Though they share identical case dimensions, the .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO are slightly different—and the .223 Wylde makes the most of both of these loads.

Brad Fitzpatrick

The 5.56×45 NATO broke cover in 1957 as a military cartridge, and since that time it has served in multiple campaigns and conflicts around the globe. The 5.56×45 offered a lot—it was a flat-shooting, fast cartridge with minimal recoil and minimal weight (read: you can carry a lot of them). So great was the 5.56 that it soon followed in civilian garb as the .223 Remington, a cartridge that has remained viable and popular since its release date.

There are some that will tell you that a .223 and a 5.56 are the same cartridge. Well, in terms of case dimension, that is true. So, how do they differ?

The short answer is that they differ with regard to pressure and chamber dimensions. Pressures in the 5.56 cartridge are higher than the .223, and as a result the chamber of the 5.56 is different as well. There’s more throat length in a 5.56 barrel—about .077 inches—and the angle of the throat is different to accommodate increased pressures. It is, therefore, alright to fire a .223 cartridge in a 5.56 chamber, but going the other way can cause pressure problems. Simply put, the .223 doesn’t perform as well in 5.56 chambers as it could. If you have two cartridges that are so similar in external case dimensions why not have one chamber that makes the best of both loads?

Enter Bill Wylde. Bill had the idea to create a chamber that would serve the 5.56 and the .223 Remington equally well. The .223 Wylde has the same chamber angling as the standard 5.56 chamber, so there’s no problem with pressures, and it also has a .2240 freebore diameter. The result? You have a chamber that is sufficient to handle the hotter 5.56 load without concerns about pressure and you get the gilt-edge accuracy that’s common in many quality .223 rifles.

Is there a compelling reason to switch to a Wylde chamber? Well, the most obvious reason is that you can fire .223 ammo without giving up accuracy and 5.56 ammo without worrying about excess pressure. Sure, you can fire .223 ammo all day from a 5.56 without worrying about pressure problems thanks to generous chamber size, but if you really want to tighten those groups that .2240 freebore diameter helps. In fact, .223 Wylde chambers are known for extreme accuracy, which is better on the whole than what you can expect from a standard 5.56×45 chamber.

Better accuracy, more versatility with ammo—so what’s the downside? Well, right now that can be cost and availability. The gains that the .223 Wylde provides haven’t prompted a whole bunch of companies to swap to that chamber, but there are certainly .223 Wylde-chambered target rifles out there. Do you need a Wylde? No, but it will help your long game and will make your AR rifle even more versatile than it is now.

The first step to securing our rights is to truly understand who is at fault when a crime occurs.

Brad Fitzpatrick

October 27, 2015

Several of the current frontrunners for the 2016 Democratic presidential candidacy have emphasized their support for legislation that would allow individuals impacted by a gun crime to seek financial compensation from firearms manufacturers in civil court. In short, in the event of a shooting gun companies could be held liable. Many gun control proponents are, as you might imagine, in favor of this legislation.

Anti-gun legislation is nothing new, but perhaps this particular topic sheds light on a much broader and more dangerous attitude regarding firearms and crime in America—many voters seem to have a great deal of trouble identifying who is really at blame when a gun is mishandled.

Let me provide a simpler example. Several months ago, I was researching the best holsters to wear while exercising and, during the course of that research, I came upon a running forum that addressed the topic. A young woman—new to running but familiar with firearms—asked which holsters were best to wear while exercising. It seemed a logical question to me; runners are frequently the target of assaults, and many holsters simply wouldn’t stand up to the abuse. Instead of addressing the woman’s question, the responders took this as an opportunity to attack her. The first response to her question read, “Maybe if you think you need a gun you should find another place to run.”

