Investing in Firearms

I've sort of casually invested in firearms for many years.  I say "casually" because I have never investigated market conditions, nor have I studied what was hot and what was not.  I had an informal awareness of the fact that Lugers were increasing in value at an obscene rate and that the Python I foolishly sold years ago was now the price of a respectable used fishing boat.  

I have always like Lugers and other early German pistols, as well as Smith's and a few others. These were the basis of my "portfolio".  I also was fortunate to be the recipient of a number of firearms from friends and relatives over the years.   I was doubly fortunate in that most of these were in excellent condition and were very "collectable".   So these weapons are the basis of my Firearm Portfolio:

Manufacturer	Model	Date	Caliber (mm)
Sauer	38H	~1941	7.65 mm (.32 ACP)
Browning	High Power	1986*	9mm
Inland Division	M1 Carbine	1941*	.30 Carbine
Mauser Werke	Mod. 1895	Pre-War	7.63×25mm Mauser
Mauser Werke	Mod. 1895	Red 9	9mm
Smith and Wesson	Model 1950	1952	.45ACP
Smith and Wesson	Model 624	1985	.44 Special
Colt	Officers Model	1916*	.38 Special
DWM	P .08 Luger	1927	9mm
DWM	P .08 Luger	1916	9mm
Mauser Werke	P .08 Luger	1938*	9mm
Mauser Werke	P.08 Artillery	1917*	9mm
Mauser Werke	P-38	1943*	9mm
Walther	P-38	1944*	9mm
UBERTI	S&W #3	Modern	.44 Russian
Colt	Targetsman	1974*	.22 LR

The asterisks indicate dates of manufacture that are either on the weapon or have been confirmed by a record search.  All are in Excellent condition.  The Mod. 1895's are virtually new. The Lugers have some holster wear but are very nice.  The point is that any collector of these things would be happy to add any of the examples to his collection.

How has this portfolio performed?  Better than my stocks, that's for sure.  However, some of the values, while all have grown, have not increased as much as would have guessed.  The High Power is only about 15% more than I paid though it is virtually new.   The M1 went from (I am embarrassed to say) around $175 to around $1000 (I said "buy smart", didn't I?)

I bring this subject up because of a neat little piece published by our pals at the Rock Island Auction Company (RIAC):

Stocks, Bonds or Barrels by RIAC

It's a good read because if you are  shooter and own firearms, you have already invested.

I commented on the piece but will repeat my thoughts here:

Interesting, and in support of what I have been saying for some time. The main thing (aside from the good caveats that you already mentioned) is condition, condition, condition. Buy one fabulous Python (or Luger or Broomhandle or Mauser Pocket Pistol) rather than 5 Fair Condition C&R .45s. The rate of increase for the good stuff will be jaw dropping, the other stuff will appreciate but it may take a lot more time.

I have a rule of thumb: if you buy a firearm intelligently (ie. used, good price etc) you will be, on average, at break even in 12-18 months. In 2-3 years you will show a healthy profit.

Finally, I would encourage people to not think of firearms as speculative investments. The AR boom has come and gone and AR's, unless collectable, are simply ugly tools whose value is fairly stable. 

Finally, finally, the question always is "is it too late?". That is should one actually buy a Python at today's prices?. I think so, provided you can get something of a deal. Do your research and try to find one that is reasonably undervalued. Then DO NOT HESITATE: go for it and don't look back.

Another thing. If you start accumulating collectable firearms you have to think about storage. Rather than rattle on, perhaps our friends at RIAC could do a piece on that topic.

Thanks for good information guys/gals.

Gun Control and the Chinese

Just a reminder that the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

This is in response to an editorial in today's Times.  

These is no real need to amplify on what I wrote to them except to say that I really wish that the readers of the Times who favor stricter gun control would realize that bad guys (or crazy people) do not pay attention to rules.  And that making guns "harder to come by" is only effective in making it harder for honest folks like you and me to obtain them.  

Remember that getting freedoms back from a government is virtually impossible.

• Michael James Cobb
• Reston, VA

I suppose, no shock here, that the administration has laid pipe with the gun hating editors of the times in preparation for this editorial. I trust that no reader doubts that the basic journalistic integrity of the Times (and some other news outlets) cannot be trusted when it comes to issues surrounding firearms. The problem, of course, is that one cannot really know when one is reading objective reporting or biased positioning on any topic where a progressive slant is possible. This trickles down to the selection of stories that appear (and don't appear) on the front page as well as the tone and tenor of any writing that purports to be news.

