitely one of them.

Colt quit making the Python several years ago, and prices went through the roof.  An original Python goes for something around $3k, give or take a K or two (almost always to the north).  Big bucks, and way more than I want to spend.

Pete’s Python. It’s one of the originals, and it is phenomenally accurate.

I sort of got the Python fever again a few months ago when good buddy Python Pete let me take a few shots with his vintage 8-inch barreled Python.   It was the accuracy that got me excited.   These were great revolvers.  I wrote about that day here.

And then suddenly, just a few weeks ago, Colt announced that they were reintroducing the Python, and it would retail at $1500.   That was a good thing, I thought.  It’s still pricey, but a new Python would be great.   Maybe when the supply exceeds the demand prices might drop, I thought.

I want the new Python to succeed.  A frontline company like Colt (an iconic name if ever there was one) deserves nothing less.

More Tales of the Gun stories here!

The 9mm Comparo: Cast Bullet Loads

Bottom line first: The SIG P226 Scorpion can get ‘er done! This is a phenomenal handgun, one of the best I’ve ever shot.

This is Part I of the promised 9mm comparo, and after thinking about it for a bit, I thought I would focus on the cast bullet loads in the first installment, and then move on to the jacketed bullet loads in the next one (that will come a little later).   There are a lot of ways I could have organized the comparo; this one made the most sense to me.   There’s a lot of information here and I didn’t want it to be overwhelming.  It also involves a lot of shooting (about a half day’s worth with just the cast bullets), and I wanted to clean the pistols after shooting the cast bullet loads before moving on to the jacketed loads.

I used three 9mm handguns for this test:  A former police-issue Model 659 Smith and Wesson, a Springfield Armory 1911 Target, and a SIG P226 Scorpion.    Let’s start with a few words about each.

Keep us in clover…please click on the popup ads!

The 659 S&W is a gun that’s been featured on the ExNotes blog before.   It’s a police department trade-in that was manufactured in the 1980s.  My good buddy Tom gave me a great deal on it, I refinished the brushed stainless steel slide and frame, I fixed the decocker (it wasn’t dropping the hammer when the safety was actuated), and I’ve been shooting it a lot in the last few months.  My gun has Pachmayr checkered rubber grips (which I like a lot).   It is a heavy gun at 40 ounces, mostly because it has a steel frame (many 9mm handguns have a polymer or aluminum frame).

The 659 Smith and Wesson. It’s a solid service pistol, one that was used widely when police agencies in the US switched from revolvers to autos 40 years ago.

I like the 659.  Like I said above, it’s heavy (but that means it’s steady) and it seems to shoot everything well.  What do I not like about it?  It needs to be kept clean behind the extractor, or it will sometimes fail to fully extract and eject a fired cartridge.   That’s due to the nature of the extractor, which is a hinged arm.  When grit or powder reside gets behind the aft portion of the extractor, it can’t pivot and it doesn’t pull the cartridge all the way out so that it can be ejected.  I think the squared-off trigger guard is goofy.  I never wrap my left hand around the front of the trigger guard and I prefer the look of a rounded trigger guard.  Like most double-action/single-action semi-auto handguns, this 659 has the Joe Biden trigger (it’s kind of creepy). The front sight is unfinished stainless steel, so it is hard to see on the target (I paint the front sight on my 659 flat black so I can get a good sight picture).   The Pachmayr grips add to the 659’s bulky grip design, but they also allow a secure hold.

That’s a lot of bitching, I suppose, especially when it’s directed at a handgun I enjoy shooting enormously.  None of the above would keep me from buying a 659 (and none of the above kept me from buying this one).  I like my 659.  If you get an opportunity to buy one and the price is right for you, take it from a guy who knows:  You won’t regret pulling the trigger (literally and figuratively) on a used Model 659.  That’s if you can even find one.  The police departments have all traded them in, Smith and Wesson stopped making these guns decades ago, and the supply is drying up.

The next one up is a Springfield Armory Target model 9mm 1911.  As handguns go, it doesn’t get any better than the 1911 (or so I thought up until this test, but more on that later), and having a 1911 chambered in 9mm seems to me to be a good idea.

Springfield Armory changed the name on this gun.  It used to be called the “Loaded” model (as in loaded with all the options, including target sights and hand fitting here in the US), but they later changed the name to the Target model.  That’s good. “Loaded” makes it sound like the gun is a stoner (i.e., a doper, not the weapons designer).

I’ve had my 9mm 1911 for about 5 years (I bought it new from my good buddy Brian at Bullet Barn Guns).   I knew it was accurate, but I had not really played with it that much to find out what loads it liked best.

The Springfield Armory 1911 Target Model, with adjustable sights, a 5-inch barrel, and all stainless steel construction.

There’s not too much to dislike about the Springfield Armory 1911.  Springfield makes a quality gun.  The fit and finish on mine are superb.  One thing I’ve noticed is that it has a tight chamber, and ammo loaded on a progressive reloader is prone to sometimes jam if the cartridge isn’t perfect (unlike the 659, which feeds anything).  That doesn’t bother me because I load everything on a single-stage RCBS Rockchucker these days.  I don’t need the speed of a progressive reloader, and my ammo quality and accuracy are better when I load on a single-stage press.  The trigger on my 1911 is superb, as is the case on nearly every 1911 I’ve ever shot.   I think that as 1911s go, Springfield Armory is one of the best.  I’ve owned and shot several of them.  They are accurate and they hold up well.  Fit and finish are top drawer, too, on every Springfield Armory 1911 I’ve ever seen.  It’s just a beautiful 1911.

The third handgun for this test series is my recently-acquired SIG P226 Scorpion.  This is the first SIG I’ve ever owned.  I’d heard so many good things about SIG handguns (and in particular, their accuracy) that I thought I would take the plunge and buy one.  I bought mine at Turner’s here in southern California.

So how do I like the SIG?  In a word, it’s awesome.  I like the look of the Cerakote finish and the SIG grips, and gun just feels right in my hand.  The grips fit like a glove, and the grip texture works.  It is one seriously good-looking and good-handling handgun.

SIG’s P226 Scorpion. It has a Cerakote finish and an aluminum frame. This is a good-looking handgun, I think.

The SIG is the only pistol used in this test that does not have adjustable sights.  The SIG literature told me they offer sights of different heights, and the rear sight can be drifted left or right in its dovetail, but none of that was necessary on my gun.   My SIG shoots exactly to its point of aim at 50 feet (take a look at that target at the top of this blog again).

Speaking of sights, the SIG has what is evidently a fairly expensive set of Tritium sights that glow in the dark (I think they are about a hundred bucks if you buy them separately).  The glow is not like the lume of a watch dial; instead, they have something else going on that makes them light up at night.  You can see that in this photo I took in the dark:

There’s the sights. Where’s the target?  Normally, you’d get the front and rear sights aligned; that is not the case in this photo.  The only point of this photo is that the SIG glows in the dark.