There was general agreement with the “find another place to run” response on the forum, but that comment infuriated me. Although it may seem benign, this is the type of attitude that abdicates criminals for their actions and levels a measure of guilt on victims. There are several fundamental problems with the “maybe you should find another place to run” attitude, and here are a few:

1. Violence Only Occurs in “Bad” Places: The notion that you know where crime will occur is absurd. Sure, there are statistics that show that certain areas have higher rates of crime than other areas, but that doesn’t mean you are completely safe in your suburban neighborhood where folks are watering their lawn or shooting baskets in the driveway with their kids. Crime is everywhere, in every community, good and bad, poor and rich.
2. Avoidance Is An Effective Means Of Crime Prevention: No one in their right mind (save first responders, who risk their lives for others on a daily basis) would seek out violent confrontations. But don’t mistakenly believe that avoiding crime will protect you from crime. One of the most frightening things about violent encounters is that they happen at any time, anywhere—at your kid’s soccer game, while you’re on vacation, when you’re walking from your driveway to your front door. If your sole protection against crime is avoiding crime you will fail.
3. Carrying a Gun means You’re Looking for Trouble: I don’t carry a gun looking for a conflict. I carry a gun because I don’t want to be a victim of violence, and if every other option is closed off to me then my last resort will be a firearm. Whether I’m at the store, on the road, or, yes, jogging on a trail through a park, I carry a gun because I may have no other option but to use it.
4. The Victim of Violence Shares in the Blame: Let’s be very clear about this one—when a crime occurs it isn’t the fault of the gun company, the community, the current economical condition, or the victim. It is the fault of the criminal alone. The victim of a crime isn’t at fault because she ran in the wrong area, because she got lost in the wrong neighborhood, or because she stopped at a rest area on the highway alone at three in the morning. Instead of warning victims against running where there is a remote chance that a criminal will attack them, let’s issue this warning instead—if you are a criminal and you choose to harm another person be prepared for them to exercise their Second Amendment rights, which may mean that you get shot. Magazine restrictions, civil litigation against firearms companies, and warnings against running in certain areas of town are all methods by which the uninformed point the finger of blame at law-abiding citizens. The battle for gun rights starts with a clear understanding of who is at fault when violence occurs, and that is criminals.

From the Ottoman Empire to Australia, private citizens have been forced to forfeit their firearms, and the results have been disastrous.

Brad Fitzpatrick

October 23, 2015

Americans are granted the right to own and bear firearms, a right that has been stripped away from citizens in many countries over the last century. But before any new gun control legislation passes, it’s worthwhile to examine how similar laws have affected ours and other nations in the past. Do less guns make us safer? What has happened in the wake of nationwide gun grabs? What can history teach us about firearms ownership that could prove valuable as we move into the future?

First, a few statistics from the NRA-ILA. There are an estimated 300 million firearms in America and approximately 100 million gun owners. Roughly 40 million of those gun owners have handguns, and it is believed that approximately 40-45 percent of homes have at least one gun. Many of these guns are owned by hunters, which account for the sale of 14.5 million hunting licenses annually. Those hunting licenses create billions of dollars and revenue, and the Pittman-Robertson Act has generated millions of dollars for conservation—not to mention the funds generated for wildlife by groups like Ducks Unlimited and other organizations. But there’s another telling statistic that has been largely buried since a 1982 study of violent criminals in 11 states. Of those criminals who were surveyed, 40% said that they had decided not to commit a crime because they believed the intended victim owned or had access to a firearm. 34% of the criminals surveyed said that they had been personally shot at, wounded, captured or scared away from the scene by private firearms owners, and 69% responded that they knew of at least one other criminal who had been stopped or scared away by firearms.

Photo credit: Joshuashearn

Historically, there are several instances when governments seized firearms from private citizens and then committed atrocities. In 1911, the Ottoman Empire began a gun confiscation program that eventually led to the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians. In 1938, Hitler’s Nazi party implemented gun confiscation programs that preceded the Holocaust, and in 1935 the Chinese government forced citizens to turn over their firearms, and between 1935 and 1952 20 million citizens were murdered. Similar gun control measures, gun seizures, and subsequent acts of violence against citizens have occurred in Cambodia and the Soviet Union, where unarmed populaces were left with little recourse when governments initiated acts of violence.