Very sad.

In any event, supposing that the President uses some extra legal method to add to the 25,000+ gun laws that are out there already, will the editors of the Times be satisfied? What, precisely, would it take to satisfy them? I think that we know but a bit of honesty would be nice.

The rules that are proposed are nice but I think we all also know that bad guys don't follow rules. To give up freedoms for the illusion of safety is cowardly.

HTTP://mikecobbsstuffformen.blogspot.com

Connecticut Selectmen Vie for Attention Whoredom

Amazing development.  The Selectmen of Weston, Connecticut have promulgated a potential ordnance that has the intent of making ownership of weapons so expensive and irritating that they hope people will give them up.  And who are the objects of these new laws designed to protect The People(tm)?  A bunch of affluent, crusty old white folks whose criminal exploits tend more to the white collar than the violent.  They present no danger to adjoining towns and none to themselves.  

Jesus wept.  What these clowns are doing is saying to the criminal element (you think anybody wants to rob a bunch of rich white guys in rural Connecticut?   Nahhhhhh.) that there exists, in Weston, a bunch of prospects for theft, burglary, home invasion and what have you and they are unarmed. 

Now we all know that this idiotic proposal is not going to happen.  Weston is a small town and can not afford the lawsuits that are going to ensue.  In fact, the very existence of the possibility that such legislation would be considered by the Selectmen is ample grounds for a claim of malfeasance and the basis for rapid recall.  It is likely that the Selectmen in question will be doing something else this time next year.  Also, the State of Connecticut takes a dim view of having it's prerogatives usurped by a bunch of small time political hacks.

So we need to ask "why?".  

I will tell you why.  The Selectmen think that this is their chance for stardom.  That in the Liberal firmament they will stand out as beacons of rectitude.  That they will force their neighbors to forgo personal defense in favor of trust in their Police and local Government.

Pardon me for a moment

The people responsible are below.  Drop them a line

First Selectman, Gayle Weinstein   GWeinstein@westonct.gov

Selectman, David Glenn Muller        DMuller59@gmail.com

Selectman, Dennis H. Tracey III        D.H.Tracey@gmail.com

Amusing cartoons about a serious subject.

Stolen from Dan Mitchell's very excellent blog.  Though I suspect that he too stole them.

Gun Violence and the Media

Since the horrific events in Connecticut, I have been giving a lot of thought to questions about gun control, our media and the future.  

I think that everything that I want to cover is going to take a while to gel in my mind so it will appear somewhat episodically in this blog.  To start, though, I would like to comment on the media's treatment of this event.

We have many killings, many mass killings both here and in Europe and elsewhere in the world. All of these events are covered by the media.  Does such coverage yield more violence?  Of course it does, that is Pathology 101. The monsters perpetrating these outrages are looking to make their pathetic lives more than what they are as they exit them.  At least one professional has commented on the way to treat these events in the media:

• If you don't want to propagate more mass murders...
• Don't start the story with sirens blaring.
• Don't have photographs of the killer.
• Don't make this 24/7 coverage.
• Do everything you can not to make the body count the lead story.
• Not to make the killer some kind of anti-hero.
• Do localize this story to the affected community and as boring as possible in every other market. 

You can check out the credentials of Dr. Park Dietz on Wiki.  He knows what he is talking about.  Having said that (and the truth of what he claims is palpable, isn't it?)  reflect, please on the coverage of the Aurora and Newtown shootings.  

Responsible?  Over done?  You judge but bear in mind that the news media does not generate revenue by being responsible,  they generate money by selling papers or magazines or, increasingly, getting hits on their sites.  If they can be responsible and generate loot, great!.  If they have to fall short, however, they will let dignity and responsibility and common sense fail before they will take a money hit.  So what we see is wall to wall coverage with little regard to content.  As Rush Limbaugh said a few days after the event, not one thing he reported on the day of the event was true.  But every media outlet was reporting!!  

This brings us to my favorite failed media outlet, the New York Times.  Since the day after the Connecticut shootings, the Times has run page one stories on gun control   Every day.  At least one story plus editorial.  Every day.  Their anti-gun agenda is now on full display and they are frothing at the mouth.  It does make one wonder what is not getting reported or how their agenda slants other stories.  Lately they have come out questioning the right of citizens to carry weapons on their persons, legally.  When an intrinsically dishonest entity such as the Times calls for a "review" of existing processes or questions whether something or other ought to be allowed they are, in fact, taking a position that what the current situation is is wrong and they oppose it.  The Times may well be the newspaper of record in the United States but it is also scandalously doctrinaire on certain subjects.  Among these is gun control.  I think that it is fair to say that any article whatsoever that bears, even tangentially, on private ownership of weapons, will be biased.  