I think the Tritium sights are kind of a Gee-Whiz deal, and I don’t think I need them.  I’m an old guy and I shoot targets when I can see what I’m shooting at.  If I was a lot younger and I was running around in a white Ferrari with Miami Vice music playing while chasing bad guys at night, maybe Tritium sights would do it for me.  But even under those conditions, it would still be dark and I wouldn’t be able to see my target. I think the Tritium sights are gimmicky, and the little lenses (or whatever they are) for the Tritium inserts are distracting.  Plain black sights work best for me.  Your mileage may vary.

So, on to the main attraction:  The 9mm loads and how they performed in each of the three handguns.   I loaded everything for this first 9mm test series with a bullet I’ve known and loved for 50 years, and that’s the 124-grain cast roundnose.  My particular flavor these days are the pills from Missouri Bullets.  At $33 for a box of 500, they are inexpensive and the quality is good.  A roundnose configuration bullet feeds well in just about any gun.  Yeah, I know there are other cast bullet configurations and other cast bullet weights.  I’ve always had my best results with the 124-grain bullets, though, and that’s what I used for this test.

124-grain cast roundnose bullets from the Missouri Bullet Company. They are relatively inexpensive and they shoot well.

I tested with four different propellants:  Bullseye, Unique, 231, and Power Pistol.  For the 231 and Power Pistol loads, I loaded near the lower end of the recommended charge range for one test set, and I loaded another test set near the upper end of the recommended charge range.   With Unique, they were all loaded with 5.0 grains, which is a max charge in most reloading manuals.   I had a bunch of these already loaded, and I knew from a past life that this was an accurate load.   I tried one load with Bullseye, too.  I had a box of 50 loaded and I grabbed those as I headed to the range a few days ago.  I used Remington small pistol primers for everything, and I used several different brands of brass, but I used the same kind of brass for each load.   Cartridge overall length was 1.112 inches for all loads.

All loads were handheld at a distance of 50 feet.  I shot two 5-shot groups with each load.  I didn’t use a machine rest or a chronograph because I have neither.  I shot from the bench, resting my arms (but not the gun) on the bench.  Yes, a lot of the variability you see in the chart below is due to me.  Hey, I’m what you get.  My intent was to get an idea what worked best in each of these guns, and I think I succeeded.

That’s the background.  Here are the results:

Clearly, the SIG is the most accurate of the three handguns.  What I’d read and heard about SIG’s performance is true.  Some of the SIG groups were amazing, putting 5-shots into under an inch at 50 feet.  That’s about as good as I’ve ever done.

While the SIG was accurate with Winchester’s 231 propellant, the gun didn’t like it.  On both of the 3.4 grain loads, the slide went forward after the last round (it didn’t lock open), and it did it again on one of the 3.9 grain magazines.  While the 231 loads had enough poop to cycle the action, it wasn’t running the slide far enough back to lock open on the last round.  This powder also did that on one of the Springfield Armory 1911 tests.   Interestingly, the Smith and Wesson 659 worked okay with both the upper and lower 231 loads.  These were light loads (I could see the slide moving back and forth with each shot, and it popped the brass out right next to the gun).  My testing got me far enough along to decide Winchester 231 is not for me as a 9mm propellant.

The SIG really liked Power Pistol propellant, and from an accuracy perspective it performed similarly at both the low (5.0 grain) and high (5.5 grain) levels.  There was perceptibly more recoil (but no pressure signs) with 5.5 grains of Power Pistol, so my load for the SIG with this bullet will be 5.0 grains.  The SIG also did well with 5.0 grains of Unique.  That’s a good thing, as I have a bunch of ammo loaded with this recipe.  As I mentioned above, I found 5.0 grains of Unique did well in accuracy testing a long time ago, and it’s good to see this test supports those earlier findings.  The 5.0 grains of Unique load also did very well in the Springfield 1911 (it was the Springfield’s most accurate load).  With this load, the Springfield is as accurate as the SIG.  But the SIG did well with all loads; the Springfield was pickier.

The 659 is a great gun, but from an accuracy perspective it can’t run with the big dogs. That’s okay; it’s still fun to shoot and I plan to continue shooting it a lot.  And it only cost about a third what the others cost.  Like I said earlier, if you get a chance to pick up a 659, don’t let it get away.

But that SIG.  Wow!

So there you have it.  Next up?  I want to see how these same three pistols shoot jacketed bullets.  Stay tuned.

One last comment…it’s time for the warnings and disclaimers.  These are my loads in my guns.  You should always consult a reloading manual published by one of the major sources (Hornady, Speer, Sierra, Lyman, Winchester, Alliant, you get the idea) and rely on the load data published there.  Start low and work your way up, watching for any pressure signs along the way.

Help us keep the lights on:  Please click on the popup ads!

See more Tales of the Gun here!

Don’t pay exorbitant range fees for targets.  Buy online and get targets delivered to your door like we do!

Looking for great deals on reloading equipment?  Here you go!

Don’t miss a single ExNotes blog post!

Want to read a similar jacketed bullet test series with the same three 9mm handguns?  It’s right here!

A .22 Hornet Ruger No. 3!

I’ve written about the Hornet before (and I’ll give you a link to that past blog at the end of this one). The point of today’s writeup?  It’s about accuracy and a few different loads for the Hornet in my single-shot No. 3 Ruger.  I like the idea of a single-shot rifle and I love the .22 Hornet cartridge.  The .22 Hornet was the world’s first centerfire .22 cartridge, and in its day, it was a real hot rod.  Velocities range between 2400 and 2900 feet per second (sometimes a little more, depending on the load).  Recoil and muzzle blast are nearly nonexistent compared to other centerfire cartridges, and it’s a fun cartridge to shoot.

A Ruger No. 3 in .22 Hornet. It has a period-correct inexpensive Bushnell 4X scope, which is good enough for me. My rifle is in near-new condition.

The idea for this blog started when I saw three boxes of Speer 33-grain hollow point bullets a couple a few weeks ago at my reloading supply depot.  They were inexpensive (just $10 a box), so I bought all three.   I hadn’t tried the light Speer bullets and I wanted to see how they compared to an old favorite, the 45-grain Sierra Hornet bullet.  I also wanted to try a propellant that I had purchased previously (Lil Gun) and compare it to my favorite Hornet propellant (Winchester 296).   And my good buddy Tom recently gave me a bunch of old .22 Hornet ammo that I shot up on a prior outing, so I had a good supply of Hornet brass.  It all came together a week or two ago, and the result was a hundred rounds of reloaded .22 Hornet ammo in various load configurations.

The Sierra 45-grain jacketed soft point bullet on the left, and the Speer 33-grain jacketed hollow point bullet on the right.