The Australian gun buyback program of 1996 resulted in the collection of approximately 650,000 guns, but did that serve to reduce homicide rates? Not according to a long-term study that was released in 2007 titled, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” authors Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran examined homicide rates in Australia from 1980 until 2004. What is clear from their study is that homicide rates dropped steadily from 1980 until 1996, when a shooting prompted the legislation. According to Baker and McPhedran, the buyback program and stricter legislation had, “no influence on homicide in Australia.”

Such programs, if ever implemented in the United States, would cause major resistance and would cost a tremendous amount of money. History has proven once again that disarming legal citizens and stripping away their gun ownership rights has no positive effect on public safety.

What candidates—and statistics—say about gun violence in America.

With the 2016 presidential election on the horizon, candidates from both parties have developed stances on gun control and Second Amendment rights. As you might imagine, these stances vary greatly, and the recent Democratic debate sparked controversy over gun rights in America. Of particular interest to candidates on both sides of the debate were “assault” weapons bans, magazine restrictions, and universal background checks.

At the forefront of the debate was the notion of an “assault” weapons ban. Both Martin O’Malley and Hillary Clinton support legislation that bans or severely limits the sale of “assault” weapons, but the very term “assault weapon” is ambiguous and could open the door to the regulation of a wide variety of firearms. The sale of machine guns, short-barreled shotguns and a variety of other weapons has been regulated since the 1934 National Firearms Act, and today most candidates use the term to describe semiautomatic weapons like AR-15s. But the NRA-ILA contends that banning these firearms would have little effect on crime rates and would unfairly restrict American citizens from purchasing firearms designed for hunting, sport shooting and home defense.

photo credit: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

“ ‘Assault weapon’ is the term that gun control supporters use to malign general-purpose rifles like the AR-15,” says the NRA-ILA website. “Americans now own five million AR-15s, the number is growing by several hundred thousand annually, and the nation’s murder rate is down by more than half since 1991. They’re commonly used for home defense, sports (such as the NRA’s National Defense Match, NRA High Power, and Three-Gun), and hunting.”

The increase in the number of state-issued concealed carry permits and a growing number of right-to-carry laws has coincided with a significant drop in U.S. homicides—a fact rarely addressed when stricter gun control laws are being pushed.

“Forty-two states have Right-to-Carry laws, and 48 states prohibit cities from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law,” says the NRA-ILA. “From 1991 to 2012, the total violent crime rate declined 49% to a 42-year low, and the murder rate declined by 52% to a 49-year low.”

Magazine restrictions, often erroneously referred to as “clip restrictions” by gun control advocates, are recommended by O’Malley, Clinton and others. Many self-defense handguns have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and these firearms would, under these proposed laws, be considered unlawful to own. But the NRA contests that magazine restrictions are not an effective means by which to control gun violence but rather another restriction that is aimed at gun owners and manufacturers.

“Most modern ammunition magazines designed for defensive purposes hold more than 10 rounds for handguns and 20 or more rounds for rifles,” says the NRA-ILA. “Not surprisingly, gun control supporters who claim that firearms aren’t useful for defensive purposes, claim that such magazines are also not useful for defense, but are instead only useful to criminals. The congressionally-mandated study of the federal ‘large’ magazine ban of 1994-2004 found that such magazines had only rarely been used in crime, a subsequent study found that revolvers were more associated with criminal gun injuries than semi-automatic pistols, and the official report on the Virginia Tech shooting concluded that a 10-round magazine limit would have not made much difference in the outcome of the crime. Americans own well over 100 million ‘large’ magazines and the nation’s murder rate is nearly at an all-time low.”

The issue of background checks has also taken center-stage in 2015, and several candidates are pushing for “more thorough” checks. But according to the NRA’s findings, background checks are not an effective means by which to control violence but rather a further restriction on gun owners. Current federal law requires anyone who purchases a firearm to be screened through the National Instant Criminal Background Check, or NICS, and felons are currently prohibited from owning firearms.

“Gun control supporters demand that sales and trades of firearms that don’t involve dealers be subject to NICS as well,” says the NRA-ILA. “They claim that such a law would prevent criminals from getting guns, but most criminals obtain guns from theft, the black market, or ‘straw purchasers’—people who can pass a background check and who buy guns for criminals. Furthermore, none of the high-profile crimes that they cite involved guns bought without a background check.”

