estaff

Smith & Wesson has launched a "consumer advisory" notice for owners of the M&P 380 Shield EZ Manual Thumb Safety pistol, a common concealed-carry sidearm. It seems the function of the M&P 380 Shield EZ Manual Thumb Safety pistol can be influenced by the type and quality of ammunition used with the pistol. In the case of the M&P 380 Shield EZ Manual Thumb Safety, the company has found "that in very rare circumstances," ammunition that produces a high level of felt recoil can cause the manual safety to move from the Fire position to the Safe position during firing. That means your Shield unexpectedly might not go bang after it's fired. That could be very bad for a concealed-carry gun owner who's depending on the EZ in a self-defense situation.

I was greatly surprised by the positive review that you gave the Ruger rifle. My example would not dependably feed from the magazine, was awkward to single load, frequently failed to fire Remington factory ammunition, and arrived with a stock so warped the barrel was not free floating. When I called Ruger, they read a prepared script, which among other things advised against the use of Remington or Barnes Ammunition. I then sent the rifle back to Ruger. They returned it to me unchanged, although they did include two additional magazines. Unfortunately, the new magazines were no better than the original, and none of the problems addressed. Disappointed, I traded the Ruger for a CZ 527 in 300 BLK. I note that Ruger is now producing a version of this rifle employing AR magazines.

"It seems the function of the M&P 380 Shield EZ Manual Thumb Safety pistol can be influenced by the type and quality of ammunition used with the pistol," said Todd Woodard, Editor of Gun Tests Magazine. "Most gun owners realize that's the case with most firearms.

A Kit Gun, by definition, is a small-frame revolver that is packed up with rest of the kit when fishing, hiking, camping, hunting, or some other outdoor pursuit are being planned. The intention of the Kit Gun is to deal with pesky varmints raiding your cooler or a coiled viper in the middle of a foot trail that refuses to move. They also help decide bragging rights around the campfire after a session of plinking empty soda cans. These revolvers have been called Kit Guns since after WWI, but S&W was the first to use the name in 1935 on the 22/32 Kit Gun, which was built on the now-discontinued I-frame. This original Kit Gun had an adjustable rear sight, a DA/SA trigger, short barrel, and a smallish grip. Since then, the features of a Kit Gun have come to include single-action triggers, fixed sights, and snubnose-length barrels. It could be argued the semi-automatic 22 rimfire pistols have usurped the revolver's position, but that is for another test.

We took a look at three of the latest packable handguns, which included a S&W Model 317-3 Kit Gun, Charter Arms Pathfinder Lite, and Heritage Manufacturing's Small Bore single action. We were looking for a lightweight revolver that was accurate enough to shoot the head of a snake at 10 yards, had the ability to accurately fire a variety of 22 rimfire ammo, and be safe should we accidentally drop the revolver while trekking through the great outdoors.

We tested at 10 yards, which we thought was an optimum distance for these rimfires and used a variety of 22 rimfire ammo, including 22 LR with a range of bullet weights and types, 22 Short, and 22 Shot cartridges. Ammo consisted of commonly found CCI Mini Mag with a 36-grain copper-plated hollowpoint (CPHP), CCI Target 22 Short with a 29-grain lead roundnose (LRN) bullet, Browning BPR 37-grain fragmenting hollowpoints, and the hot Aguila Supermaximum loaded with a 30-grain CPHP. We also tested Federal Game-Shok Shot cartridges loaded with #12 shot. We used a rest and fired the revolvers in single-action mode to gauge accuracy. Then we let loose, plinking away in both DA and SA mode, using a two-hand hold until all the ammo was gone. Here's what we found out.

As an attorney (and, for full disclosure, someone who was formerly an independent program attorney for Texas Law Shield), it is abundantly clear that the legal system puts self-defense shooters in a bad spot. It is costly, time consuming, slow, and worst of all, the legal system decides whether you keep your freedom after you have defended yourself. To make matters worse, this system is, from what I've seen, biased against gun owners. From my own experience, many law-enforcement officers, district attorneys, and even jurors seem to think that if you own or carry a firearm, you are inherently guilty in some way. They believe that even though you were actually carrying your lawfully owned firearm, you were really looking for trouble, you wanted an excuse to shoot someone, or similar mental fictions. I've honestly lost track of the number of times a gun owner was arrested after a lawful incident of self-defense. Accordingly, due to the nature of our legal system, individuals are purchasing legal protection in case they have to defend themselves.