The Ruger No. 3 was the low-alternative to the fancier Ruger No. 1 back in the day.  The No. 1 had more figured walnut (in the 1970s, and maybe today, too), the No. 1 rifles with iron sights had fancier sights and a cool quarter rib, the No. 1 stock had a pistol grip and a rubber recoil pad, and the No. 1 had hand-cut checkering.  The No. 3 was a simpler gun, with plain walnut, an aluminum (later plastic) buttplate, no checkering, and a less-fancy iron sight setup.  In the 1970s, the No. 3 suggested retail price was $165, and you could buy them brand new all day long for $139.  The No. 1 retail price was $265, and those could similarly be had for $239.  Oh, how times have changed.  New No. 1 Rugers sell for something like $1500 today, and Ruger stopped making the No. 3 altogether.  It’s likely (in my opinion) that at some point in the not too distant future, Ruger will drop the No. 1, too.  That’s okay; it will make mine more valuable.  Not that I’m planning to sell anything.  It just feels better knowing the value is going up.

Ruger manufactured the No .3 from 1973 to 1986.  The very first one was chambered in .45 70 (a classic cartridge, to be sure), and then Ruger added two more classics:  The .22 Hornet and the .30-40 Krag.  Ruger built the rifle you see in this blog in 1978.  Ruger No. 3 rifles can still be found on the used gun market, but these days they go for about the same price as a used No. 1, which is usually somewhere between $800 and $1000.  Supply and demand, you know…they aren’t making any more No. 3 Rugers.

The Ruger No. 3 falling block action, with the lever open and the block in the retracted (or lowered) position.

The Ruger’s action is called a falling block because, well, it is. When you open the trigger guard/lever, the breechblock drops (it’s the silver thing you see in front of the trigger in the photo above), and that allows inserting a round in the chamber.

Ruger uses a distinctive font on its No. 1 and No. 3 rollmarks. This one is cool.
The .22 Hornet is a cute round. These are loaded with 45-grain Sierra jacketed softpoint bullets.
A sense of scale: .22 Hornet rounds next to a couple of .30 30 cartridges.
Another sense-of-scale photo. From left to right, that’s a .416 Rigby cartridge with a 350-grain cast Montana bullet, a .300 Weatherby Magnum with a 180-grain jacketed softpoint bullet, a .45 ACP with a 230-grain jacketed roundnose bullet, a .357 Magnum with a 158-grain plated bullet, a .22 Hornet with a 45-grain jacketed softpoint bullet, another .22 Hornet with a 33-grain jacketed hollowpoint bullet, and a .22 Long Rifle with a 40-grain plated bullet.

The Hornet is fun to shoot, but it’s one of those cartridges that is tricky to reload (a couple of others are .30 Carbine and 9mm; they are challenging to reload for other reasons).  Hornet brass is very thin (so you can’t reload it too many times and it’s easy to deform it when seating the bullet).  It’s hard to get the bullets started straight during the seating operation, and the whole reloading process just takes a lot more finesse than does reloading most other cartridges.  Everything is tiny.  That being said, though, I like reloading Hornet ammo, especially when good groups are the result.

So how did it go?  Not bad, I think.  Here are the results:

The 33-grain loads show promise.

My testing wasn’t exhaustive, and I only shot at 50 yards on this outing.  I tried a few new things with these tests.  As mentioned above, the Lil Gun propellant and 33-grain Speer bullets were two of the variables, and both did well.  I’d previously read that some shooters had better results using small pistol primers instead of small rifle primers, so tried that and it seems to be the case for me, too.  The theory is that small rifle primers, combined with the Hornet’s small case capacity, may blow the bullet out of the case before the powder can get a good burn going.  I don’t know if that’s the case or not, but the small pistol primers worked well for me.

The next steps for me will be to shoot these loads at 100 yards to see how the rifle does at that range.  The scope on my rifle is an inexpensive Bushnell straight 4X and it’s quite a bit more clear at 100 yards (it’s just a little bit out of focus at 50 yards).  We’ll see how that goes, and I’ll publish the results here.  Stay tuned, my friends.

You can read more Tales of the Gun stories here!

Help us keep the lights on:  Click on those popup ads!

The 2020 MacManus 1911

Stainless steel barrel, Parkerized finish, fixed sights, checkered wood grips, arched mainspring housing…the Springfield Armory Mil Spec 1911 gets the nod for the 2020 Colin D. MacManus Award to be presented later this year to a graduating cadet in the Rutgers University Reserve Officers Training Corps.  We reviewed the offerings from several 1911 manufacturers and I have personal experience with the .45 autos from many of them.  The Springfield Armory Mil Spec 1911 is the clear winner from several perspectives, not the least of which are accuracy, reliability, and close adherence to the US Army 1911 configuration.  I own a Springfield 1911, and three of my good buddies bought this exact model.   One of them is my friend Greg, and I’ve seen his gun shoot one-hole, 5-shot groups at 50 feet.  With any handgun, that’s as good as it gets.

The MacManus .45 shipped yesterday from the Springfield Armory factory, and it is on its way (through a New Jersey FFL, of course) to its new owner.  We’ll write about that when it happens, so stay tuned!

Click here for the story on the Colin D. MacManus Award.

Click here for more cool stuff on the 1911 and other great handguns.

Subscribe to ExNotes and keep up with all the good stories!

A gripping 1911 story…

Two 5-shot groups I shot with my Compact RIA 1911 at 50 feet this weekend. I love the load, I love the Rock 1911, and I love the Pachmayr grips. These little snubbie 1911s are surprisingly accurate.

It’s no secret I’ve become a big admirer of the .45 ACP Rock Island Compact 1911.  I worked through literally thousands of rounds and a number of personal preferences on mine and about the only thing left to mess around with was the grips.  The standard wood grips on the Compact are okay, but I wanted better.    The best grips I’d ever tried on any 1911 are the ones made by Pachmayr, and that’s what I wanted for my Rock.

It had been quite a few years since I bought a set of Pachmayr grips, and when I searched for them online I found that they appeared under the Lyman site.  So I called Lyman.  I learned Lyman acquired Pachmayr about 20 years go (shows how much I know, I guess).  The guy on the phone was nice and he was able to answer my question, which was would their shorter grips fit the Rock Island Armory Compact’s frame (and the answer was yes).

Good buddy Greg had also purchased a Rock Compact based on my raving about it, and after Greg shot mine, he immediately purchased one for himself.  Greg’s 1911 is completely unaltered (it has not had the custom work I had done on mine by good buddy TJ), but it shoots just as well.  I had a few issues on mine; Greg’s had no issues or failures of any kind with his Compact 1911.