The rights of America’s estimated 100 million gun owners are at stake, and legislation that, in effect, restricts or limits gun owners and does little to address the root causes of violence, serves little purpose in making American streets safer. The notion that purported “gun control” measures will help make the United States a more secure nation has not been backed by statistical evidence. It’s more important, then, that American gun owners understand that our rights as citizens must be preserved and that other significant issues in our culture like concerns over mental health are need to be addressed immediately. Taking firearms out of the hands of American citizens is not the answer to decreasing violence and preserving our rights.

-Brad Fitzpatrick

Writer/Contributor

October 22, 2015

Photo: Pittsburgh Police Dept.

We’ve all been there. “My underwear is killing me!” Those words have been said or thought by countless people fixing a wedgie or other form of uncomfortable thunder down under. This common problem can be especially deadly for those who choose the gun in underwear method instead of safely and securely carrying it in a Kydex Holster.

This painful truth of an underwear adjustment just became reality again near Pittsburgh.

What makes for a totally strange but true story is this fact. The gun in underwear tragedy didn’t kill the 19-year old carrying the firearm. Instead, he allegedly killed another 19-year old sitting in front of him.

Eietyoung Kemp (pictured above) of East Allegheny, PA is now in the Allegheny County Jail after turning himself in to police last night following the shooting death of Robert Alston from the North Side over the weekend. Court records show Kemp has been charged with homicide, carrying a firearm without a license, recklessly endangering another person, and tampering with evidence.

Police were called to the emergency room of UMPC Magee-Womens Hospital on Saturday night, after friends dropped off Robert Alston with a single gunshot wound to the torso. The young man was pronounced dead at 11:49 p.m.

The criminal complaint says this is what happened.

Eietyoung Kemp, Alston, Justice Johnson, and Dominick Hall were in a car together on their way to a party. Kemp told detectives just before the four arrived, he was sitting in the back seat directly behind Alston on the passenger’s side. As he was attempting to adjust the gun in his underwear he said his finger accidentally pulled the trigger and the gun went off.

The bullet went through the seat and in through the back of Robert Alston. When Alston began screaming in pain, Kemp ran away. He went back to the North Side. While crossing the Roberto Clemente Bridge, he tossed the gun into the Allegheny River below.

The next day, police lifted fingerprints from the car the young men were driving when the shooting took place. Fingerprints matched Eietyoung Kemp. That same day, the suspect arrived at police headquarters to report his role in the gun in underwear shooting which he claimed was an accident. He was released on Sunday, and formally surrendered last night.

Photo: CNN

Donald Trump doesn’t see a gun problem in the United States. He sees a mental health problem. The current frontrunner among the Republican presidential candidates vying for the nomination appeared this morning on the CNN show, “New Day” with Chris Cuomo.

Cuomo whose last name is well documented with gun control, was interviewing Donald Trump. It was no coincidence the interviews was one day after the fatal shootings of a television reporter and a television cameraman on live television in Virginia.

Mr. Trump made his pro-gun position very clear. He told Chris Cuomo he is opposed to gun laws in America being tightened. Trump said, “This isn’t a gun problem. This is a mental health problem. It’s not a question of the laws. It’s really the people.”

Donald Trump called the disgruntled former TV station employee a “very sick man.” He said it was “really very sad” that the man yesterday shot and killed the two television journalists before pulling the trigger of his gun on himself.

Trump told Cuomo, “In the old days they had mental institutions for people like this because he was really, definitely borderline and definitely would have been and should have been institutionalized. At some point somebody should have seen that, I mean the people close to him should have seen it.”

Trump added that if he is elected president he would be in favor of addressing mental health to prevent shootings. He said there were “so many things that can be done” with mental health. However, he did not propose any specific solutions on CNN this morning. He did say that mental health in the United States is “a massive problem.”

After the Virginia TV shootings yesterday, Hillary Clinton posted a tweet which said, “We are smart enough – compassionate enough – to figure out how to balance legitimate Second Amendment rights with preventive measures.”

