For the way it burst, it's not a real squib. It would have to be an underloaded cartridge that stopped basically right at the muzzle. This is unlikley but possible.
My guess is the following:
There's probably something wrong with the metal of the barrel. They got a bad batch of stainless with impurities or weird crystal structures or something. Much like SA did when they had the spate of stainless slides snapping off at the slide cut on their 1911s.
It is also not uncommon for the machining for a lever action with a tube magazine to negatively impact the boar as far as accuracy on a good sample, and this is often due to the machining changing the bore diameter or roundness.
Combine that with bum steel and the fact the angle on the dovetail is a stress riser, and one of two things happened.
1) It was a bad enough combination that it the bullets hammering into the bore constriction were able to basically split the end of the barrel open.
2) Lots of soft lead ammo was being shot, and the bore restriction at the cut was effectively scraping off some lead and causing a build up until #1 happened.
#2 could in theory happen badly enough to kill a gun without bad steel being involved, but usually you stop shooting first and try to figure out why your gun is do horribly inaccurate.
What article are you reading? At no point does he argue 300 million gun owners. He points out there are about 250 million adults in the us and the at least number for how many guns per capita are in circulation.
The biggest number he poses as actual resistance is the veteran population at about 20 million.
I'd argue that the scenario is very wrong as a whole, but more on that at the end.
The estimates are that the number of gun owners in the US are 100 million. The number that owns them is smaller than that.
The only ownership stat he gins up is that to get all the semi-autos, you would have to raid 9 million households. This is based on his estimate of number of semi-auto guns out there (which is probably conservative for the reason he states), and his math of netting 3 prohibited guns per raid. Which Is a number that may be high or low. I really can't say. LOTS of people tend to own way more than one semi auto rifle. On the other hand, how good would the data mining be to target things successfully? My guess is that the number of raids would have to be much higher because you would have WAY less than 100% accuracy on semi auto ownership.
This is where I think a whole bunch of people stop thinking rationally, and the author's nod to the IRA is apt, and it becomes important to keep in mind that the number of raids is seriously, seriously optimistic.
His math is a bit off. Doing some rounding to whole numbers, it's really 869 raids per team, and thus 869 raids per officer to hit that optimistic number. Assuming no attrition, casualties, etc.
There's ~100 million gun owners. The question is how many of them do you get?
There's also another ~200 million non gun owners. the question is what will they put up with before they see the government as a problem?
Because the reality is you are likely going to have to kick down WAY more than 9 million doors to get them all. Even at 9 million, that's basically one in every 13 homes. And that is if they ONLY ban semi auto rifles and things work out beyond optimistically. Realistically, even with high quality data mining, face to face sales, 80% receivers, etc will mean going to a number of households larger than that, AND so far the stupidity seems to want to include semi auto pistols. So... WAY. WAYYYYY more households than that.
But lets be kind and say double it. That means kicking in the door of about 1 in 5 households. That will generate opinions amongst the populace.
And he already suggested how it would be organized. It'll be the guys you know and trust. You ahve a handful of buddies you have known forever? One of them jsut got capped by a SWAT team last weekend and you are getting together after the funeral for a drink and really pissed off? Maybe you get to talking about how some fuckers need to pay?
How many more people when they hear rumors of things that sound like they might be talking about you will give you a ring to let you know something might be happening but without putting any real skin in the game?
This is how it happens at the very least. More organized than that? Look at how many gangs we have in the US. They have their own governing documents and rules and such. They are arguably competing forms of government in some locations.
As a concept, the havock the IRA caused was with WAY less guns and with a peak of at best about 5000 active trouble makers. A lot more sympathetic ears and people willing to be low commitment on the fringe, but 5000 really problematic ones.
I do think he is optimistic about the retribution on the ruling class. I suspect it would look much more like enough cops get killed that the cops collect their pay checks while knowing the cops just don't go into that part of town for anything real.
I don't totally disagree with you. I have said before and I will say again that all politicians are scum. they don't care about anything but gathering power and influence and not wanting to work to retain it.
If a ban ever did come about, there would be NO intention of enforcing it thoroughly. Just like there has been zero attempt made to really enforce ANY gun control law to date thoroughly outside of already regulated entities.
Whenever something happens, nothing effective is suggested to prevent crime. What is suggested is something that would make it harder to mint new gun owners and to stifle the existing social structures of gun owners.
Why? Because to the mind of a politician they see it as destroying a voting block that opposes them FOREVER. They will likely remain opposed, but opposed and unorganized and to diffuse into other voting blocks. They don't do anything about the crime because crime creates fear, and fear can be used to gather votes. Enforcement will be arbitrary and periodic so they can keep the former gon owning voting block afraid to stand up on the subject, and keep the anti-gun voting block intact and in fear of the evil criminal gun owners. Because if you actually solved the "problem" of gun owners, the anti-gunners could vote for whoever now. If you actually fixed the criminal problem, your voters who want law and order out of fear could go vote based on other priorities.
The only real point of conversations like this are to point out how people are being lied to, and how those who give a crap need to focus on the other strategies and put some effort into them.
IMO the real hazard for CW2.0 surrounding guns is that we DO get a half assed ban, and some politician thinks because they said it is so, it is truly so. And decides to do something else incredibly stupid that lets them find out how many guns they didn't actually confiscate.
Remember, it only takes 3% to produce "change"..
What could 3,000,000 "focused" individuals accomplish in the country?
Averaged out, that would be 60,000 per state. Could 60,000 pissed off gun owners take over control of NJ?
How about half that number?