I told Greg a couple of weeks ago that I had ordered a set of Pachmayr grips for my Rock, and he ordered a set, too.  I was out of town, so Greg got to shoot his Pachmayr-equipped Compact first.  One of the Pachmayr grip emblems fell off on Greg’s gun his first time at the range with the new grips.  That was not a good start.   Greg has another full-sized 1911 with Hogue grips and he likes those, so he ordered a set of Hogues for the Compact.  The Hogue grips have finger grooves in them, and Greg likes that feature.  I don’t, but hey, different strokes for different folks.

Greg’s RIA Compact with Pachmayr grips.
On his first range session with the Pachmayr grips, one of Greg’s grip emblems popped out.  Mine hasn’t done that.
Greg’s Compact 1911 with Hogue grips. Note the finger grooves.  Note also that there’s no emblem to fall out.

I’ve been shooting my Compact 1911 with the Pachmayr grips and I love them.   They give me a better grip on the little 1911 and I think they make the gun easier to shoot.  And wow, it sure shoots well, especially with that 185-grain SWC bullet and the Bullseye load.   That’s my go to load for this gun.

Where I’m going with all this is that this weekend I was able to try both Compact 1911s; one with the Pachmayr grips (that’s my gun) and one with the Hogue grips (Greg’s gun).  Both feel great, but for me, the Pachmayr grips get the nod.  They’re what I’m used to, I don’t care for finger grooves, and I like the checkered texture of the Pachmayr style.   My grip emblems are staying put, so I haven’t had the issue Greg (and others, if you poke around a bit on the Internet) have had with theirs.

I shot a few targets on this past cold and windy Sunday morning at 50 feet, and I continue to be amazed at just how accurate the Compact 1911 is with my newly-discovered accuracy load (and that’s a 185-grain cast semi-wadcutter bullet over 5.0 grains of Bullseye with a CCI 300 primer).  Surprisingly, Greg’s Compact fed the SWC bullets just as well as mine (my gun is throated and polished; Greg’s is in “as delivered” factory condition).

The bottom line?  Either set of aftermarket grips is good (both the Hogues and the Pachmayrs).  You wouldn’t be making a mistake with either.

One more thought:  I think it would be cool if Rock Island offered the Pachmayr grips as an option with an inlaid Rock Island Armory emblem.  That would work for me, and I’d buy the first pair if they ever offered them.

Want to see more on the Rock Compact, reloading .45 ACP ammo, and other shooting topics?  There’s more good stuff here:  Tales of the Gun!

Reloading 9mm ammo…

The 147-grain 9mm Speer bullet next to a 124-grain cast roundnose bullet. Cool, huh?

Well, ol’ Gresh sure stirred up a hornet’s nest with that flat track blog yesterday.  We nearly ran out of bandwidth!

On to a more metric subject:  9mm ammo.

I started the PRK 10-day cooling off period (you know, the People’s Republik of Kalifornia) for my new SIG P226 a couple of days ago.  Let me tell you, if anybody thinks they are going to outlaw guns in California, they need to think again.  I had to wait an hour and a half at our local Turner’s Sporting Goods store just to start the process.  There were five guys working the gun counter and customers were lined up five deep.   There were a ton of folks buying and picking up guns.  Trying to outlaw guns in America is a nonstarter, even here in looney leftwing California.

This man had some of the best comments ever. “They know so much that just isn’t so” ranks high on my list.

Okay, enough of the rant about my friends who know so much that just isn’t so, to borrow a phrase from one of the greats, and on to the subject of this blog:  Getting ready for the 9mm accuracy load development program I spoke about a few days ago.   Like I said earlier, my standard 9mm accuracy load for years has been 5.0 grains of Unique behind a 125-grain cast bullet, but as part of my New Year’s resolutions I am moving in two directions simultaneously:  I’m expanding my horizons in the 9mm world and I’m reducing my waistline.  The waistline story can wait for another day; today’s topic is the loads I’m crafting for inclusion in the 9mm Comparo.

I’m going to evaluate three or four different 9mm handguns and several different loads, and I’ve started reloading the ammo for that.  The first four loads I’ve already crafted are with two different bullets I haven’t tried before:  The 147-grain Speer truncated metal jacket bullet, and the 115-grain Armscor FMJ bullet.  The 147-grain Speer bullets are really cool looking.  If they shoot half as good as they look I’ll be driving tacks with my new SIG!

A box of Speer 147-grain TMJ bullets. These are long bullets compared to what I normally shoot. They do look good.
One of the 147-grain Speers ready for seating in a charged 9mm case.
Another angle. Some of you folks get it. Stuff like this is beautiful. I mean, look at it: Polished brass, Unique propellant, and full metal jacket, heavy-for-caliber bullets. Life is good, folks.  These loads are at 3.9 grains and 4.4 grains.

Seating the bullets is always cool, too.  It’s where it all comes together.

On the way up, Rockchucker style…
…and on the way down. A new cartridge is born!

The finished rounds look great.  Now the question is:  Are they accurate?   We’ll see. This is the first time I’ve tried a bullet this heavy in a 9mm.

You can’t think about the time you spend reloading ammo compared to the cost of factory 9mm ammo.  It would be too depressing. We do it for the sheer enjoyment of making something. We’re recyclers. Maybe that’s why RCBS reloading gear is green. Al Gore and Ms. Thunberg have nothing on us!

I seated the Speer bullets to the recommended depth for an overall cartridge length of 1.120 inches.  I’m trying a couple of different propellant charges.  I can experiment with seating depth to find the best accuracy later if this combo shows promise.

I know. It’s an obsession. But it’s fun.

But wait:  There’s more!  I also picked up another bullet I had not tried yet, the Armscor 115 FMJ (full metal jacket) roundnose bullets.  They are cool, too, and they were only $10 for a bag of 100 pills.

Armscor is the same company that makes Rock Island Armory guns, like my Compact 1911.

I’ve shot brass-jacketed FMJ bullets before, but that was in my .45 when I bought bulk Remington ammo just to get the brass cases (you know, so I could shoot them up and reload them later).  These are good looking bullets, too.

Brass jacketed Armscor 9mm bullets. We’ll see how these do.  I like the look..

The charges listed in my loading manuals for a 115-grain jacketed bullet with Unique propellant seemed to hover around a max of 5.5 grains with a minimum of 4.8 grains, so I prepped two loads, one at 5.4 grains and one at 5.0 grains.

5.4 grains of Unique in primed 9mm cases. You can’t load too much more; this charge nearly takes up the entire case volume. With the bullets seated, this will become what we call a compressed load.  Unique is what is known as a flake powder…the individual grains are tiny flakes of propellant.

Here’s a cool shot of the finished Armscor load.  I like the way these look.  It’s like being the Lone Ranger, but with gold instead of silver bullets.  Hi Yo SIG, away!  (Cue in the William Tell Overture.)

Ready for accuracy testing. This, too, is nice looking ammunition.