President Barack Obama called the Virginia shootings “heartbreaking.” He also used the opportunity to call for more gun control legislation, saying it was “one more argument for why we need to look at how we can reduce gun violence in this country.”

The selection of guns for sale at Walmart just got smaller. Modern sporting rifles are being removed from Walmart Stores. The retail giant confirmed the announcement today. It was a move which had been rumored for quite some time given the liberal-motivated push for more gun control.

“We previously carried modern sporting rifles in less than a third of our stores,” said company spokesman Kory Lundberg. “Our merchandising decisions are driven largely by customer demand. In our everyday course of doing business, we are continually reviewing and adjusting our product assortment to meet our customers’ needs.”

Lundberg added that the decision to pull the trigger on stopping sales of modern sporting rifles in Walmart stores was not driven by political pressure.

Walmart Stores Inc. is the largest gun retailer in the United States. Earlier this year in a television interview broadcast on CNN, the company’s CEO Douglas McMillon said, “Our focus as it relates to firearms should be hunters and people who shoot sporting clays and things like that. We believe in serving those customers. We have for a long time, and we believe we should continue to.”

You may also recall back in April 2015, a U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a ruling involving Walmart and a ballot proposal from Manhattan’s Trinity Church. It was one which originally ordered Wal-Mart to have its shareholders vote on a proposal which possibly could have restricted gun sales. Following the successful appeal, the corporation publicly described the verdict as the court making “the right decision.”

This latest announcement involving the removal of rifles from the wide array of products it sells was not the first by Wal-Mart. In the past it has made corporate calls designed to reduce the number and variety of firearms sold by the retail giant.

1993 was the last year when Walmart sold handguns to its customers. Then, nearly one decade ago in 2006, the retailer announced it would stop the sale of guns in about one-third of its stores. The company said it was basing the decision on “diminished customer relevancy and demand in these markets.” Interestingly enough, just three years later, Walmart expanded its gun and ammunition stock.

If you are in the market for an AR-15 rifle or perhaps an AR-10, Ares Armor Inc. sells Build a Gun kits which enable you to customize your rifle just the way you want it. The bonus of these kind of firearms is they are:

Unserialized. Unregistered. 100% Legal.

Visit www.AresArmor.com.

Photo: Cache County Jail

He doesn’t seem anything like Dr. Jack Kevorkian. That’s what a district judge thought. Now a Logan, Utah man will be doing time for giving a loaded gun to a young man he knew was suicidal.

48-year old David Thomas Schofield (pictured above) pleaded guilty to illegal possession of a firearm by a restricted person, a second-degree felony. He was a felon from a 1997 conviction in Arizona for aggravated assault. Schofield also pleaded guilty to negligent homicide, a class A misdemeanor. 1^st District Judge Kevin Allen sentenced him to one to 15 years in prison. In exchange for the plea, prosecutors agreed not to pursue additional charges against Schofield.

Back in June, 20-year old Bradley Stewart Wenneberg has been battling depression and suicidal thoughts. He went to Schofield’s home in Logan, Utah seeking help. Court testimony says Schofield handed Wenneberg a loaded gun as he sat on the couch and told him, “’If you’re going to do it, then pull the (expletive) trigger.’”

Police say, Wenneberg took the .38-caliber handgun from Schofield. Then, in front of his girlfriend and best friend, Ben Mackey, he put the gun to his temple and pulled the trigger killing himself.

Mackey told the judge, “I trusted him, and Bradley trusted him as well, and he handed him a loaded gun.” “Your actions caused the death of a troubled but innocent man,” 1st District Judge Kevin Allen told Schofield. “I can’t even imagine what was going through your mind,” said Judge Allen.

Schofield pleaded for probation. He said, “It was a bad judgment call due to a bad week prior, and it just kept building and building.” He said he was clouded by his own mental struggles and made a mistake.

Police say Schofield originally told them while he was using the restroom, Wenneberg took his gun from a bedroom and shot himself. The witnesses reported a much different account of the shooting insisting Schofield urged their friend to pull the trigger.

