Friday, December 16, 2011

The Power of One

I don't know about you, but I am monumentally tired of talking about gloom and doom and terror on every side.  Let's talk about something more entertaining:  the Tactical Single-Shot.  It sounds as silly as Rambo's tactical compound bow, which might be a subject for another time. 

Why would anyone choose a single-shot firearm?  Are there inherent advantages to a single-shot?  Obviously the speed and convenience of a follow-up shot is a disadvantage.  Does anything compensate for that deficiency?

A single-shot is often used by beginning shooters primarily as a safety consideration.  A loaded single-shot is no more safe than a loaded semi-auto — that is, with a round chambered.  The difference is that the beginner is in less danger of inadvertently chambering a round.  The shooter cannot simply cycle the action but must consciously and manually place the cartridge into the chamber. 

One alleged advantage that I used to hear — back in the olden days of the 1950s and 1960s, was that the single-shot is more accurate.  This is mostly mythology based somewhat on the relative hunting accuracy of a tubular magazine lever-action repeaters versus the heavy, stiff falling block and rolling block actions of the late blackpowder cartridge era.  Barrel harmonics are kind of mysterious to most of us.  I could get the point of impact to change on one rifle I had based on how tightly I pulled the sling.  Could heavy bullets in a full, under-barrel tube attached by a metal band near the muzzle possibly have an effect on the vibration of the barrel?  It seems reasonable to think that the movement of the barrel might be slightly altered as rounds are removed from the magazine, shot by shot.  I don't think there is much difference in accuracy for most of us between a modern bolt-action with a box magazine and a modern bolt-action single-shot, though benchrest rifles do tend to be the latter.

Inherent mechanical accuracy aside, then, some will say that a single-shot forces the shooter to be better, or at least more careful.  I suppose that might be true for some.  Personally, I have never noticed a difference in hunting.  I was always taught to make the first shot count anyway, while blazing away and wasting expensive ammunition was frowned upon if not outright ridiculed.  I rarely take a second shot unless I have wounded an animal.  On deer I can recall one time where I made a clean miss on my first shot and fired again.  Another time, I made a poor decision in shooting the first time and had to quickly fire two more rounds to bring the deer to a humane end.  Other than that, I am pretty much a "one shot, deer" person, not because I am any better than a mediocre shot but because I generally keep the range short and don't take chances.  The deer I wounded was going away from me at an acute angle, and I never should have pulled the trigger.  That was forty years ago, and I haven't made the same mistake since. 

By what I have said so far it might be assumed that I am not a big single-shot fan, but that would be a wrong assumption.  I love single-shots whether shotguns, rifles, or handguns.  I like the simplicity and versatility of break-opens like the Thompson-Center and the H&R that allow a convenient change of calibers and barrel configurations.  I like the ease of cleaning and maintenance.  I appreciate the beauty and romance of rifles like the Ruger No. 1 and Winchester High Walls and Low Walls.  I enjoy the challenge of the single-shot while relishing its utter reliability.  Almost nothing can go wrong with a one-holer.  It's like an outhouse.  What could be simpler?  Even an inexpensive break-open like the H&R is virtually indestructible. 

Now just as apparent as the attraction of the single barrel is the fact that there is no magazine.  Does that mean that the prudent person, looking to defend hearth and home — as opposed to hunting, should avoid single-shots and stick with rapid-firing repeaters?  That depends.

As I have said before, the most critical weapon for home defense is a centerfire handgun.  This should not be a Contender but a revolver or autoloader.  This is your weapon of choice when caught by surprise or when you are least expecting trouble.  It is the one you should always have close at hand — preferably attached to your person whenever legally and physically possible.  Higher capacity, rapidity of firing, and speed of reloading are important considerations in close-range, hostile social situations. 

The same it true with regard to shotguns and rifles to be used for home defense.  You might be able to get by with a break-open single-barrel shotgun, as long as it has an ejector, but a double would be much better and a higher-capacity pump or semi-auto better still.  For rifles, short, maneuverable autoloading, pump, or lever-action carbines are probably the best choices, although a bolt-action like the classic British Enfield would certainly do in a pinch. 

But that does not mean the single-shot has nothing to contribute.  I have an H&R Handi-Rifle in .223 that is indeed handy.  Not only is it convenient to throw in the truck, it is safe and accurate and makes a fine little ranch rifle when dealing with varmints and pests.  Note, too, that it is chambered for quite a ubiquitous round.  It would make a great back up for someone with an AR-type weapon, for example, in the same chambering.  Similarly, an inexpensive single-shot chambered for the .44 or .357 magnum would be a good companion weapon for anyone with a revolver of the same caliber.