If you are not a reloader yet, you might want to think about getting into it.  To me, reloading is as much fun as shooting.  And if you want to learn how to do it, take a look at our series on reloading .45 ACP ammo on the Tales of the Gun page!

Hey, join the squad!

The A-10 Warthog

The Gatling Gun, a book that tells the story of the original Gatling guns, their transition to modern gun systems, and several of the weapons platforms currently using Gatlings.  It has been one of my most successful books ever.  The Gatling Gun was picked up as the Book of the Month by the Military Book Club shortly after its publication and that made for a very healthy sales spike (and that was okay by me).  It seems that every job I had after finishing college had something to do with Gatlings.  I was on the Vulcan gun system in the Army.  I was on the F-16 design team, an aircraft that flew with a 20mm Gatling.  I worked on the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System at General Dynamics here in California.  I was the Director of Engineering in the company that manufactured 30mm A-10 ammo.  There’s more, but you get the idea.

Writing The Gatling Gun was a hell of a lot of fun, including visits to the Connecticut State Library (where the original Gatling and Colt archives, and many of the early Gatling guns, are stored).  I handled original documents prepared by Samuel Colt and Dr. Gatling (and in the process, I became a licensed State of Connecticut historian).  It was a hoot.

Of all the modern Gatling-equipped weapons of war, the most powerful is the A-10 Warthog, an aircraft armed with the mighty 30mm GAU-8/A Avenger cannon.  Working for Aerojet, the company that manufactured the A-10’s 30mm ammunition, was one of the best jobs I ever had.

Today’s blog includes The Gatling Gun chapter on the A-10.   I think you’ll enjoy it.

Chapter 11:  The A-10 Thunderbolt Story

As the column of Soviet armored vehicles rolled across the open Eastern European plain, the lumbering sound of diesel engines and clanking treads drowned out all else. Russian infantrymen struggled to keep up, shouting to (but not hearing) each other. Suddenly, a roar different than that emanating from the tanks engulfed everything. It sounded like a powerful internal combustion engine (perhaps that of a race car) running at full throttle. The infantrymen started dropping as the tanks slowed to a stop. From the rear of the column, and working toward the front at an incredible rate, the ground erupted all around in 10-meter-wide explosions. Three of the tanks burst into flames, one blowing its turret off the hull. Black smoke was everywhere. An A-10 passed overhead, its 30mm Avenger gun continuing to roar, throwing out high-velocity depleted uranium penetrators and a 20-foot-long muzzle flash. The aircraft swung low as it passed the column. One of the infantrymen not killed in the first pass realized that the devilish craft was circling for another pass, and in addition to feeling raw terror, he suddenly felt very ill.

Of all the Gatling-gun-equipped aircraft flying today, one of the most intriguing is the A-10 Thunderbolt II. Nicknamed the Warthog by the crews who fly it, the A-10 is the first airplane designed from the ground up around a Gatling gun. It carries the most powerful Gatling gun ever built.

The Close Air Support Problem

The need for the Thunderbolt II and its very specialized mission was recognized during the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam. In these conflicts, U.S. aircraft were the best in the world for air-to-air combat. In the Korean War, these superb fighters included the F-86 Sabre, F-84 Thunderjet, F-80 Shooting Star, and F9F Panther. The F-4 Phantom, the F-111, the F-8, the A-7, and several others saw action in the Vietnam War. Vietnam-era tactical aircraft included such features as supersonic speeds, terrain-following radar, computer-assisted weapon delivery systems, and even such things as exotic as wings with adjustable sweep angles. One problem with these aircraft, however, was that they were designed primarily for air-to-air combat. This made them less than ideal for close-air-support missions (which support ground troops by engaging enemy ground targets). Having been designed for air-to-air combat, they had to be fast and maneuverable, and capable of flying at high altitudes. This placed constraints on the amount and kinds of ordnance that could be carried. Their high speed also meant the airplanes had a high stall speed, which detracted from accurately delivering ground fire.

In the close-air-support role, where the pilot would be required to engage ground targets in close proximity to friendly troops, inaccurate delivery systems were unacceptable. Most of the aircraft that flew in Vietnam were designed with late 1950s and early 1960s technology. During that era, vulnerability to small-arms ground fire was not recognized as a key design parameter. Unfortunately, this is precisely the environment in which close-air support aircraft must operate. In the Vietnam War, more U.S. aircraft were downed by small-arms fire than by any other means. There is even a confirmed case of an F-4 Phantom being shot down by a single rifle bullet.

The A-10 Warthog firing its 30mm Avenger cannon. This aircraft was actually designed around its powerful Gatling cannon. Each 30mm round has more muzzle energy than a World War II 75mm Howitzer!

The most significant drawback of existing close-air-support aircraft (i.e., those used in the close-air-support role prior to the advent of the A-10) was that they were ineffective against tanks. With enemy armor being one of the main threats to NATO forces in the European theater, military planners recognized that an aircraft with new capabilities was required.

The A-X Requirements

The close-air-support deficiencies the United States had observed during the Korean and Vietnam conflicts defined the need for the A-X aircraft in the mid-1960s (A-X stands for “Attack Experimental”). The air force initially envisioned a turbo-prop aircraft. The idea was that a current-technology version of the World War II Thunderbolt would best satisfy the requirements (note that World War II vintage Thunderbolts were used in a close-air-support role in Vietnam). The A-X specification was based primarily on deficiencies in existing aircraft. One of the requirements was an extremely accurate ordnance delivery system, because friendly ground troops could be within yards of the enemy. A high payload was also needed. As explained earlier, most existing tactical aircraft had been designed to maximize either maneuverability, speed, altitude, or some combination of these parameters. Payload had necessarily suffered.

The A-X aircraft also had to be able to remain in the air near the target for long periods of time, which is referred to as “loiter capability.” Existing tactical aircraft had been designed to operate at high altitudes.  When flying at the low altitudes associated with close-air-support missions, they consumed excessive amounts of fuel. This translated to short loiter capabilities, which detracted from the effectiveness of close-air-support missions.

The air force also stipulated that the new A-X aircraft needed to have good “survivability” characteristics, meaning it should be relatively invulnerable to small-arms fire from the ground. To ensure that the aircraft met this requirement, the air force specified armor protection, redundant flight-control systems, and fire-suppression equipment.

The Armor Threat

The main requirement for the A-X aircraft, however, was that it be able to contribute significantly to the NATO defense of Eastern Europe, and that meant it had to be able to defeat tanks. (The Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies had tens of thousands of tanks deployed along the East-European frontier. In any European combat scenario, the United States and the nations of Western Europe would have had to be able to defeat these tanks.)

To meet this threat, the United States developed (and continues to develop) many antitank weapons. These include shoulder-fired antitank weapons, large-caliber recoilless rifles, aircraft-delivered missiles and bombs, smart munitions, and several other systems. No U.S. aircraft, however, carried a gun system capable of defeating Soviet tanks.

