RPK Build Part 1

While I’m waiting for parts for my Tabuk project, I decided to start some of the prep work on an RPK kit. I’ve been searching far and wide for a decent kit – decent in this case meaning something that has a barrel, with real rifling, that I don’t have to worry about the cartridge sliding through when I perform a bullet test. I finally found the perfect kit, but there was one catch. The kit itself had a bad barrel, and by bad barrel I mean that it once might have had rifling, and was probably closer to firing an 8mm round than 7.62x39. Fortunately the kit came with a spare barrel – so I set about the process of removing the parts from the bad barrel and putting them on the good one. Simple, right? Yeah. . . not so much. . .

I start with the kit front half as shown above. It was a simple matter to remove and disassemble the gas tube and lower stock assembly. The picture below shows why all of this was necessary. I wasn’t kidding about the fact that this barrel was probably closer to 8mm at this point!!!


As I’d done some disassembly on other barrels, I didn’t think this one would be much of a problem. The front sight tore down in minutes, but the gas port gave me a devil of a time. I ended up drilling out one of the pins because it simply would not move. Then actually getting enough purchase on the gas port itself was a challenge in of itself. I ended up having to use one of my precision vises just to get purchase on it so I could remove it from the barrel. The rear sight block was a snap by comparison. Once that was off I had a lovely collection of RPK parts (shown below).


At this point, I started putting the pieces onto the new barrel. The new barrel wasn’t a virgin barrel, so it already had alignment marks. I’m unsure why this particular barrel was ever stripped. Two views below show that it passes the bullet test with flying colors. The bore is mirror bright with very strong lands and grooves. I expect this rifle to shoot well once it’s together.

First I reinstalled the rear sight block, then the handguard retainer, and next the gas block as shown in the sequence below. I since installed the front sight, but don’t have pictures yet.



The one snag I’ve run into is that the pins for the gas block and front sight are much finer than on a standard AK. As such, I’ve only gotten one reinstalled at this point. I had to drill out one to simply get the gas block removed, and one other simply wouldn’t feed. I don’t have the appropriate size of drill bit to help clear out the holes, so this project is on hold pending getting the bit and a few new pins.

I also still need to order a receiver for this build a couple of compliance parts. I haven’t decided whether or not I’m sticking with the existing furniture or replacing it with an Ironwood set. The furniture is very nice, but an Ironwood set would also help with my U.S. parts count. I have a spare RPK style rear trunnion as well, which should make the build a bit easier. I still have to demill the kit itself, and there are a LOT of rivets on a Yugo!

Until next time!!!

New Firearms Poll Released

Newsmax is reporting the results of a recent Rasmussen survey on firearms. Interestingly enough, America doesn’t believe the Obama administration’s pledge not to enact additional gun control measures. The Rasmussen survey mirrors the trends we’ve seen for the last couple of years on firearms – with support for gun control waning and more people realizing that the Second Amendment enumerates and affirms an individual right. Some of the results are quite interesting:

“Fifty-seven percent of Americans say gun sales are up in the United States not because of the fear of crime but because of wariness over increased government restriction on gun ownership, according to a new Rasmussen survey.

“The latest poll revealed that 43 percent of Americans said it was very likely that the Obama Administration will try to implement stricter gun control laws – even though 47 percent saw no need for such laws. Another 28 percent responded that the administration was “somewhat likely” to seek tougher gun control.

“In a similar Rasmussen poll conducted in May, 43 percent of Americans said the United States needed more gun control laws, while 47 percent disagreed.”

It’s heartening to see that America is waking up to the real danger presented by the Obama administration’s stealth attack on our firearm rights. Another finding was also quite encouraging:
“Only 20 percent of U.S. voters think restricting U.S. gun sales will reduce drug-related violence in Mexico, and 70 percent disagree and oppose such restrictions.”

