True Patriots - Kentucky Long Rifles

Read a great article on a historians collection of Revolutionary War era Kentucky Long Rifles. This Article is by Donovan Webster from Garden & Gun Magazine. I am a big fan of this magazine, and even though it is usually filled with good stuff, articles like this really jump out at me. As a history buff, Son of the American Revolution, and firearms fan in general, I can really appreciate the history and American culture behind these pieces.

The article is available at: True Patriots - Dan Webster

By Donovan Webster | Feb/March 10 | 

True Patriots

Virginia collector Michael Tuccori’s eighteenth-century Kentucky rifles are studies in American history

Almost every kentucky rifle has a story to tell. The one I’m looking at has a rectangular silver inlay near the rifle’s butt that reads: “C Kelsey.” And etched along the top of the rifle’s black barrel—in blocky and bold letters—is this: “New Market made by H. Spitzer.”

“This weapon was made by Henry Spitzer,” Michael Tuccori is saying as he handles the antique Kentucky rifle, its curly maple stock glowing gold in the morning sun. “Spitzer was a gunsmith working in New Market, Virginia, and he made this gun for Charles Kelsey, a native of Rockbridge County, Virginia, in 1794. Records show that Kelsey moved into Kentucky with his wife in 1795, only the next year. He took the rifle with him. Now it has come back home.”

As Tuccori says this, we are in a room in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Hung on a wall are his collection of roughly five-foot-long Kentucky rifles, also known as long rifles, amid a collection of equally long fowling muskets, gunpowder horns, and handmade pistols from the American Colonial era. A dealer and collector of antiques, Tuccori, sixty-three, focuses his weapons collection on the few years either side of the American Revolution for a specific reason.

“By the 1800s, you get a more cookie-cutter weapon,” he says. “Before that, it was master gunsmiths working on the frontier with a journeyman and an apprentice. They hand-bored each gun’s barrel, then hand-rifled each barrel themselves using a tool. It was slow and painstaking work. After about 1800, the process got more mechanized, so the weapons get less unique.”

Still, Tuccori goes on, it didn’t take long for everyone who saw a Kentucky rifle to want one. Since the rifled barrels shot balls much farther and more accurately than muskets shot pellets, long rifles quickly became very desirable. “The people settling this part of the world moved around…a lot,” he says. “They traveled into Kentucky, up to Pennsylvania, down into Tennessee, then back. They lived in buckskins or loincloths. There were elk, grizzly bear, and eastern buffalo everywhere, and these rifles helped to keep them fed. And there were also Native Americans who could be hostile. So riflemen and settlers wanted a more precise weapon, both to hunt and to protect themselves.”

A smooth-bore musket, Tuccori says, can fire shot pellets only at close range. Long rifles can be accurate to hundreds of yards. “At one point in Revolutionary times, a man named Timothy Murphy shot a British officer at three hundred yards using a long rifle,” Tuccori says. “That’s a pretty fair shot with an open sight. To the people settling this part of the world, an accurate weapon like that was indispensable. It was more valuable to them than an ax or a hoe.”

Because of their unique history and relative scarcity, the price of Kentucky rifles—as well as that of the long muskets and pistols—has risen significantly in the last few decades. And while it’s impossible to know how many Revolutionary-era long rifles are around, their rareness has made them very expensive.

“Even a nondescript one from the era we’re talking about goes into the six figures,” Tuccori says. “And while we do see a few New England rifles around from that time, the majority of them come from the area between Pennsylvania and North Carolina, though they’re generally referred to as Kentucky rifles.”
Though Tuccori says that new Kentucky rifle finds occasionally bubble onto the market out of attics and unknown family collections, most are traded from known and established collections. “Most are identifiable by collectors. The greater majority of them are made with curly maple stocks and the rest with another hardwood, usually cherry. And each has a hand-forged flintlock. After the Revolutionary War, gunsmiths began to trade once again with Britain and France, and they bought manufactured flintlocks from Europe, which is why the weapons prior to that time are more distinctive. After the Revolution, in places like Birmingham, England, they were making and exporting flintlocks by the boxload.”

Still, the variety of the designs and materials used in the creation of Kentucky rifles goes on and on. Earlier versions of the weapon have far thicker buttstocks, plus sliding pieces of wood to cover the butt’s “patch box,” an indentation where greased patches of cloth were kept to separate the rammed-down gunpowder charge from the ball rammed tight atop it. Later-made weapons have elaborate iron or brass patch-box inlays and thinner overall profiles, each design denoting a specific maker, whether there’s a gunsmith’s name on the rifle or not.