The Flyoff Competition

In 1967 the U.S. Air Force solicited proposals from twenty-one companies to build a prototype A-X aircraft. After evaluating all of the proposals, it selected Northrop and Fairchild Republic as contenders to enter the final phase of the competition. As part of a new procurement policy, it funded both companies to develop aircraft meeting the A-X specifications. After Northrop and Fairchild finished building the prototypes, the air force conducted extensive tests prior to making a decision. During the competition, Northrop teamed with Ford Aerospace and Communications Company. Ford built the gun used in the Northrop aircraft, which was designated the A-9. Unfortunately for both Northrop and Ford, the Ford gun experienced many problems during the test program, including blowing up on at least one occasion. The antitank gun was the primary weapon for the A-X aircraft, and because the Ford gun (which was also based on the Gatling principle) performed poorly, the outlook for the Northrop A-9 was bleak.

A tank struck by GAU-8/A ammunition from the A-10 Thunderbolt. The GAU-8/A ammunition includes a mix of high explosive and depleted uranium projectiles.

Fairchild Republic teamed with the General Electric Armament Division to build the A-10. The A-10 carried a new 30mm version of the Gatling gun named the “Avenger,” which was based on the older 20mm Vulcan but was much more powerful. When General Electric became involved with the A-X program, it had nearly twenty years of development and production history with Gatling guns of various configurations. This experience was apparent during the test program, and the 30mm Avenger performed superbly. The A-10 rapidly demonstrated that it was a superior aircraft. The prototype flyoff competition ended in late 1972, and the A-10 was selected for a planned production run of 600 aircraft.

The A-10 Thunderbolt II

The A-10 Thunderbolt II is unlike any aircraft in the U.S. inventory. It is quite unconventional in appearance when compared to other tactical jet aircraft, and for good reason. One notably different aspect of the A-10 is its unswept wings. The stubby wings are straight to allow flying at the very low speeds required for the close-air-support role. Another striking difference is the location of the engines, which are mounted high above the rear fuselage. There are two reasons for this. One is better protection from enemy small-arms fire. Another is that the rear fuselage masks the engines’ heat signature, providing better protection from heat-seeking missiles.

The GAU-8/A 30mm Gatling gun. The size and power of the Avenger cannon are obvious in this photograph.

The A-10 has many other unique features that are not as readily apparent. One is a high degree of component and subassembly interchangeability. To the maximum extent possible, left and right components of the aircraft are identical, which considerably reduces the number of spare parts needed to support it. The interchangeable components include the engines, landing gear, rudders, and many parts of the wings and tail. The landing gear design is also unique in that when it is retracted, the main and nose wheels protrude slightly beyond the outline of the fuselage. This permits the A-10 to make emergency gear-up landings without damage. The A-10 is designed to survive small-arms fire. Control cables and hydraulic lines are routed so that one projectile could not inflict enough damage to make the aircraft unflyable. Another survivability feature is the cockpit design. The lower portion is surrounded by lightweight titanium armor to protect the pilot. The A-10 payload is quite impressive. In addition to 30mm ammunition, the A-10 can carry missiles, bombs, cluster bombs, and other munitions, for a total of up to 18,500 pounds of ordnance. This is approximately equal to the weight of the aircraft and is about double the payload of other aircraft used in the close-air-support role. Yet the A-10’s most intriguing feature is undoubtedly its 30mm Avenger Gatling gun.

The World’s Most Powerful Gatling Gun

The heart of the A-10 is its 30mm gun. The military designation for this gun is the GAU-8/A (the GAU is pronounced “gow,” and is an acronym for Gun, Automatic, Utility), and the A-10 was literally designed around it.

The GAU-8/A is a seven-barreled 30mm Gatling gun that weighs approximately 3,900 pounds fully loaded (or about 20 percent of the total aircraft weight). The gun is hydraulically driven and is fed through a double helix drum and ammunition feed system similar to that of the 20mm Vulcan (more on the feed and storage system later).

One way to appreciate the power of this gun system is to consider it in relation to the A-10. The gun is mounted to place the firing barrel on the exact centerline of the aircraft, and for good reason. When firing at the maximum rate of 4,200 RPM (it can also fire at a reduced rate of 2,100 RPM), the GAU-8/A generates about 19,000 pounds of recoil. To put this in perspective, consider the power of the A-10’s two fan turbine engines. Each of these generates about 9,000 pounds of thrust. When both engines are at full throttle, they generate a combined thrust of 18,000 pounds, which is less than the recoil of the GAU-8/A. In other words, when firing at maximum rate, more recoil force is generated by the GAU-8/A than by both of the engines operating at full throttle! The effect is quite noticeable, as the gun actually slows the A-10 when it is firing.

The A-10’s Avenger Gatling fires when each barrel when it is aligned with the centerline of the aircraft, which is why the cannon is offset to the aircraft’s left side.

The high recoil of the GAU-8/A gun is also the reason the firing barrel is along the aircraft centerline. If it were not, the A-10 would turn away from the target each time the gun fired. Aircraft carrying the 20mm Vulcan in an off-centerline position are also susceptible to this phenomenon, but the recoil of the 20mm gun is small enough to allow for compensation by offsetting the rudder a few degrees. This is normally programed into the flight-control computer and requires no action by the pilot. That approach would not work on the A-10, though. The GAU-8/A gun simply generates too much recoil.

The GAU-8/A Gun System

The GAU-8/A Gun System is made up of four subsystems: the gun, the ammunition feed and storage subsystem, the drive subsystem, and the electrical control subsystem. Specifications for the GAU-8/A gun system are presented in Table 11-1 and explained below.

Table 11-1
GAU-8/A Gun System Specifications
Gun type: 7-barrel Gatling
Ammunition: 30mm HEI, TP, API
Firing rate: 4,200 or 2,100 spm
Gun system weight (loaded): 3,867 pounds
Gun system weight (unloaded): 1,861 pounds
Gun weight: 661 pounds
Drum weight: 780 pounds
Capacity: 1,200 rounds (drum); 1,350 rounds (system)
Drive: hydraulic
Gun length: 112.83 inches
Barrel length: 93.1 inches
Clearing: reverse rotation
Peak recoil: 19,000 pounds

The GAU-8/A gun is a seven-barrel Gatling-based automatic cannon (see the illustrations above). The gun subsystem consists of the following nine major components:

Rotor assembly. The rotor assembly is made up of the forward rotor (which accepts the barrels and is geared to the gun drive shaft) and the mid-rotor (to which the bolt guide tracks are mounted). The rotor assembly operates in the same manner and provides the same functions as that of other Gatling guns.

Housing. The housing serves as the basic frame of the GAU-8/A and provides a mount for many of the gun components (including the lubricator, ammunition transfer unit, solenoid assembly, firing cam,
rotor, and other components). It also contains the elliptical cam path that drives the bolts back and forth.