Virtually every media outlet and newspaper in the country was touting the “big lie” numbers associated with the drug wars in Mexico and calling for increased gun control. Very few outlets had the courage to expose those numbers for the sham that they were. These numbers show that the American public wasn’t fooled – even with the focused propaganda campaign. Hopefully we will begin to question other claims of the administration in an equally vigorous manner.

Another encouraging finding was that 75% of Americans recognize that the Second Amendment “guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun.” The “collective right” interpretation of the Second Amendment may finally be well and truly dead. The interpretation was a result of extremist mental gymnastics and had absolutely no basis in the manifest tenor of the Constitution. Long term the fact that people are recognizing they have a right, and it is under attack, will help keep draconian gun control measures at bay.

There are other interesting tidbits in the survey, such as tying increases in crime to the economic downturn. In summary, the majority of Americans are making very accurate interpretations of firearm related laws and crime trends. I haven’t seen this many positive indicators in a poll in quite some time. Hopefully the trend will continue!

Until next time!!!

Heller +1 Year

One year ago today the United States Supreme court handed down the landmark Heller decision that affirmed what most scholars and students of history already knew – the Second Amendment affirms and enumerates an individual right to keep and bear arms. The decision was far closer than it should have been. On the fundamental question of a “collective” versus an individual right, the decision should have been 9-0, but it was a squeaker 5-4 decision.

Since then, the march of the legal apparatus has continued onward with both victories and defeats for champions of the Second Amendment. We’ve seen one appellate Court rule that the Second Amendment is incorporated under the 14th Amendment, but two others state that it isn’t. An unambiguous ruling from the Supreme Court that the Second represents a universal right not subject to state or local contradiction would be welcome as it would put all anti-gun laws in jeopardy at once.

Recent polls also show that America’s desire for additional gun control laws is waning. Recognition that the Second Amendment affirms an individual right is at an all time high while desire for handgun bans is at an all time low according to several recent polls. Opposition to gun control is truly becoming bi-partisan with members of both major political parties in the U.S. coming out against additional strictures.

Opponents of the Second Amendment haven’t been idle, however. The Obama administration has tried to internationalize the issue. They used false statistics about American guns seized in Mexico and claimed they were fueling Mexican drug cartel wars. They used this basis as a platform to call for a new “assault weapon” ban. The use of patently false statistics was quickly exposed, but much of the media continued to report the faulty numbers. America, however, seems to have seen through the deception – though now Jamaica is claiming American guns are fueling their own drug wars. The administration has furthermore nominated a Second-Amendment unfriendly judge to the Supreme Court, and has nominated several other rabidly anti-Second Amendment individuals to other key positions.

Unfortunately the Heller decision wasn’t the final word in settling the legal questions surrounding our right to keep and bear arms, but it was an important first step in securing our rights. It also served as a wake-up call for those opposed to the Second Amendment. Expect their tactics to become more desperate going forward as legal precedents in our favor mount. Some are already calling those who support our right to bear arms “insurrectionists” – undoubtedly as a precursor to bringing military or civil authority to bear. Internationally the situation hasn’t improved much either with the most of the EU, Canada, and Australia still languishing under various levels of gun control from registration to outright bans.

The Heller case represented an important step forward for securing our rights, but it was really only the first step in a much larger effort. It will take years for the various challenges to the various failed gun control laws to make it through the courts, and there will undoubtedly be setbacks along the way. We have the force of history and Framers’ Intent on our side, however, and I am confident that in the long run we will win this battle.

Until next time!!!

Join the "Insurrection"!

According to a new book by authors Joshua Horwitz, the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Casey Anderson, a Washington, D.C. attorney, individuals who support the Second Amendment are now to be labeled “insurrectionists.” The book, Guns, Democracy and the Insurrectionist Idea, recycles a lot of the “right-wing extremist” rhetoric, “militia” rhetoric, and adds the concept that supporters of the Second Amendment are a danger to democracy. Noted anti-Second Amendment professor Saul Cornell states the book “is an important first step in demonstrating how reasonable gun control is essential to the survival of democracy and ordered liberty.”