“You know, you look at the guns on the wall here,” Tuccori says, “and you can watch the design evolve across the American Revolution. It’s just another way of seeing how our country made itself.”

Glock 23 vs FNP-40

My carry weapon is an FNP-40. I have had it for more than six years now, and I bought it more as a target of opportunity than anything else. I was in the market for a tactical .40 caliber handgun as a training and carry weapon. Being in the military at the time, the H&K USP .40 cal was something of my dream weapon, but the price tag put it a bit out of my reach. I compared a few .40 caliber pistols, including the Glock 23, the Taurus 24-7, and the FNP-40. The glock was a bit pricey, and I didn't like the feel of it while handling it in the store. The Taurus was simply reviewed as being not a quality firearm. I settled on the FN because it had all of the features that I liked, it was designed as an M&P weapon – FN making many of the small arms and automatic weapons that I used in the Army, and because I was able to get it at a significant discount, paying $420 for what is in essence a $600 gun. In the past years I have become far more experienced and proficient in pistol shooting, both in the tactical and target fields. I have fire glocks on many occasions, and though I found them nice shooting firearms, I never really prescribed to the religious following that many glock shooters have adopted. Recently I decided to do a side by side comparison shoot, of a Glock 23 and my FNP-40. I shot several different drills at various ranges (7 yards through 25 yards, with most being at 10 yards) Keeping in mind that there is nothing scientific about this test, and that a lot can be counted on human error, I also attempted to remove any bias that I may have towards the FN that I have carried for so long. I evaluated the two firearms on the basis of: Trigger squeeze and feel, sights, recoil, accuracy, precision, reliability, and target acquisition.


Trigger: the Glock trigger mechanism has always bothered me, and shooting it side by side with the FNP-40, I found it lacking. The SA/DA trigger on the FN was also a plus. The long trigger pull on the initial shot takes some getting used to, but each subsequent shot is very easy. The long pull on the Glock left me feeling slow and jumpy in my shots, as well and being downright uncomfortable. This category goes to the FN.



Glock 23



Sights: I actually liked the Glock's sights much better than the three dot combat sights on the FN. The U of the back sights lined up easily with the front sight, and it was a clearer sight picture. Despite my familiarity with the FN, this category goes to Glock.



Recoil: the feel of the recoil for the FN was just more controlled than it seemed to be with the Glock 23. I was quicker to get back on target, and never had any issues with getting my second shot off quickly (well, as quickly as an indoor range will allow anyway) this was despite the superior sights of the Glock, so I am handing this category to the FN.



FNP-40





Accuracy: I liked my shot placement with the Glock quite a bit. This might go back to the sights again, but I was punching holes through the center of my targets, whereas my FN has always shot a bit low. This I attribute to the combat sights I recently placed on my FN which I am still getting used to, and how every other handgun I have trained with has been oriented to target sights (aligning them with the front sight touching where you want the bullet to go, as opposed to combat sights, with the front sight covering where you want to bullet to end up) but I was more directly on target with the Glock.

Precision: I had tighter shot groups with my FN, hands down. This goes back to recoil and getting back on target, or keeping my sight picture, and the smoother trigger squeeze, but I did not like how I was grouping with the glock.



Reliability: I had fully expected this category to be a wash, as I have never really had any issues with my FN after the thousands of rounds the I put through it, and Glock is known for its reliability under any conditions. I was also only shooting 100 rounds through each gun, and thats not exactly the type of volume to make any full decisions about the reliability of a firearm. I did, however, get a stovepipe with the Glock. Many times in training this can be attributed to a weak wrist on the recoil, but I was shooting both guns with the same technique and have never been accused of being weak wristed in my shooting. I am hesitant to say this is an issue with the Glock 23 in general, as I still know many who swear by them for their reliability more than anything else, and I would put this square at the feet of the range where I rented it from. The lesson from this category is that well maintained weapons make all the difference.



Target acquisition: I did these drills firing multiple shots at 10 yards, with head down and gun lowered (not at the low ready) – being the closest thing to a genuine turn and shoot or draw from the holster drill that I can accomplish at my local range. The easier sights of the glock gave it a clear advantage for the speed at which I can put a set of rounds on target. The FN was good, and I liked the smoothness of the way it operates, but getting on target quicker made the difference here. Glock won this category.