Being able to quickly change barrels and chamberings allows the prudent shooter to adjust to changing circumstances, such as ammunition availability.  Mechanical things break.  Accidents happen.  Having a cheap way to keep shooting, even if it is only one bullet at a time, is a wise thing to consider. 

Versatility, redundancy, simplicity, reliability, convenience, safety, size, and, yes, even romance are all reasons to consider adding a single-shot — or two, to the rack.  

5 comments:

  1. Hi Mushroom, I don't want to supress any single-shot discussions here but since you are discussing firearms...

    I'm looking for the right round with the following properties.
    Inexpensive
    Effective at 300yds
    Accurate (obviously)
    Minimal boom.

    I'd like to set up a 300yrd range for the fun of long-ish range target shooting.

    I'm thinking .223 (or whatever is used in the AR-15) but I really don't know.

    Thanks,
    John

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anything goes here, anytime.

    Minimal boom is an often overlooked factor. It's true in handguns as well. I can handle recoil much better than muzzle blast. But that requirement does push one of the better inexpensive rifles back down the line. The Mosin-Nagant meets all your criteria nicely, but it makes a lot of noise -- and the recoil is fairly sharp, too.

    Let's look at it this way:

    2) 300 yard effectiveness -- with the right bullets, .223 or larger. The military will tell you that a .223 is effective to 600 yards, and, yes, you can hit a target out to that distance quite effectively. I wouldn't shoot a groundhog with a .223 at 600 yards. Three hundred is about the max.

    3) Accuracy isn't too dependent on the cartridge except in the sense that velocity flattens the ballistic rainbow. It is much easier to hit with a flat-shooting, high-velocity round at longer distances. You have a lot to choose from, including the .223, the .22-250, the .243, etc., all the way up to something like the .270. But that brings us back to

    4) Minimal boom -- here we go back to the .223, which, especially in a barrel longer than 20", is reasonably quiet. You're going to get a sonic boom on any round that has decent range, but the less powder you touch off, the quieter it will be otherwise.

    1) Inexpensive -- as far as price per round, the high production volume of the .223 coupled with its small caliber and powder capacity put it on the least expensive end of the spectrum. As far as a rifle to shoot it in, it depends.

    AR's and their clones are generally pretty pricing. Ruger Mini-14's run in the $600+ range. If you are looking for accuracy at a lower price point, and you don't mind a bolt-action, Savage makes some excellent rifles that will perform well right out of the box.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You got me to thinking about energy for the .223 at various distances. A 55-grain bullet is pretty typical, though ARs usually have a faster twist and can stabilize heavier bullets which do a little better at longer distances. Still, it doesn't give you a lot to work with.

    At the muzzle, a 55-grain bullet exiting at 3200 fps has an energy of (3200/100)squared times 55/100 times 2.22, or

    (32*32)*(.55)*2.22 = 1250.3 foot-pounds of energy

    Velocity at 100 is roughly 2700 feet per second

    Velocity at 300 is closer to 1900

    And Velocity @600 yards is about the speed of a subsonic .22LR at the muzzle, but we'll say 1100 to make the calculation easy.

    Enery @100 = 890
    @300 = 440 - about like a .22 magnum or
    a .40 S&W
    @600 = 147 -- not too impressive

    I and most of my hillbilly kin are quite comfortable using the .223 as a deer rifle these days since the Department made it legal back in the 1980s or whenever. Out to 100 or 150 yards, it works just fine.

    Most of our shooting is short enough distance that we could probably bayonet about 1 in 20.

    A lot of deer have been taken illegally with the .22 magnum, but that's with a bullet designed to still expand violently at 1200 to 1800 fps. I would certainly shoot a coyote with a .223 at 300 yards, and if I were hungry, I'd shoot a deer with one, but I'd make sure it was a standing broadside shot, and I'd use something like a ballistic tip bullet to assure expansion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the intel Mushroom. You have put up a good argument for the .223. I think I'll go with that. Also, I was looking at the bolt-action Savages and reading some reviews. Pretty good bang for your buck. I mean, they are cheap, especially if you compare what you get to a pistol. Maybe get a stainless version, maybe upgrade the stock and add a decent scope. Could be a lot of fun. Anyhow, today I paced off 300 yards in the most open spot on our property. That's a long distance! To get a level shot I may have to shoot from hump to hump and clear a small swath through the woods.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am always happy to be of assistance.

    I think the .223 fits your criteria well. There are probably some less common calibers that would do as well, but then you lose the advantage of having so much available information. It sounds like you are on the right track.

    And 300 yards is a long shot.

    ReplyDelete