In closing, let us take a quick look at the generally dismal stock performance of the New York Times during the week since the Connecticut shootings.

Stock Price for the New York Times

As I said earlier, the business of the media is business and we can see that the blood coverage that the Times has engaged in is correlated with a bit of a bounce in the net worth of old "Bud" Sulzberger (majority shareholder) and his minions.  When the Times sanctimoniously states that gun companies make blood money, remember this chart.  The Times, cynically, is making a fortune on the backs of the people whose misfortune they want you to believe they care about.

Yeah.  And I have a bridge for you to buy.


Later

MJC

Posting names of gun owners

The idiots at the Gannett paper, Journal News, thought that it would be amusing to post the names and addresses of every gun owner in their distribution area, Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties. I wrote a cute comment, reproduced below.

This reminds me of an actress past her prime doing soft core porn to generate a bit more interest. Print news is dead and anything that they can do to generate notoriety will be done. In the present case they did something that, while legal, is simply wrong. Wring and stupid. And they put us all at risk for a cheap PR trick.
In any event the personal contact information for all concerned at the paper can be found at:http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/

We should all know everything about everybody, right Ms. Lambert (n.b. Editor)?

Let me draw your attention to this link: http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/ it goes to a blog that has posted the home addresses of the staff at the Journal.  Fair play I think.

You and I don't need the Journal News, or the NYT or any specific source of news and information.  That is because God gave us the Internet.  The world is at your fingertips and you don't need the filtering of the old established sources of information.  Gannett was founded in 1906, BTW.  

In their desperation to be profitable and relevant  the dinosaurs in publishing have used absurd tricks like pay walls and distasteful journalistic practices.  Our pals at the one daunting Time Magazine recently had this as a from cover:

What can one say except 

Time.  Can you imagine?  Henry Luce is spinning in his grave and probably would love to come back and kick some ass.  

Back to the fools at the Journal News.  Posting the names of gun owners is bad.  Because you can do something does not give you license to do it,  knowing that is what distinguishes a responsible adult from a child.  I am sure that the Editor,  Ms. Lambert, is not fool and knew just what she was doing.  She was hoping that the notoriety would get her a job in a major market.  Let's face it, Rockland County, N.Y. is not exactly Big Apple territory.  We can only hope that her management will see this silly and dangerous trick for what it is and make sure that this person, of questionable control over her career advancing impulses, is kept far from major markets where she could do real harm.

In any event, public record is public record and I hope that the information regarding Journal News employees is disseminated far and wide.  That is because  contrary to conventional wisdom, two wrongs often make a right.

Adios.

MJC

An American Gun Company

Came across these guys a while back.  Bates & Dittus LLC of Connecticut makes 37 mm products in the USA (which DOES mean something).  Mostly for LE/Military but they sell to civilians too.  Saw the YouTube video this AM and wanted to share.  Look forward to a review of their products in the near future.  Imagine, Connecticut.  Takes  balls to start anything up up there. Anyway, this is the ultimate toy for big boys and damn useful in certain situations.

Click here for the video
Click here for their Facebook page.

Had some fun with one of their products a while back.  A bit bigger than my .22 obsession.  For you ladies out there, they make the thing UNDER the barrel.  37mm is a bit bigger than 5.56mm. 

Just back from overseas.  More when I catch up on my sleep.  You do not want to be in Egypt now.




Adios


MJ

What we're about here

Hi all.  Listen up.  


I've been looking around the web for some time now, trying to find a good source for straight up information on stuff that guys care about.  Important stuff: Guns and Movies and Toys for Big Boys. And there was nothing, just a lot of gassing by pantywaist wannabes.  Seems all they are doing is selling crap or trying to get freebies from manufacturers.  I  decided that I'd take some time to tell you guys about things that you care about.  I'll do it with simple sentences and I'll just do it once.  So pay attention.   I only write about what I know about and I am here to tell you that when I tell you something you can take it to the bank.  


Stay tuned.


MJ


ETA: I am not going to do formal reviews here, no ornate range tests or Master's Level treatises on movies or anything else I feel like commenting on.  I am going to tell you what works and what doesn't.  


MJ