Conclusions and summary: both the Glock and the FN won an equal number of the evaluation criteria, and I will never say that a Glock is a bad firearm, but it is certainly not for everyone. I never got used to the trigger, and the grip was wider than I would have liked – but that may be biased considering how I have been training these last few years. Since this test I have been shooting my combat sights the way they were meant to be shot, and have seen a considerable improvement in putting my FN exactly where I want it instead of an inch or two low. I still think I got a bargain on my FNP-40, and won't be switching to a glock any time soon, but I do think that the two are comparable, and encourage anyone who has the means, to actually put some rounds through the various firearms they are considering before they buy. My FN will stay on my hip, and the Glock fans can keep their golden calf, but I can certainly see it's appeal.



Cain Daytona

Once again I am amazed by the quality of conversation and friendliness of patrons of my local cigar lounge. Was at Siglo Cigar Lounge last night, and what originally started as a quick smoke to clear my head and concentrate on a few projects turned into a delightful conversation on everything from the women's rights in Afghanistan, to the importance of Networking, to the current state of the Euro. I had already smoked an Oliva Series V Toro, which is one of my go-to cigars, when a fellow patron offered me something I hadn't seen before: a Cain Daytona Toro. I am a big fan of the Oliva brand, with Cains and Nubs being held in a particularly high opinion, but I was used to the shorter Nubs or Robusto Cains, and had never seen this particular line before.

It smoked like a dream. I will chalk this up to the original owner being a real pro in the care of his cigars, and a stickler for the perfect humidity (we had discussed this at length before he even opened his case and offered me one.) The Daytona, I understand, is made in Esteli, Nicaragua, like much of the Oliva line, but is constructed entirely of the ligero portion of the tobacco plant – that is to say the large, flavorful, sun-drenched, leaves at the top of the plant. This is interesting as most cigars pull the binders, fillers, and wrappers from different levels – sometimes from different areas or countries altogether. Despite the homogeneous construction, the Daytona was incredibly complex. It lit almost instantly, with an immediate flavor that was smooth, delicate, and infinitely pleasing. The smoke was velvety and rich without being heavy, with distinct floral notes that I am not used to in a cigar. It burned slowly and evenly, with an excellent draw. Where it was light and fruity at the beginning, it gradually became more and more powerful as it smoked – something that really snuck up on me. My one complaint is that the last inch or so turned noticeably bitter towards the end. I have noticed this in many cigars, that heat up and become harsh as they are smoked, but one of the main reasons why I enjoy the Cain and Nub lines is because they have hit the sweet spot of the cigar the whole way through. Despite this break in consistency from the other Cain cigars I have smoked, I thoroughly enjoyed the Daytona. It is a unique smoke, one that I will seek out again, and I highly recommend giving it a try.

Mobile Blogging

This is my first attempt at Mobile blogging, or posting this from my android based smart-phone. I have had the application for a while now, but have mainly used it for checking stats and comments, but I see this a having quite a bit of potential for future posts. I think that my phone's autocorrect may thwart me at the beginning until I learn to be more mobility efficient.

Now to the meat of this post, and the true experiment.

The Dow is back above 1200, and seeing a slight recovery from the weeks of dismal performance that we have seen recently. My portfolio took a significant hit, but overall I am still averaging a 9% APY, and I cannot be too disappointed in that. Remember that young investors are in it for the long haul, not for quick money. I even think of my job simply as venture capital for the rest of my projects (both economic and otherwise)

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.1

Combat Reload Drill

Quick video of a buddy that I was training last week. This is a combat (emergency) reload drill that I have been doing for a while now. Starting with head down and weapon off to the side (this is the closest I can come to presenting from the holster, or an IDPA turn and shoot drill at the range where I shoot) He presents his weapon and acquires his target. He fires two shots and conducts a combat reload, and the drill is done after his final shot. This is a drill that I like quite a bit, and is good for more restrictive ranges (I don't know how many times I have been warned about firing controlled pairs too quickly, or my Mozambique drills... but that is akin to getting a speeding ticket. It sucks, and you wish it hadn't happened, but its not really going to keep you from speeding) In this case, it is only the shooter's second time at a range, handling a weapon, and his first time shooting a .40 caliber. He had never done a reload drill before, nor a target acquisition drill. We were shooting a ¼ silhouette target at 10 yards, and all three of his shots were hits.

Is a higher value USD a bad thing?