Barrels. The GAU-8/A has seven barrels. Each is 93.1 inches long and has 20-groove right-hand constant twist rifling (unlike the 20mm Vulcan, which uses a gain twist rifling pattern).

Bolts. Seven bolts are used on the GAU-8/A. They are similar to those used on the 20mm Vulcan, except they are much larger and use a percussion (instead of an electrical) firing system.

Transfer unit. The transfer unit is mounted to the right side of the housing. It feeds ammunition into the gun and accepts fired and unfired cases from it.

The GAU-8/A cannon and ammunition. This seven-barreled Gatling gun fires several types of 30mm ammunition. The ammunition has an aluminum cartridge case, nylon rotating bands (to increase projectile velocity and decrease barrel wear), and (in the tank-busting role) a depleted uranium penetrator warhead.

Lubricator. The lubricator is mounted on the upper rear portion of the housing. It contains a reservoir of lubricant, and each time the gun fires a small quantity is injected onto the bolt tracks.

Solenoid assembly. The solenoid assembly is also mounted on the housing and is used to withdraw the firing pin safety when the firing signal is sent to the gun.

Mid-barrel support and clamp. The mid-barrel support and clamp provides the forward mounting point for the GAU-8/A. It also locks the barrels in position within the rotor.

Muzzle clamp. The muzzle clamp provides structural support for the cannon and maintains concentricity of the barrel cluster.

Ammunition Feed and Storage Subsystem

The ammunition feed and storage subsystem is used to store and convey live and spent rounds (empty cartridges are not ejected out of the A-10). The nine major components of the subsystem are as follows:

Ammunition storage drum. The ammunition storage drum is similar in concept to the drum used for the 20mm Vulcan. It consists of an inner and outer drum, two scoop-disk assemblies, two drum-cover assemblies, and two spacer rings. The inner drum has a double-helix that forces the rounds forward or backward when the inner drum is rotated. Ammunition passes through the drum-cover assemblies for loading, unloading, firing, and returning fired cartridge cases to the drum.

Entrance unit. The entrance unit is mounted on the rear drum-cover assembly. It receives fired cases from the conveyor elements (explained below) and passes them into the ammunition storage drum.

Exit unit. The exit unit is similar in concept to the entrance unit. It mounts on the front of the ammunition storage drum and is used to feed live rounds into the conveyor elements.

Ammunition chuting. The ammunition chuting provides a path for the conveyor elements that carry ammunition to and from the GAU-8/A gun.

Conveyor turnaround unit. The conveyor turnaround unit feeds live rounds into the gun transfer unit (explained in the description of the gun subsystem). The conveyor turnaround unit also accepts spent rounds from the gun transfer unit and places them in conveyor elements for return to the ammunition storage drum.

Ammunition conveyor elements. The ammunition conveyor elements are linked together to form an endless belt that travels to and from the gun through the ammunition chuting. Each element carries one round of ammunition going to the gun and one spent case or unfired round when returning to the ammunition storage drum.

Drum drive unit. Mounted on the drum exit cover, the drum drive unit drives the ammunition storage drum.

Equalizer. The equalizer is mounted on the ammunition chuting approximately midway between the ammunition storage drum and the GAU-8/A gun subsystem. It equalizes the tension between the feed and return ammunition conveyor elements.

Loading access unit. The loading access unit is used to load ammunition into the storage drum. It is accessible through a panel on the left side of the A-10 (just forward of the wing).

Drive Subsystem

The drive subsystem is a hydraulic drive assembly consisting of the following major components.

Hydraulic drive motors. Two identical hydraulic drive motors provide power for the GAU-8/A gun and the ammunition feed and storage system.

Accessory drive gearbox. The accessory drive gearbox is driven by the hydraulic drive motors. It provides output torque for the gun and drum drive shafts.

Gun drive shaft. The gun drive shaft provides power to the GAU-8/A gun subsystem.

Drum drive shaft. The drum drive shaft provides power to the ammunition feed and storage subsystem.

Electronic Control Subsystem

The electronic control subsystem consists of the electronic control unit. This “black box” contains the circuitry that controls all GAU-8/A logic functions.

System Operation

When the A-10 pilot engages a target, the first step is to bring the armament control system to a state of operational readiness. Once this is done, the pilot must get the target in the Heads Up Display screen,
commonly referred to as the HUD. The HUD is a transparent screen mounted directly in the pilot’s line of sight. A small pipper (or bright spot) is projected onto the screen, and the pilot maneuvers the airplane (and consequently, the GAU-8/A gun) until the pipper is directly on the target. This allows the pilot to engage the target without having to divert his vision. This capability is critically important in a close-air-support aircraft, which must fly at low altitudes.

When the pilot wants to fire the GAU-8/A gun, he presses the control-column-mounted trigger. The trigger sends a signal to the electronic control assembly, which subsequently sends a signal to two solenoids mounted on the hydraulic drive assembly. When these solenoids open, aircraft hydraulic pressure is applied to the two hydraulic drive motors, and the gun, ammunition storage drum, and chuting begin to move. One-tenth of a second later, the electronic control assembly sends another signal to the firing solenoid assembly, which is mounted on the gun housing. This solenoid withdraws the safing sector from the firing cam path in the gun housing, which allows ammunition to begin the classic seven-step Gatling firing sequence. Each round fires as it reaches the firing point.

When the trigger is released, the electronic control assembly sends a reverse signal to the hydraulic drive assembly. The hydraulic drive motors reverse and rapidly decelerate the gun system. The gun system cycles in a reverse direction until all rounds are cleared from the cannon. This is done to prevent a cook-off (the inadvertent firing of a round due to absorption of residual gun heat), which could occur if a live round remained in one of the GAU-8/A’s chambers.

The 30mm Family of Ammunition

The success story behind the 30mm family of ammunition used in the A-10 is as intriguing as the story behind the A-10 and the GAU-8/A. When the air force began the A-X program, the intent was to manufacture the 30mm ammunition in government arsenals. In the past, the government usually bought ammunition components from several suppliers and then did the loading, assembly, and packing operations in a government load plant. In the early 1970s, the government estimated that the cost of each 30mm round would be about $75.

Aerojet Ordnance Company and Honeywell, Inc. (two munitions manufacturers) convinced the government that it would be best to allow private industry to manufacture the complete round. Under this procurement concept, GAU-8/A ammunition production has been enormously successful. Private industry was able to deliver high-quality ammunition at about $6 per round instead of the $75 the government originally planned to spend. To date, more than 80 million rounds have been procured. The 30mm family of ammunition consists of three different rounds, as explained below:

Target practice. The target practice (TP) cartridge is used for training.
Essentially a slug, the projectile has an aluminum nose and steel body.