A piece by Dave Workman makes a very astute observation about the Amazon description of the book:

“And when gun enthusiasts talk about Constitutional liberties guaranteed by the Second Amendment, they are referring to freedom in a general sense, but they also have something more specific in mind---freedom from government oppression. They argue that the only way to keep federal authority in check is to arm individual citizens who can, if necessary, defend themselves from an aggressive government.”

Dave compares this statement to one of the most subversive documents in American history. Namely the Declaration of Independence:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

The parallels are obvious, and like Dave, being compared to the signers of the Declaration of Independence is a badge of honor in my book – though I’m sure that’s not the picture Horwitz, Anderson, and Cornell are trying to paint.

These sorts of tactics from the anti-Second crowd are unsurprising. Public appetite for gun control laws is at its lowest level in decades. People have woken up to the fact that strict gun control does not lead to a safer or more civil society. Many court cases continue to go against opponents of the Second Amendment, and now at least one court case has ruled that the Second Amendment is incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment. Having failed in both courts of law and the court of public opinion, the anti-Second crowd is getting desperate. The next “logical” step is character assassination.

In America you can’t discriminate based on race, sex, or a host of other issues. However if you can be branded as a reactionary of some sort, the hypothesis is that it is okay to discriminate and persecute. A society truly based on respect for the rights and liberties of the individual will always be an ordered society. The overwhelming majority of what is termed “crime” stems from actions that come at the expense of the rights and liberties of an individual (be those property rights, or fundamental human rights). I don’t know what sort of society Saul Cornell envisions with his “ordered liberty” comment, but I know it isn’t the society based on real liberty as affirmed by our Constitution.

Until next time!!!

There is No SB-2099 on the Slate

There is an email running around that states, among other things:

“Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It may require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun. The bill was introduced on Feb. 24th and will become public knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law.. This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986.”

Lots of warning signs on this one – first bills in front of the U.S. Senate are preceded by an “S” not an “SB.” As the Conservative Libertarian Outpost indicates, no bill can be passed before it is “public knowledge”. Finally, there was an S-2099 proposing these actions, but was proposed in 2000 as a part of the 106th Congress. It went absolutely no where and hasn’t been resurrected.

While it is important to remain vigilant, don’t let a random email post turn you into Chicken Little. There are numerous real threats to our Second Amendment rights, but “SB-2099” isn’t one of them.

Until next time!!!

Hornady to Produce 7.62x39 / 5.45x39

I came across an article over at Tactical Gun Fan reporting that Hornady will soon begin to produce both 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 ammunition. Hornady’s new ammunition will use inexpensive berdan primed steel cases from Russia, but will fill them with modern powder and use a modern personal defense bullet, a 123-grain V-MAX. The use of modern powders will reduce muzzle flash and the improved bullets offer superior stopping power and accuracy.

I personally can’t wait to get my grubby hands on a box or few of these beauties to see how they perform in my stable of 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 rifles.

Until next time!!!

Second Amendment Rights, Do You Have Any?

Not according to two appellate courts, but a third asserts that you do. Why the controversy? Technically the U.S. Constitution as originally written only applies to laws enacted by the Federal Government, not state or local governments. However in the post-Civil War era, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Among other clauses the 14th Amendment states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This clause may be of great benefit to gun owners in the near future as the “citizenship clause” may be used to strike down many state and local firearms restrictions. A recent article in the Bar Associations jounal details the importance of the incorporation and citizenship clauses of the 14th Amendment and how the Second Amendment is a sort of odd amendment out at this point. The difference in legal precedent almost requires a Supreme Court hearing, but some are skeptical that the justices will hear the case.

I honestly hope that some of these cases will be heard by the Supreme Court and the Second Amendment is henceforth applied to the states the way the First Amendment is. The NRA is appealing the recent Chicago ruling to the Supreme Court, so that may be the lightning rod case. I’ll continue to follow developments as they come in.

Until next time!!!