As most people who follow the market might have observed, the last few weeks have been full of volatility, but with a decided, and disturbing downward trend. What many may not have realized, unless they pay attention to the currency market, is that the American Dollar has been going up across the board. The Euro is in a dismal state and has a lot to deal with considering the economic situations in Greece, Spain, and Portugal. Combine that with the recent disaster in Japan and the subsequent slowing of their export machine, and you have an overall increase in want of American goods. But the market has been falling, one might say, how can an increased strength of the American Dollar be a bad thing? The answer, simply, is that it's not... although it is for a lot of American stocks.

You might remember my post from a few weeks ago, about how the rising cost of Gas increases the cost of commodities across the board? Well, there is a similar response to an increase in the value of the dollar. True, there is a higher demand for American goods and services, but that also means that American goods and services can demand higher price tags – the world will, of course, still pay them – (they don't really have much of a choice) but only for now. The increased power of the dollar is a boon for American businesses and goods, but it is a White Elephant for the stock market. With a increased strength in the American Dollar, American stocks are more expensive to foreign investors – which, like it or not, make up a good percentage of the money in the market today. I talked about the exact opposite effect in a post a few months back when the dollar was bottoming out, and the Dow shot up past 11K for the first time in years. Better deals may be had by investing in cheaper, more emerging markets like Brazil or India. You also have a lot of American investors who took their profits a few weeks ago, like I predicted, and are continuing to sell at inflated prices, based on the strength of the dollar. Things will, of course, level out, as the unseen hand of the market has a tendency to force in cases like this, and I think that this current “correction” has leveled off. We may see some volatility in the market based on foreign actions, but I think there will be another upward trend coming soon, expensive dollar or no.

To the Average investor, this is no more than a few fluctuations on their prospectus, despite the red arrows all over CNBC, and to the Average American, it means a stronger overall economy, and a bit more internal growth. I'd trade a couple points on my portfolio (remembering that I'm a long term investor, mind you, and I have every intention of making it back) in exchange for a more stable domestic market. The United States is still the economic powerhouse of the world, and I make no apologies, nor feel any regret, over the strength of our currency.

Ben Bernake and Apple

Last week saw quite a jump for almost the entire market – despite the rather mediocre news from Fed Chairman Ben Bernake. We are seeing quite a bit of confidence in stocks, with the Dow at a three year high, and especially in the tech field. Many tech giants, especially those into the ever growing smart phone market have seen significant jumps in revenue over the past year, and Motorla and HTC, running Google's Android operating system, posted great first quarter numbers. The big winner though, is Apple. No real surprise there, as the iPad and iPhone have been trend setters in the techie world for years. This quarter though, Apple posted a net income of nearly $6 Billion, and was just crowned the second most profitable company in the world – right behind perennial giant Exxon Mobil.

This hot streak may be slowing down though. In his speech Friday, Bernake stated that keeping the fed interest rate near zero to fight off inflation, would also risk hurting job creation, and the recovery of our still fragile economy. Whether the current rates have been doing a decent job in their fight against inflation is another matter altogether. The dollar has dropped, and with that, the price of everything goes up. Oil, energy, food, everything. The current tensions in the Middle East (or should I say the perpetual tensions) don't help the situation much either. With gas averaging $4.22 last week in Orange County, CA (where this is being written from) we cannot help but see an increase in prices across the board. Company's need gas to function – to get produce to market, to get supplies, to deliver goods, everything in business revolves around fuel prices, and whether the Fed wants to admit it or not, inflation is playing a factor. Comodities are up across the board, and there has been a big demand lately for precious metals – silver and gold – which are the traditional hedges against inflation. Many people are betting big on these, thinking that the falling US Dollar will go unchecked.

I am certainly not qualified to tell the Chairman of the Federal Reserve what he should do. Ben Bernake knows far more about this sort of thing than I. What I can do, however, is speculate on what the coming weeks will bring. I forsee a lot of traders trying to take profits in the current market, and while I don't see a massive sell off, I do think that the market will make a correction of around 100 or so points before leveling off again this upcoming week. Inflation is just a fact of life these days, and while most agree that the price of fuel cannot increase at the pace it has been, it will likely plateau and stay high for quite a while. Personally, I have a few mutual funds that are heavy in gold futures, and these have been my safe bets since I have been investing, but not where I am putting my money. The steady increases are nice, but I am still more of an aggressive investor. I am going to keep adding to my tech and alternate energy funds (after all, Apple seems unaffected by sky high fuel prices, while windmills and electric cars – GM IPO anyone? - keep looking better and better) but might try to take advantage of the volatility in commodities if I can swing some extra capital. Don't forget, if you're in the market, you're in it for the long haul... not to make a quick buck.