Remington has canned Jim Zumbo.

We’ll see if Outdoor Life follows suit.

One of these…

…and one of these…

…would make for a pretty slick revolver. I *think* it would work, since the BFR uses a lot of Ruger parts and the grip frame appears identical to the Super Blackhawk’s.

Of course, my perpetually messed-up right wrist needs a surgical overhaul before I can think too seriously about doing that conversion, but it would be a fun little blaster.

I am seriously impressed by the gunblogging community’s response to Jim Zumbo’s asshattery. Unfortunately, the damage is done and his apology doesn’t fix that.

It’ll be interesting to see if he’s still affiliated with Remington and/or Outdoor Life by the end of the week.

We should be careful not to blame Remington for any of this; their CEO stepped up right away to denounce Zumbo and clarify his company’s position. Good on him!

Want to know what gunwriter Jim Zumbo thinks about “assault rifles?” Take a look.

To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries (sic) and woods. – Jim Zumbo

Mr. Zumbo, there’s a Mr. Franklin who’d like to have a word with you:

We must hang together, gentlemen…else, we shall most assuredly hang separately. – Benjamin Franklin

Since everyone else is doing it, I’ll blog about my favorite rimfire, the Browning Semi-Auto .22.

You can buy cheaper rimfires. You can buy more accurate rimfires. You can buy more versatile rimfires. You can buy rimfires that combine all of those attributes. But you cannot, for love or money, buy a more elegant rimfire. And its pedigree is beyond question:

Saint JMB holding his creation

My Semi-Auto .22 was the very first gun I bought for myself when i turned 18, and it remains one of my most treasured possessions. It is truly a timeless classic.

Castle Doctrine is one of the hot topics on the gun boards and blogs, but it seems to me that we’re doing a notably poor job of keeping our terms straight on this point.

I’ll preface by saying that I am most certainly NOT a lawyer, this is NOT legal advice, etc. The issue was taught to me in this way: In some states, there is a duty to retreat. If that state is a Castle Doctrine state, then the duty to retreat ceases at one’s own home. Under that theory, a man’s home is his castle, and he doesn’t have to retreat from anyone there, hence the term “Castle Doctrine.” This is NOT the same as a “stand your ground” law, under which you don’t have to retreat, regardless of where you are.

So if you are in a Castle Doctrine state that does NOT have a “stand your ground” law, and someone attacks you in the street, you have a duty to retreat if possible. If the same attack occurs within your home, you have no duty to retreat.

If, however, you are attacked in a “stand your ground” state, you have no duty to retreat, regardless of where you are.

That is my understanding of the concepts involved. The crucial distinction, which seems to be lost on many, is that Castle Doctrine IS NOT the same as “stand your ground.”

As I’m not a lawyer and don’t have the necessary pull in the blogosphere to draw much attention to this, I hope someone with a higher profile will try to bring some clarity to this point.