The judge said, “Mr. Schofield, you and you alone are the reason that young man died that night, and you and you alone are the reason you will be spending up to 15 years in prison.” He also ordered Schofield to pay $7,500 in funeral expenses to the victim’s family, plus ongoing counseling expenses for the parents, as well as the two friends who were witnesses of the shooting.

Brad Wenneberg, Sr., the young man’s father pushed for the maximum sentence saying to Schofield in the courtroom, “You gave him a gun. How stupid can you be, dude? You took my kid from me.”

The expected recoil didn’t take long. The city of Seattle was sued today by a team of gun groups over its recently passed adoption of what was called a “gun violence tax.”

The complaint was filed today in the King County Superior Court. The pro-gun rights groups behind the legal action were the Second Amendment Foundation of Bellevue, Washington, the National Rifle Association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, plus a pair of gun owners and gun shops.

Collectively they argue the local ordinance for the gun violence tax is legally unenforceable because the state of Washington statutes prohibit local governments from adopting firearm laws unless they are specifically authorized by the state.

The lawsuit said, “The ordinance serves only as a piece of propaganda, because the ordinance’s mandates are legally unenforceable. The state of Washington has the exclusive right to regulate the sale of firearms in Washington, and cities may not enact local laws or regulations related to the sale of firearms.”

Alan Gottlieb, Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation added in a press release, “The city does not seem to understand that no matter how they wrap this package, it’s still a gun control law and it violates Washington’s long-standing pre-emption statute.”

Seattle City Council president Tim Burgess proposed the gun violence tax and led the push for its approval which happened unanimously earlier this month. He said today,”We took a simple and commonsense measure to support gun safety research and prevention methods. It’s not in any way an attempt to regulate the sale, use or possession of firearms.” Pete Holmes, Seattle City Attorney has argued the recently approved gun-violence tax falls squarely under Seattle’s taxing authority.

Seattle modeled its gun violence tax on the efforts of Chicago’s Cook County, Illinois. It calls for adding a $25 tax on top of the sale of every firearm. Plus, it would tack on another 2 or 5 cents on every round of ammunition. The gun violence tax would begin in January 2016. Revenues collected would be used for assorted gun violence prevention programs as well as gun safety research.

The estimated $300,000 to $500,000 in annual tax revenues collected from the sales of firearms and ammunition were designed to compensate the city of Seattle for the financial toll taken from gun violence. Another measure approved at the same time requires gun owners to file reports if their firearms are lost are stolen.

Daytona Beach, Florida. Folks there know a thing or two about life in the fast lane and partying. The city is one of America’s top guns for fun. Experience obviously played a role in the city commissioners just pulling the trigger to approve an indoor Daytona Beach shooting range to sell alcoholic beverages. The right to bear Arms and drink beer afterward in the same spot is now on target.

Ron Perkinson is the owner of Volusia Top Gun. It’s a business in South Daytona he established a few years ago. He’s proposed a popular new location for his business off I-95 and International Speedway Boulevard in Daytona Beach. He wants to grow his business by turning a vacant building there into an indoor shooting range with an upscale restaurant which serves alcohol.

To some, having booze and bullets on the same property gave them all the ammo they needed to express safety concerns. Perkinson’s strategic plans acted like a silencer for the critics. “Safety is obviously key and No. 1 for not only me, but everyone else there,” said Perkinson. “Everything is going to be revolved around safety.”

The following are examples of how Ron Perkinson sold the new Daytona Beach Shooting Range to the city commissioners.

• It would be an upscale restaurant, not a bar. It just needed to serve alcohol to be profitable.

• Gun safety and families would be the focus, not selling cocktails.

• Guns will always be kept separate from the café where alcohol is served. Whether or not you’re planning to have a drink after shooting at the range, no firearms will be allowed in the café area at all.

• Customers drinking alcohol will have to swipe their ID. Once their driver’s license is scanned, they will not be allowed to enter the shooting range for 24 hours.

• Perkinson also promised to reinforce the building to ensure safety as an indoor shooting range, offering better protection for neighboring businesses such as the Daytona Beach Flea Market.

• He also pledged to call police for assistance when needed, and keep a watch list of customers who may cause trouble at his Daytona Beach shooting range.