High-explosive incendiary. The high-explosive incendiary (HEI) cartridge fires an explosive warhead with a point-detonating fuze. The projectile body is made of steel and contains .124 pounds of a high
explosive and incendiary mix.

Armor-piercing incendiary tracer. The armor-piercing incendiary tracer (APIT) cartridge fires what is probably the most intriguing of the 30mm projectiles. The APIT projectile has a depleted uranium
penetrator sheathed in an aluminum sabot. The depleted uranium penetrator has two functions. Because depleted uranium is a very dense metal, it defeats enemy armor through kinetic energy alone (the combination of high velocity and mass allow it to break through armor). Depleted uranium is also pyrophoric, meaning it burns with intense heat after it breaks up. These two characteristics make it extremely effective against enemy tanks. The rear of the projectile contains a pyrotechnic fumer, which reduces aerodynamic drag and allows it to maintain high velocities.

The normal GAU-8/A combat mix of ammunition consists of one HEI round for every five APIT rounds (TP ammunition is used solely for target practice and is not usually mixed with HEI or APIT ammunition).  All types of 30mm GAU-8/A ammunition use aluminum cartridge cases (to conserve weight) and either plastic or copper projectile bands (to engage the rifling in the GAU-8/A gun barrels). The projectile bands permit higher muzzle velocity and reduced barrel wear.

The A-10 Bottom Line

All things considered, the GAU-8/A 30mm Gatling gun is one of the most interesting and successful applications of ground-attack aircraft ever developed. The GAU-8/A gun system is the most powerful Gatling gun ever built. The extremely lethal 30mm family of ammunition is an amazing procurement success story. The A-10, the GAU-8/A, and the 30mm family of ammunition still make up an important part of the U.S. national defense and will continue to for quite some time.

So there you have it:  Chapter 11 of The Gatling Gun.  There are 15 chapters in The Gatling Gun touching on all of the early Gatlings, their Civil War and Indian war deployments, the transition to modern high-rate-of-fire gun systems after World War II, and contemporary Gatling systems like the A-10 Warthog.  If you liked our chapter about the A-10, you might enjoy the rest of The Gatling Gun.

2019: A Review and Wrap Up

This has been a fun year, and a fun year to be a blogger.  When we started ExhaustNotes 18 months ago, we had no idea we’d get the loyal following we have, the number of hits we’re getting, and the number of comments we would receive from you, our amazing readers.  In the past 18 months, we’ve published 572 blog posts (this is Blog No. 572), we’ve had something north of 200,000 page visits, and we’ve received 2,481 approved blog comments.  We actually had quite a few more comments, but the spam comments are filtered out and we’re not counting those.  And you spammers out there, thanks for all the biblical excerpts, the website optimization offers, the hairstyle stuff (seriously, you think Gresh or I need hairstyle products?), and the offers to manufacture stuff in and buy chotchkas from China.  You guys keep it coming, and our filters will keep bouncing it.  Hope springs eternal, I guess.

Our most commented upon post last year?  It was Joe Gresh’s blog on Bonnier and the demise of Motorcyclist magazine, which really raked in some zingers.  Nobody makes the written word come alive like Joe does, and that includes his opening line in that blog:  The distance from being read in the crapper and actually being in the crapper is a short one. According to Dealer News, Motorcyclist magazine crossed that span this week.

Other ExNotes blogs that drew comments big time are our blogs on what constitutes the perfect bike, what the motorcycle industry needs to do to grow the market, dream bikes, and of course, the gun stuff.  Keep your thoughts coming, folks.  It’s what we enjoy the most.

Our most frequently visited blog post last year?  Far and away, it was our piece on Mini 14 Marksmanship.  Somehow that post got picked up by a service that suggests sites to people when they open their cell phones, and we were getting in excess of 10,000 hits a day for a few days on that one.  Go figure.  There must be a lot of people out there who want to shoot their Mini 14 rifles better.  Glad to be of help, folks.

We’ve stepped on a few toes along the way.  Some folks got their noses bent out of shape because we do gun stuff.  Hey, let us know if you want your money back.  One guy went away all butthurt because Google ads popped up mentioning President Trump and mortgage deals that I guess our President helped along.   Hey, whatever.  We don’t control the popups, and the Internet’s artificial intelligence does funny things with what it reads on the blog…I mentioned using my Casio’s backlight to help find my way to the latrine at night, and since that blog I’ve been getting an unending stream (no pun intended) of prostate treatment popups.  I may click on a few of them.  When you get your artificially-inseminated Google-driven popups, we’d like you to click on them, too.  It makes money flow.  To us.  It’s what keeps us on the air, you know.

We did a lot of travel this year, but not as many motorcycle trips as we wanted.   The Royal Enfields we took through Baja were fun, and we had a great story on that ride published in Motorcycle Classics.  I really enjoyed riding and writing about the Genuine G400c.  Joe did a great series on his Yamaha EnduroFest adventure, and he’s had articles published in Motorcycle.com.  Joe did another series on motorized bicycles and it was a hoot.

Joe and I both did shorter moto trips this past year, and we both want to get more riding in next year.  Gresh and I are going to do a moto trip to Baja in 2020, and we may get to visit with Baja John in Bahia de Los Angeles (that dude likes Baja so much he moved there).  On any of the Mexico trips, we for sure will be insured with BajaBound Insurance, the best insurance there is for travel in Mexico.  More good travel stuff?  We published Destinations, a compendium of the travel stories appearing in Motorcycle Classics magazine, and it’s doing very well (thank you).

More plans?   Gresh will be pouring more concrete, and I’ll be spending more time at the West End Gun Club.  Joe is planning to maybe pick up the Zed resurrection again, and I’m pretty sure he’ll get that bike on the road within the next 12 months.   We’ve got the upcoming 9mm comparo I mentioned yesterday, and for sure more gun articles.  Good buddy Gonzo asked us to ride in the 2020 Three Flags Classic, and I’d like to make a go of that one this coming year (I was disappointed in myself for not riding that great event in 2019, but the circumstances just weren’t right).  I think I’m going to write Tales of the Gun as a book and offer it for sale here on ExNotes, and maybe Joe Gresh will do the same with his collection of moto articles (and when he does, you can bet I’ll buy the first copy).  We’ll be doing more product reviews, including movie and book reviews.  I’m going to get on my bicycle more, and we may have some info on electric bicycles, too.   You’ll read all about it right here.

So it’s a wrap for 2019.   Susie bought a bottle of Gentleman Jack for me, and I’m going to pour a shot and watch 2020 roll in later tonight.  To all of you, our best wishes for a happy and healthy 2020.  Ride safe, ride often, and keep your powder dry.

Want to subscribe to our blog for free and never miss any of our motorcycle, travel, gun, bicycle, product review, and other blogs?  We’ll never give your email address to anyone else, and you’ll never miss any of our stories!  Sign up here: