If you were a Marine in the Vietnam War, what gun do you think you’d be issued? Likely an M16, but maybe an M14 if you came in the first waves. Maybe an M1911 if your job called for it. You might somehow get your hands on a shotgun, which could be anything from an M1897 to an M870. Those are all realistic answers to the question, but what if I told you that a Beretta Model 12 was also an option?
What’s the Model 12
The elusive and cool Model 12 occupies the submachine gun genre and chambers the 9mm cartridge. In the Vietnam era, the 9mm cartridge wasn’t often seen in the hands of American troops. Beretta mixed features of submachines, both old and new, when they designed the Model 12. It was a fairly sleek and lightweight submachine gun that differed a bit from the famed tube guns and the near-disposable SMGs of World War II, but it was still an open bolt, direct blowback design.
(SOBCHAK SECURITY)
A vertical foregrip created a distinct profile, and the metal skeletal stock made the weapon a compact option. The weapon featured a fire rate of 550 rounds per minute, which made it quite controllable in full auto. Unlike many other SMGs of the era, it offered true select fire settings with a semi-auto and automatic option. The telescoping bolt was also quite new in the 1960s.
The Model 12 served in numerous conflicts around the world. In fact, it was found in the hands of insurgents in Iraq. The weapon has been produced under license by Taurus, FN, and PT Pindad. If the MP5 hadn’t come along, they might have become the preeminent submachine gun of the era. Much like the MP5, the Model 12 found its way into the hands of Marines around the world.
Marines and the Model 12
You’ll never see the Model 12 listed on a Marine Corps Table of Equipment. Technically, the Marine Corps never issued the weapon to Marines. Rather, the State Department issued the weapon to Marine Embassy Guards. The Marine Corps supplies Marines to various embassies around the world. While they are still Marines, they are working for the State Department.
Marine Security Guards work with State Department personnel to provide a first line of security for embassies and embassy personnel. They man gates, watch cameras, act as counter-snipers, and form Personal Security Details when necessary. In the modern era, the typical armament of a Marine on embassy duty is likely to be the M4 or M27, a rifle the Marine would be familiar with.
Handguns that are likely to be used are the Beretta M9 or possibly the SIG M18, if it reaches that embassy. Even in the modern era, the State Department may issue Glock handguns to Marines at embassies. In the 1960s and even into the 1980s, the Marines on Embassy duty were armed with State Department weapons.
The State Department had chosen the Beretta Model 12 as the main long gun of embassy security, which was complimented by Remington 870 shotguns. Most of the embassy guards in Vietnam simply carried Model 10 revolvers loaded with five rounds. The Model 12s were a break-glass in case of combat-type tools.
Speaking of Combat
One of the few, if not the only, times Marines used the Model 12 in combat was during the Tet Offensive. Why Marines protecting an embassy in a warzone weren’t armed with M16s was up for debate. There are a few who blame the State Department. Specifically the head honchos trying to convince the country that they were winning the war and peace would come soon enough. Marines with M16s and M60s at the embassy would send the wrong message.
When the Tet Offensive launched, and the embassy was under siege, the Model 12 was one of the few options Marines had to fight back with. Submachine guns are fine, but when you are facing off against an enemy with AKs, RPGs, and more, the gun’s limited range and utility start to become a problem.
Marines did what Marines did best and fought back, holding the embassy until reinforcements, armed with rifles and machine guns, could sweep in and repel the attackers.
The Model 12 remained in the State Department’s arsenal until at least the 1980s. There is a picture of a Marine in Beirut toting a Model 12 in some external security function. It stuck around well after the Marine Corps and State Department should’ve learned their lesson.
The Model 12 Now
Beretta recently released the PMX submachine gun, which aims to replace aging stocks of Model 12s. This more modern, closed-bolt SMG takes some major cues from the Model 12 but brings it into prime time. The Model 12 was a good submachine gun, but it wasn’t a good option for a warzone when compared to a rifle. The Model 12 might not have officially been a USMC weapon, but it served in the hands of Marines for what appears to be decades. So, let’s give it a retirement party and an Eagle, Globe, and Anchor.
Title Image: One of the wood-fired pits at Hard 8 BBQ. The pits are located by the entrance and everyone must walk by them to go inside the restaurant. The gentleman on the left is Darryl Bolke. He happens to be standing in line in front of me after the inaugural Thunderstick Summit held in 2022.
This is perhaps one of the most eclectic pieces of writing I’ve ever shared on GAT Daily. But it comes from the heart since Hard 8 BBQ has become more than just a restaurant for me and other like-minded shooters and training junkies.
Hard 8 BBQ is a barbecue restaurant in Coppell, TX (adjacent to Dallas proper and the DFW airport), where groups of people always seem to end up after gun/training events in that part of Texas. It could be a routine weekend class, one of the evenings during the Rangemaster Tactical Conference or anything in between.
Though Hard 8 BBQ is a chain with a few locations, the Coppell restaurant isn’t too far from Dallas Pistol Club. This is one of the leading venues in north Texas for many training courses and events, like the Rangemaster Tactical Conference I just highlighted above.
The Go-To Spot
I promise this entry isn’t a free plug for Hard 8 BBQ, and it’s not like they’d give me a free ribeye steak dinner for mentioning them (but that would be cool!). Hard 8 BBQ in Coppell, TX, is the unofficial official hang-out spot. I wanted to bring up this restaurant because after years of training in North Texas, be it Dallas Pistol Club or another spot, Hard 8 BBQ always seems to be where one ends up for dinner after class.
Obviously, skills development, coaching and improvement are big reasons why many of us bother to show up to training events. But the community-building that happens after a course can be just as important. After many of these post-training dinners there, Hard 8 BBQ has become an institution of sorts.
Besides its reasonable distance from Dallas Pistol Club, Hard 8 BBQ is a great venue for mixed groups. It has several long tables that make it easier to accommodate people for a communal dining experience. Hard 8 BBQ’s atmosphere isn’t too stuffy nor too kitschy. And while their pricing isn’t fast food cheap, the food there is also reasonably priced for what they’re serving.
Because it’s predominantly a barbecue restaurant, most food is sold by the pound, market style. Their per-pound pricing isn’t as expensive as any of the “destination” barbecue joints in Texas, nor will there be a 4-hour long line. Perhaps during peak hours, it could take up to an hour, tops. But waiting in line for food and mingling outside the pits is also part of the Hard 8 BBQ experience.
Dr. William Aprill
Dr. Aprill, second from left standing in a group photo amongst the rest of the Shivworks Collective.
I have so many memories of dining there with close friends, fellow class students, instructors and other personalities from the training community. There’s no need for me to name-drop, but I do want to talk about the late William Aprill.
Dr. Aprill was a very intelligent and erudite man; he was also a phenomenal instructor with a penchant for explaining things very clearly.
The first time I ever met Dr. Aprill was during dinner time at Hard 8 BBQ in September of 2017. He was in town for one of his signature lectures, Unthinkable. Following the tradition, the group convened at the restaurant for dinner. Unfortunately I was stuck working that Saturday so I missed the lecture but still caught up with Dr. Aprill and the rest of the group for dinner.
In 2018, I was lucky to take a shooting course with Dr. Aprill, who was also formerly a pistol instructor at the famed Rogers School in Georgia. And guess where we dined that evening?
Dr. Aprill passed away in 2020. During the short time I got to know him, he was always a soft-spoken man with a very deep pool of wisdom to draw from. He’s one of those people you wish you could have recorded even during a mundane sidebar conversation just because he had so many useful insights.
It’s hard to quantify just how much I got out of talking to him, training with him, and even dining with him. Hanging out with Dr. Aprill at Hard 8 BBQ is only a small part of my experiences at that restaurant. But with his absence, it’s one of the more poignant and meaningful ones.
My Favorite Fare
Hard 8 BBQ’s ribeye steak dinner (or lunch). Look at all that melted butter.
Hard 8 BBQ’s brisket, sausage, ribs or other traditional barbecue items are very decent and consistent. I can’t really comment on them too much because those aren’t what I like to order. I’m really not the one to ask because I always order the ribeye steak dinner.
Hard 8 BBQ doesn’t go too crazy when it comes to steak but they do right by the beef. And they really don’t need to go crazy with avant-garde or whacky meat cookery that involves plastic bags and strange probes.
Adjacent to their two large wood-fired barbecue pits (they have an on-site forklift to move cords of wood around daily), there’s always a person manning a wood/coal-fired grill, too. Over these past few years, I can say that the men manning this grill can respect the steak and are very consistent in cooking it to your order.
They serve 16-ounce steaks and baste them with butter as they cook over those coals. When the meat gets to your table, it shows up with extra molten butter next to a pile of caramelized onions that were also cooked with butter in a cast iron griddle over those same coals. As Hard 8 BBQ is a Texas establishment, they will also serve you a whole-grilled jalapeño pepper with your onions as well.
I seldom eat out because I’d frankly rather spend that money on this lifestyle of guns and shooting. But grabbing that ribeye steak dinner at Hard 8 BBQ is one of those things that evolved into a priceless tradition.
Welcome to the PDW project. Today, we are looking at the second entry in the series, and I’m not quite sure what to call it beyond the braced pistol. What I mean by braced pistol isn’t an AR pistol or similar large format pistol. It’s a handgun with a brace attached. In this scenario, we are using a Glock 17 combined with an Endo adapter and Shockwave brace. This is a quick attach and quick detach system that’s easy to use and potentially very promising as a defensive system. The brace pistol design seems to be a promising entry into the world of civilian PDWs.
Benefits of the Braced Pistol
This concept has several benefits that outweigh the downsides of your typical PDW. Quick-attach pistol systems discard the need to carry a separate gun as your PDW. You can simply carry the brace device in a separate bag and your handgun in your standard holster.
This alleviates the hassle of constantly keeping a bag with you and your PDW on your back. There is no danger in leaving your quick-attach brace design in your backpack and in your car, office, etc., if you have to go to the bathroom.
Next, it’s very affordable. It costs less than a couple hundred bucks to get this setup with the brace and adapter. That’s pretty affordable for the PDW realm. It’s also effortless to conceal. The Endo adapter and brace fit into a backpack, laptop bag, and, heck, some center consoles.
If it comes down to needing a PDW option, the braced pistol means you’ve already engaged with your pistol and hopefully created distance, found cover, etc. This doesn’t require you to pick from your CCW or your PDW. You’ll draw your CCW and can switch to the brace pistol design when you see fit.
I also found that in testing, it was very easy to use with one hand. If the other hand is occupied, you can still make solid hits on target.
Downsides of the Braced Pistol
The biggest downside is the time to attach and engage with the device. While you can always engage with your handgun, it can take several seconds to retrieve your brace design and get it in action.
Another downside to the Endo design is that it only works with Gen 3 full-sized guns. No Glock 19s or other gun options. There is the USAOneShot device, but I can’t speak to its design or quality since I’ve never had hands-on with one.
In Action
I ran the braced pistol concept through a number of drills to test its overall effectiveness. I do have a Gen 3 Glock 17, but it’s not optics-ready. Not having a red dot is a serious downside. I think my results would have improved with a red dot, but that wasn’t an option at the time of testing.
Deployment
For a deployment test, I wanted to see how fast I could attach the brace and fire a single accurate shot at 25 yards. I stashed the system in a Vertx backpack but started with the handgun drawn. I figured in a realistic situation, I’d already have my handgun drawn and ready.
My start position was Glock deployed, aiming at the target. I used a shot timer and practiced deploying the brace several times using various methods. My fastest time to get the brace attached and an accurate shot on target was about nine seconds in total.
Testing Control
One of the big benefits of the idea of a civilian PDW is to provide a weapon that’s easier to control and shoot than a handgun. To do so, I fired several modified Bill Drills. My target was still the A-Zone, but I fired the drill at 15 yards rather than seven. It took a little trial and error to figure out the best way to grip and engage with the tool. But once I figured it out, I was able to eke out a few sub-2-second Bill Drills.
The brace pistol system is much easier to control and keep on target during the recoil impulse. It makes tracking the sights easier, which results in faster shots on target. I recorded these times without any prior practice, and I believe with some dedicated training, you could shrink that time considerably.
Accuracy Testing
Another big advantage of a PDW is accuracy. Handguns are tough to shoot accurately at the range, and when adrenaline is pumping, it’s even harder. Add in a moving target, and then we have a pretty rough situation for a handgun. A braced handgun could improve accuracy substantially compared to a pistol.
25-yard A-Zone Group
For the first test, I tried my hand at slow-fired shots on an IPSC A-zone. I fired standing with no support and fired several three-shot groups. I managed to make some decent groups with accurate shots on target, even with iron sights. However, I do think a red dot would increase my accuracy substantially.
I backed up to 50 yards and shot at a steel IPSC target. The iron sight covered the entire thing, and my hit ratio with the braced pistol was around 50%. That’s not as accurate as I’d want. This is where the red dot would really be handy. With a red dot, I can hit this target with a pistol easily. However, even with irons, a 50% hit ratio isn’t bad. I popped the brace off and tried with just the handgun to achieve a 0% hit ratio with five rounds fired.
The Braced Pistol PDW
Overall, I think the braced pistol has a lot of potential. I think a more universal design like the USAOneShot would work substantially better than the Endo. The Endo is great but doesn’t offer much versatility and is tough to find. This concept very clearly needs a red dot, and I think a red dot might be part of the PDW requirement at this point. The additional benefits are very useful.
While it can be slow to deploy, its concealability and the fact that it can attach to your CCW firearm make it a viable option for many people. This might be the best overall budget PDW option.
The Bill Drill is one of the most popular handgun shooting drills in existence. It’s a very easy and straightforward drill that involves drawing and shooting 6 rounds at a distance of 7 yards into the A-Zone of an IPSC paper (cardboard) target. In the world of handguns, the time to beat is two seconds.
The Bill Drill is very prevalent and involves every aspect of shooting, including drawing, proper manipulation, and recoil control. So, a person’s Bill Drill time is a good shorthand way of sizing up their general handgun skills. Any shooter who can pull off a two-second Bill Drill has above-average skills. It’s a lot like having a 300-pound bench press in strength training. You know someone is strong if they can bench that amount.
But what about a Carbine Bill Drill? Does it make sense to adapt this handgun staple over to rifles?
Bill Drill For Carbines
I doubt I’m far from being the only person who ever pondered how the Bill Drill would transfer over to the realm of semi-auto long guns, especially modern defensive carbines. Last week, by chance, Matthew Little / Greybeard Actual shared a video clip on social media about adapting the Bill Drill to carbines. It’s a short video clip, but I recommend watching it as he mentions other benefits and value that Bill Drills provide in general.
The most important snippet of information in Graybeard’s video is that he mentions a par time of 1.5 seconds for carbines. Given Mr. Little’s extensive expertise and experience with firearms, I have no problem “appealing to authority” in this regard. If he says 1.5 seconds as a baseline is good enough, that’s good enough for me, too.
Carrying Out The Carbine Bill Drill
The beauty of shooting Bill Drills, whether with a rifle or pistol, is that they’re easy to set up. Besides a firearm, one only needs a shot timer and 21 feet of space between them and their target. A real IPSC target isn’t even necessary either because all that’s needed is a 6×11-inch vertical rectangle. This can be traced out with a permanent marker on a large piece of paper or sheet of cardboard.
For this article, I shot the Carbine Bill Drill with one of the most basic AR-15s I have at my disposal. It is a BCM 16″ carbine with pencil barrel upper, BCM bolt carrier group, and basic grey Magpul MOE SL furniture. This “backup” AR-15 carbine is built from an assortment of parts, including a standard forged lower receiver purchased from a big-box outdoor store a couple of years ago.
There isn’t anything fancy about it. The only accessories this carbine has are a sling and a Trijicon MRO reflex sight. I figured this no-frills AR was just as good as any other to run the Carbine Bill Drill, so I didn’t mind shooting it this time. In spite of its age, it hardly gets shot nowadays, and I was happy to dust it off.
A better view of my BCM KISS Carbine and the improvised targets I made for the Carbine Bill Drill from a recycled sheet of cardboard.
Carbine Bill Drill Times (In Seconds)
With the high prices of 5.56mm ammo lately (along with pretty much everything else), I didn’t go too crazy for this write-up and only fired 40 rounds. I shot two 3-shot groups to confirm that the Trijicon MRO was still roughly zeroed. I fired the other 36 rounds over six separate Carbine Bill Drill runs. Although it’s lots of fun, extended Carbine Bill Drill repetitions are a good way to become bankrupt.
1.61
1.37 (dropped a single, careless round outside A-zone)
1.56
1.45
1.40
1.44
Is It Too Easy? (And Other Thoughts)
Once “warmed up” and in my groove, I was able to consistently pass the 1.50 second par time easily. This is evident by the times for my fourth, fifth, and sixth runs. Out of curiosity, I also tracked my splits for these runs, and they were all around the mid-teens, with an average of 0.16 seconds.
Is that too easy? Perhaps it could be, but I think it ultimately depends on the shooter and their rifle. I’d be impressed if I could shoot the Carbine Bill Drill with the Kalashnikov and sight I recently reviewed and still get 1.40 on a run. As Greybeard mentions in his video, the Carbine Bill Drill also serves as an isolation drill that allows shooters to train on other aspects of carbine shooting.
In this go-around of the drill, my goal was simply to see how quickly I could do it and establish a baseline because I had never tried it with a carbine before. I found that my experience shooting handguns quickly gave me a leg-up with the carbine, too.
Besides its simplicity, the other beauty of the Carbine Bill Drill is that there are no rules holding anyone back from tweaking this exercise to better suit their needs. For example, the size of the scoring area could be changed from an A-Zone into a B-8. The distance can be increased or decreased as needed. Ditto for par times. The sky is truly the limit with the Carbine Bill Drill.
Agram 2000 might not be very well known, but it has a distinct appearance. The Agram 2000 is the most common and famous example of the Agram family of submachine guns. The family includes the 1995, the 2000, and the 2002 models. Ivan Vugrek designed the weapon in 1990 to be sold to the Croatian Army during the Croatian War for Independence. The Army passed over the Agram for an HS Produkt design.
The Agram 2000 submachine gun became famous for the criminal preference for the weapon. No military ever adopted the weapon. Production was limited to what is essentially home-based weapon shops. Even so, the gun found its way into the hands of criminals across Europe.
The Agram 2000 – A Simple Design
The Agram 2000 doesn’t do anything revolutionary. The weapon used a direct blowback system. The submachine gun fires from a closed bolt. It famously borrows several features from other guns. The bolt comes from the TEC-9, and the trigger mechanism comes from the Beretta M12.
(Forgotten Weapons)
The barrel can vent enough gas to convert a supersonic 9mm cartridge to subsonic, similar to an MP5SD. This makes it well-suited for suppressor use. Without a suppressor, a guard can be installed to block the venting and maintain the cartridge’s supersonic velocity.
The designers went with a proprietary magazine design which is often one of the problems with the gun. The magazines tend to be cheap and not so reliable. The most distinct part of the weapon is the thumb-hole front grip. The weapon was not designed with a stock in mind, so it’s very compact.
(Forgotten Weapons)
The Agram 2000 was never well known for its reliability, accuracy, or any of those features or factors. It’s only famous for its use by criminals across Europe.
The Agram 2000 – The Criminal’s Choice
The designer, Ivan Vugrek, started the Agram 2000 on its life of crime. After the Croatian Army passed on his designs, he kept making them. Not officially, and not for sale through legal channels. He and his family operated a home workshop that produced the guns and often sold them to criminals. Police investigated the Vugrek family after numerous murders with Agram 2000 submachine guns.
The 2002 was a little different (Netherlands Police)
According to a report on crime in the Netherlands, an investigation was conducted in 2006 and 2013. The investigation eventually ended in an arrest and imprisonment. It’s easy to see why criminals would prefer the Agram 2000. It’s small, concealable, and likely cheaper than other black-market options. They often lacked serial numbers and markings. I have a Jane Guide stating that the gun they examined had no markings.
Criminals used the gun for decades. In 1998, there were two notable murders with Agram 2000 SMGs. Criminals gunned down gang leader Zlatko Bagarić, with one gunman reportedly emptying the entire magazine into the man. The highest profile use of the Agram 2000 was the murder of Russian political leader Galina Starovoytova in her doorway by a hitman with an Agram 2000.
In 2003, police in the Netherlands found one during an investigation of a potential radical Muslim terrorist cell in Hofstadt. The gun was discovered in the back of a car. The cell also had body armor, night vision, and hand grenades.
This is a common sight for the Agram
In 2010, police recovered another from a London Fields gang member after a hit gone wrong left a schoolgirl dead. In 2020, police found one in Jamaica, apparently abandoned by criminals as police launched an operation in the area.
From Crime To War
Interestingly, the first time an organized fighting force utilized the Agram 2000 was in the Ukraine-Russia conflict. The Territorial Defense Force took confiscated Agrams from criminals and turned them against the Russian forces. The little gun finally found a quasi-official use, although you would have to be desperate to depend on the gun, and well, these guys were desperate.
The Agram 2000 is out of production, but the guns will likely continue to pop up around Europe. It proves that criminals don’t follow laws and will find a way.
Following my interest in the Super Test, a staple of NRA B-8-based training drills involving the pressure of a shot timer, I decided to try my hand at another, more challenging drill that focuses on the B-8 target this month. Specifically, the Justified Defensive Concepts’ B-8 Bonanza drill. Justified Defensive Concepts instructor Tim Chandler posted about this drill on FB, and I’ve wanted to give it a go since I saw it.
B-8 Bonanza Points And Scoring
Like the Super Test, this drill also has a 300-point aggregate score and involves 30 rounds of ammunition. The drill is broken down into three different portions, each with ten round strings of fire that have different par times. The B-8 Bonanza’s par times consist of 30 seconds for the first string, 20 seconds for the second string, and 10 seconds for the final string. One loses 10 seconds of time with each successive string, which really raises mental stress and pressure to perform. And here’s the real kicker: all three strings must be fired from a distance of 25 yards.
But wait, there’s more! Only impacts inside the B-8’s 8-ring (or higher) count—basically the repair center of the target. Impacts outside of the scoring area incur a penalty of -10 points. Chandler calls this “zero or hero” scoring.
A passing score is 270, similar to other 300-point aggregate drills. However, with this drill’s par time constraints and distance, that’s a hard 270 to attain. The B-8 Bonanza is shot from the ready position, so “draw to first shot” isn’t a factor against the par time. The B-8 Bonanza isn’t about a sub-second draw. Rather, it is about shooting consistently under immense pressure with very tight time margins. If you can do both, that’s pretty cool too!
Though the B-8 Bonanza is primarily intended to be shot with modern pistols using slide-mounted reflex sights, I don’t see why it also couldn’t be done with iron sights. It would definitely be a handicap, but it would also be an awesome flex to pull off.
Attempting The B-8 Bonanza With A 4.5 Inch Standard Walther PDP
Not to outdo the other Walther PDPs I shoot, I’ve been putting this particular Walther PDP through its paces lately. I also want to see how well this cheap Holosun along with the FCD V1 PDP plate hold up.
To attempt the B-8 Bonanza drill, I picked my “backup” Walther PDP, a full-size pistol with a 4.5-inch barrel from the original 2021 production run. This particular Walther PDP has the older style slide cut (V1) that has since been replaced with the “improved” V2 cut.
I picked up this gun used, so its true round count is unknown to me. I had to source an aftermarket optics plate for it and went with a Forward Controls Design RMR plate that FCD sells for the V1 PDP cut (at a discount, no less).
The FCD is currently holding one of Holosun’s most affordable dots, the HS407A3X2. Palmetto State was routinely putting these on sale for $180 last year. The primary difference between the regular HS407/507s is that this one lacks solar cell charging panels. For the price I paid, I don’t mind it living on a backup pistol.
After a couple of hundred rounds, the mounting screws have still not budged, and the Forward Controls Design unit has yet to shake loose. Given that this is a V1 PDP, I just wanted to specifically mention that I have yet to encounter any issues with the optic becoming loose.
I’m also running the extra-large backstrap on this gun to see how it compares against the medium unit on my 5” workhorse polymer-framed PDP. So far, I am leaning towards the medium backstrap.
Shooting The B-8 Bonanza
I started by verifying that my dot’s zero was correct for 25 yards and the specific ammo I was using. Then, I proceeded to paste a clean B-8 to the target backer. I set the par time for 30 seconds and let it rip. Frankly, 30 seconds is actually a long time, but that didn’t matter.
I psyched myself out for the drill and finished the first string in 18.24 seconds. Not only did I leave nearly 12 whole seconds (or almost half of the allotted time) on the table, but I also dropped at least 2-3 shots. Knowing this, I knew I blew my chance for a perfect score almost immediately, but I kept driving on.
Although I was trying to get my anxiety in check, the following string of 20 seconds was much the same way. I let my anxiety get the best of me still and left almost 9 seconds on the table yet again. My second string’s total time was 11.36 seconds, and I also dropped more points.
Still trying to keep my head in the game, my third string went off the rails, too. I completed it in 6.49 seconds and dropped at least 40 or 50 points, as half of them didn’t land in the repair center. I ran this drill only once, and I was relatively cold, save for the untimed 10-shot combination warm-up and zero verification.
The B-8 Bonanza is not for the faint of heart.
My B-8 Bonanza Target In All Its Glory For Everyone To See. Please note that the score of 213 is incorrect as missed shots incur a -10 penalty. My true score is much lower and I honestly didn’t care to compute it. The “F” isn’t wrong though.
The B-8 Bonanza’s Training Wheels: The Half-Nanza and Builder-Nanza
To mitigate some of the “overhead cost” of shooting up 30 rounds for each attempt, Tim Chandler also uses a variation of the B-8 Bonanza, which he calls the “Half-Nanza.”
The Half-Nanza divides everything by two except the distance. It’s still shot at 25 yards on a B-8 target, but the round count, the par time, and scoring are halved. Even with this reduction, the shooter still has the same amount of time per shot to make par time. Chandler told me that he has been using the Half-Nanza with great success in his Justified Defensive Concepts coursework lately.
Last but not least, he has one other variation of this exercise for newer students—the Builder-Nanza. This version works exactly the same as the Half-Nanza, but it’s shot at 15 yards, with the idea of warming up newer shooters to take further shots. At 30 rounds per run, doing the full B-8 Bonanza drill requires 60% of a 50-round cartridge box, and that can tally up fairly quickly.
For the sake of this writing, I bit the bullet and attempted the full B-8 Bonanza, pass or fail. And it’s not like posting a score of “300” will solve all the other problems in my life.
The Takeaway
Chandler himself will tell you that the reason he conducts this drill in his coursework is to help teach his students effective trigger management, as he believes there are three approaches to a trigger pull: quick, careful and precise. Although I flunked the B-8 Bonanza on this attempt, I really liked this drill for several reasons. First, it’s very easy to set up and conduct. All that is needed is a B-8 repair center, a handgun, a shot timer, and 25 yards of space. Second, all shooting is done from that 25-yard distance. Even if one’s skill might be lacking, it’s still very productive to routinely shoot at this distance and take away its “far away” mysticism.
To clarify, go to a public handgun line and see how many shooters post targets that far out. It’s rare. But 25 is just a number, nothing more, nothing less.
Third and perhaps the most important reason—this isn’t an easy drill. It’s probably an intermediate to advanced drill, and acing it requires absolute mental focus alongside mastery of handgun fundamentals. However, those intermediate to advanced shooters can get a lot out of it. For example, I dropped shots and points because I allowed myself to mentally stress about the time constraints, even when there was no reason to.
I think the B-8 Bonanza is a good shooting drill that also tempers the mind, which is crucial given the importance of the mental aspect in shooting. Another way this drill is valuable to those who work it is the confidence-building it can provide. Scoring a 270 is no small feat, even with a dotted pistol that has a nice trigger.
The Beretta APX Carry is Beretta’s first-generation ultra-compact 9mm, which rounded out the APX family with a “slim” EDC option. In Part 1, I wrote about the pistol and some of its features in general. Part 2 is a continuation of my thoughts about the Beretta APX’s trigger and what it’s like to shoot it.
The Original APX Carry’s Trigger
Although the Beretta APX Carry uses a striker-fired action, its trigger is peculiar. It resembles a double-action revolver trigger instead of the typical striker-fired semi-auto trigger. This means that shooters will either love or hate the trigger. It depends on their philosophy concerning defensive handgun triggers.
Describing the Beretta APX Carry as an 8-shot flat semi-auto revolver would sound very strange, but it would be an apt description. As far as the longer “double-action” feeling trigger is concerned, these break in the low 7-lb range. And they’re not too bad. The way it feels and breaks actually reminded me of the Ruger LCR.
It’s worth mentioning that there is an entire school of thought devoted to having a slightly longer and/or heavier trigger pull on a defensive firearm. Specifically, it helps to prevent any surprise accidental trigger breaks or negligent discharges with fatal outcomes. This is precisely why TDA (traditional double action) pistols or guns with longer trigger pulls until the shot breaks are still popular amongst certain elements of defensive-minded concealed carriers.
HK’s popular LEM (Law Enforcement Modified), with its longer pull, is a good example of what I’m talking about. This is why I don’t think its trigger necessarily seems out of place, given the gun’s primary mission.
Shooting The Beretta APX Carry
The results of shooting 10-shot groups at 10 yards to get a baseline level of accuracy, freestyle, with the Beretta APX Carry. Using the sight picture I drew above on the target, my impacts were roughly 2″ low which means that the gun shoots to the sights at 10 yards. (Rounds will impact the middle of the square when the front sight’s white dot is superimposed over it).
As previously mentioned in Part 1, this specific APX Carry has seen numerous rounds since it first entered the family. For this write-up, I grabbed what I had on hand. This consisted of 115-grain FMJ Fiocchi Range Dynamics, 124-grain JHP Nosler ASP, and six loose rounds of my previously mentioned 147-grain reloads that I was able to scrounge up.
It’s a pity I didn’t have any full-power 147-grain factory rounds, such as Federal’s 147-grain HSTs, on hand for my informal 10-yard accuracy test.
This test consisted of taking ten careful shots at 10 yards to group the pistol (freestyle). I understand that different 9mm loads will print lower or higher than the gun’s true point of aim. So, I sketched out some black 2”x2” squares on a piece of cardboard and placed it 10 yards away.
The Beretta APX Carry uses a “center-hold” sight picture. However, I shot these black squares using a careful and precise 6 o’clock hold, holding the top edge of the front sight against the bottom edge of the black square.
APX Carry Performance
APX Carry sight picture with a hand-drawn diagram of my hold
As you can see from the pictures, the pistol had a real affinity for the 124-grain Nosler ASP JHP loads. Because of my 6 o’clock hold, the core of that Nosler 10-shot group was approximately 2” low. There’s no doubt that I’d punch the black square had I aimed with a center hold.
My 10-shot Fiocchi group was not as tight as the Nosler group, but the core of those shots also printed roughly 2” low in the same spot. Although not precise, we can deduce that the gun “shoots to its sights” at 10 yards with standard velocity factory ammo.
I shot the third square with those loose six rounds of my handloads for fun. Not to mention, I had already taken the time to set this up for the other two loads. Keeping in mind that these are marginally loaded and subsonic out of full-size pistols, the shots at least printed under the area of their square.
It’s my experience that heavier 147-grain bullets tend to print more consistently when there’s a stouter propellant charge behind them. Interestingly enough, the Beretta APX Carry has never had an issue cycling these underpowered handloads.
The Takeaway
I am satisfied with the APX Carry’s accuracy from both of my 10 yard 10-shot groups using two types of factory ammo. Frankly, this gun has been kept under lubricated. However, even though it’s not seen a substantial quantity of rounds, it remains a very reliable pistol. The top-heavy slide does seem to provide a dampening effect against some of the harsher ultra-compact pistol recoil.
Originally, I thought I wouldn’t mind its revolver-esque trigger all too much, but after shooting it for accuracy, I changed my mind. It could be that I’m too used to shooting standard striker-fired triggers. More specifically, mastering the longer trigger pull can be tricky, exactly the same way as it would on a snub revolver. Likewise, it adds a slight degree of difficulty on top of already being a smaller gun, which can be harder to master.
If one isn’t careful about keeping the correct amount of tension with their support hand, there is a propensity to drop the shot when trying to pull the trigger all the way back to break the shot. This can be observed with both my Nosler and Fiocchi groups, as each has two holes beneath the rest of the group. This is precisely how I came to drop those shots. Of course, the cure for this phenomenon is practice and repetition.
Conclusion
In Part 1, I pointed out how I thought the gun was a little large for its size, given its capacity. This is partially driven by the fact that it feeds off true single-stack magazines, and besides the pseudo-revolver trigger, that’s its other drawback. On the flip side, the APX Carry’s grip is very nice and slim and that’s probably my favorite aspect about it.
As an older model that’s now discontinued, it won’t be sold in shops as a new item. But for the right price, the Beretta APX Carry can still make for a viable three-inch ultra-compact 9mm.
The M1 Garand gets credit for being the first successful semi-auto combat rifle. That’s only partially true. Sure, the M1 Garand was widely successful, but General Manuel Mondragón, a Mexican General and Arms designer, beat Garand by about 30 years. Mexico adopted the Mondragón Model 1908 in 1904, making it one of the earliest semi-auto rifles ever adopted by a military force.
The Mondragón and the Mexican Revolution
If you’re familiar with Mexican history, you might know that 1908 was a turbulent time in Mexico, and by 1910, the country was in full revolution. The combat that spread across the country meant that the Mondragón Model 1908 would get a baptism by fire. The Mondragón became the first semi-auto rifle fielded by the military and used in combat.
Mexico contracted with SIG, yep, that SIG, to produce the rifle. By the time the revolution started, the Swiss factories had only produced 400 rifles. The revolution saw these rifles disbursed for testing, but the Mexican military wasn’t impressed. The rifles had a high failure rate that has been blamed on the poor quality of ammo issued by the Mexican military.
In 1910, each rifle cost 160 Swiss Francs. Converted to dollars and adjusted to inflation, the Mexican military spent around 5,500 dollars per rifle. That’s not chump change by any means. The failure rate and the cost resulted in Mexico canceling the rest of the order. The 400 rifles they had were seemingly spread around to the Army, and why and where they went was somewhat lost to time.
Rumors circulated that the soldiers tasked with assassinating Pancho Villa carried the Mondragón rifles. That might explain how seven soldiers were able to fire 40 rounds so quickly and kill Pancho Villa and four others.
Onto Germany
In 1914, the Great War was in its infancy. The German Empire purchased the remaining M1908 rifles from SIG to arm themselves as much as possible. The number of rifles is unclear, although some estimates assume roughly 4,000 were sold to the German Empire. In testing, the German Army found the rifles too susceptible to fouling and failure in trench life.
(Military Review)
The rifles were turned over to the Imperial German Flying Corps. Before plane-mounted machine guns, there was less mud in a plane, and rapid-firing, easy-handling offensive armament was needed. Bolt action rifles and pistols simply weren’t enough. The M1908 Mondragón was designated the Aviator’s Self-loading Carbine, Model 1915. The Germans strapped a new 30-round drum to the gun to improve its firepower.
Once the Germans figured out synchronization gear and machine guns, the Mondragón rifles were given to the German Navy. After World War 1, an effort was made to convert the rifles to 8mm Mausers, but it never panned out.
Inside the Mondragón
The Mondragón is a long-stroke gas piston rifle with a rotating bolt. It’s very similar to the Garand. The long-stroke gas pistons run underneath the barrel, and an op rod connects the piston to the bolt. This rifle chambered the 7x57mm Mauser cartridge, which was standard for Mexico at the time.
Troops fed the Mondragón rifle with stripper clips, and the fixed magazine held ten rounds. It’s worth noting that while the magazine was fixed, it could be removed and replaced with a detachable magazine variant. There were ten- and twenty-round magazines, as well as the German 30-round drum and the Swiss 12-round magazine.
Another interesting feature was the ability for users to convert the rifle to a straight-pull bolt action design. A lever allowed the shooter to block the gas system, and a latch on the bolt detached the bolt from the OP rod. This created an interesting backup option for manual operation.
Overall, the Mondragón Model 1908 wasn’t a massive success, but it does wear the crown of the first semi-auto combat rifle. The unique history of the rifle is fascinating. From Switzerland to Mexico to Imperial Germany, the rifle certainly saw some sights.
On April 9th, 2024, the United States Navy posted a photo that might make you question the small arms training of Naval personnel. To their credit, only a small section of sailors are gunfighters, but man, I don’t see how this one made it to the Instagram of the US Navy. The picture portrays a sailor shooting an M4 rifle in a training environment.
So what’s the problem? Well, as many commenters were quick to point out, the Trijicon VCOG was mounted backward on the rifle. The VCOG is an LPVO and doesn’t quite work when mounted backward.
Additionally, the optics lens cover is in place, and eagle-eyed viewers might notice the M4’s rail is not properly retained by the delta ring. We can also dig into the chicken wing position and the seemingly bizarre placement of a vertical foregrip and how the sailor is using the vertical grip.
The sailor shooting the rifle certainly looks a mess, but is it a real problem?
The Modern Navy
Admittedly, I think maybe someone should review the photos the Navy posts to ensure they are always looking professional and productive. There is something to be said for a well-trained Public Information Officer. However, as fun as it is to point out the flaws of the sailor and the rifle, we should also point out that small arms aren’t that important in the Navy.
I have friends who are sailors, and their experience at boot camp didn’t even involve shooting a rifle. It could have changed, but when they went through they were trained on the handgun and shotgun. Rifle shooting wasn’t a concern and isn’t for the big Navy. These guys control nuclear submarines and guns, the projectiles of which are measured in inches rather than millimeters. Don’t forget the jets, torpedoes, and more.
If I were to put you, a random internet commenter, in charge of firing those weapons, would you look professional in doing so? Or would you be a mess?
But The Rifle
Why exactly is that rifle in that configuration? I’d hazard to guess the VCOG was mounted backward to fit into the racks in which these rifles are stored. These racks were likely initially designed for carry-handle M16s/M4s, not for LPVO-equipped rifles. As Marines, we had to remove all sorts of accessories before we turned out rifles so they could fit in the racks.
Why the delta ring is messed up is beyond me. The sailor firing the rifle has a set of scrambled eggs on his ball cap. This indicates he’s an O-5 or higher. It turns out he’s the ship’s commanding officer.
The Navy never had the best chicken wings.
This might be one of the few times he’s ever handled a rifle in his career. This might have been a fun opportunity for him to do so. Maybe he was just there for the photo op and didn’t realize what was wrong, or he just wanted to throw some lead into the ocean for fun for a quick second.
If I had to guess, the lower enlisted running the exercise may have been a bit intimidated by the officer. They didn’t make the corrections right away out of fear. He is their commanding officer. Officers and enlisted in the Navy are very separate cultures, at least compared to how officers and enlisted Marines interact.
Maybe the guys running the ‘range’ hadn’t flipped the optic over just yet. The simple fact of the matter is that using an M4 isn’t his job. He’s not a gunfighter. He does have a very demanding job that likely has him making very important decisions in high-stress environments almost daily. We might not be in some massive open conflict, but being in charge of what’s likely a large number of sailors at sea isn’t easy.
Unfortunate Timing
That officer is likely highly skilled at his job, and his job isn’t shooting rifles. Having room for rifle training isn’t on his dance card. Is it an unfortunate photo to be posted to social media? Yes, likely so. But is it a reflection of the readiness of the United States Navy? I don’t think so. Those guys work their tails off in all manner of tasks. So, maybe we can let this one slip.
If I had to sum up the US Marine’s Squad Common Optic (SCO) in a single phrase, the modern idiom ‘Absolute Unit’ would probably suffice. The VCOG 1-6x and 1-8x optic lines, designed and produced by Trijicon, are some of the most robust rifle optics on the market. Built to mirror the legendary durability of the ACOG while offering the superior optical versatility of an LPVO, the VCOG cemented a continued legacy for Trijicon when the Marine Corps picked the 1-8x MRAD variant to start replacing their aging RCO ACOGs, equipping the ground combat forces first and foremost.
“Heavy is good. Heavy is reliable.”
This quote from Guy Ritchie’s ‘Snatch’ accurately sums up both the H&K M27 and the VCOGs that now top them. They aren’t light weapon systems. While they are also a far cry from something like a Browning BAR (just shy of 20lbs), or a M249 Para SAW (just under 16lbs), there is a whole list of lighter rifles than the M27 HK416 variant and the VCOG+PEQ15 optic suite.
Coming in at about 13.5 lbs loaded, it isn’t light, but it isn’t absurdly heavy, either. It weighs what it needs to weigh to do what it needs to do with the components as designed. There are plenty of ways to shave weight in future PIPs on the system, too.
The VCOG in isolation is the same way, and you avoid getting any measurement gimmicks where a company is gleefully bragging about the optic’s weight without any mount. For a good comparison, a Vortex Razor III in an AUS mount from Reptilia (a very viable military-grade optic setup) comes in only 5 oz lighter. Those 5 oz are well used in the VCOG.
Forged
One of the greatest ‘weaknesses’ of the variable optics selection is the number of parts involved in making them. Each moving part and mechanism adds a location where things can go wrong, like on the exterior, where water and debris could enter the scope. Those same points of interaction also represent the spots where parts are most likely to fail or take damage. They are the most sensitive to impacts and ingress.
Trijicon forges the body and base of the VCOG SCO from 7075-T6 and machines out the precise interactive surfaces from there. This is combined with their assembly methods and attention to detail to produce a variable optic with the ACOGs level of durability. That is a tall order, some might say a Herculean task.
The additional complexity necessary in variable optics to support the difference in illumination and the erector usually means that variable optics are more delicate by necessity. The more complex the device, the more difficult maintaining the durability becomes.
As the illustrative example, standards for immersion and water resistance are lower on the military variable optics than on their ACOG, Aimpoint, and EOTech optical peers. This is because those three optics are simpler to build, have fewer moving parts, and can be better proofed and armored against the environment, thanks to that simplicity.
Trijicon looked at the impossible and said, “Eh, let’s try it anyway.”
Try it, the company did. Succeeded, too—at least more so than its peers. Most military variable optics are rated for surface-level water emersion. For example, they can get wet, rain won’t harm them as long as the caps are all on snug, getting dunked in the water crossing a river won’t fry them if the caps are snug, etc. However, the VOCG can go 20 meters down—66ft.
Now, to be fair, the ACOG can go 100 meters (328ft). But given that most other ‘military grade’ variable optics are rated for 1 meter of immersion for 30 minutes (IPX7), with a few IPX8 ratings for specific greater depths and times, the VCOG stands alone for the moment.
Nothing about the VCOG is fragile. It maintains the overbuilt, nigh indestructibility, of its ACOG predecessor in an era when users were largely ready to conclude that we had to give that up.
My time with VCOGs
When Trijicon originally produced the VCOG line, I was intrigued. I hadn’t yet jumped down the LPVO rabbit hole the way I have now, where they are my go-to optic. But my use of the ACOG made me naturally inclined to like it.
I was…underwhelmed…by my first use of them. The 1-6 “Donut of Death” reticles that mimicked the TA11s we’d been using on the M249s were…off. The reticle design didn’t translate well to a front focal plane variable scope, and it suffered from the illumination limitations common to that focal plane, at least at the time. It was (and is) expensive, with its main trick being durability far beyond what I needed in an optic.
As such, I did myself a disservice and didn’t look at the MOA or MRAD reticles. That was my mistake. Where the horseshoe BDC “Donut” reticle was not well suited to FFP variable applications—being very thick to be useful at 1x, it obscures the target quite a bit—the MIL and MOA reticles handle the challenge of scaling superbly.
MRAD Reticle
The MRAD reticle design was much friendlier when it came to the considerations of target obstruction and useability with the illumination on or off. The USMC also got wise to training their shooters smarter, even though it is a little harder, and using the milliradians in place of a Bullet Drop Compensator (BDC).
The MRAD reticle in the VCOG SCO can go on any rifle, any caliber, and all the shooter needs to do is relearn/verify the holds. Print them out and stick them in their scope cover or shoot them on the range and live verify.
My suggestion is to learn them, shoot them live—even if you use an app to guess the initial ones—and verify the raw data. Even in military applications where ammunition is pretty well controlled, live data is best.
Live Data – Play in the Mud
I don’t do field exercises anymore, but I do teach and attend classes and shoot the odd competition here and there. Green Ops LPVO, reviewed nicely here by Paul in West Virginia, sounded splendid.
…at the end of March…
…with a bunch of wind, freezing rain, and mud…
Did I mention I don’t do field exercises anymore? I thought I did, but the spicy nostalgia is acting up for some reason…
Seriously though, courses and competitions are good places to verify gear. Pick one suited to the gear you are testing, and go shoot a few hundred rounds. I headed to the range with two carbines and two military optics, the SIG S-VPS and Trijcon SCO.
Taking on an LPVO Course
LPVO courses aren’t about the carbines. They are about optics. LPVO optics are more complex, as has been stated, and unlike a dot or a fixed prism with a BDC, they require about as much learning time as the rifle they are on. It is a near equally complex part of the rifle system to learn and manage. Taking the proper time to do that leaves you with a rifle/optic combination that can likely shoot further, quicker, and with a far greater hit probability than you are used to.
LPVOs are about information. They inform the user with a better sight picture and the increased ability to select their holds more accurately and observe their influence on the target. At the same time, we must avoid thinking of them as “precision” rifle scopes. Their role is still that of the red dot and the prism, to get a fast and effective sight picture and begin making hits in as short a window as possible.
The VCOG SCO handled this hybrid of purposes superbly.
VCOG SCO on the IWI Carmel, Peacemaker WV Green Ops LPVO
Additional Understandings
Let me take a detour to talk about controls for a minute. A user must understand the control scheme of their rifle in order to run it efficiently, which extends to the LPVO. Adjustments, Illumination, Magnification, and Reticle are your core points on the LPVO, just as Charging Controls, Magazine Controls, Safety Manipulation, and Trigger Manipulation are on the carbine.
Control the machine, get it to do what you need it to, and read the information it is telling you—optic and rifle. The complexity is again in that the optic now does a lot more, it isn’t essentially fixed like red dots or prisms are.
At the Green Ops class, we started this data gathering and understanding prone and at known distances. The target array in the picture above goes from 120 to 470 yards and with a variety of shapes and sizes. Odd target shape is a good approximation of an obscured target by cover or terrain. We used magnification, holds for distance and wind, and found out what our ammunition, rifles, and trigger fingers could do. Even the little 11.5″ MCX with the S-VPS hit 470 with 55gr without trying too hard.
These optics do magnify capability (see what I did there?), but the shooter needs to understand the complexity of the more complicated pair.
Live and Off-Hand
Once you have data, you get out of the prone.
We hit a different range, ran around, and shot off-hand at targets from 115 to 400 yards. The goal was to reinforce that these optics are ‘fighting’ scopes. They enhance what the rifle could do with a red dot or prism. They don’t turn it into a precision rifle. Get on the rifle and send the shot, correct if you miss and send it again.
VCOG SCO – Recommended, not ‘Needed’
Do you need a Trijicon VCOG? No.
Do I recommend it? Yes. After shooting with it, I am keeping it, and it is only the second LPVO I am likely to purchase more than one of if I need an optic. The first is the Razor III.
The VCOG SCO is meant to be a mobile optic, and it accomplishes this purpose to great effect. Yes, even though it is heavy. The large control surface of the magnification dial allows for needed magnification changes without the probability of moving it inadvertently.
The reticle doesn’t interfere with the sight picture, with the segmented ring aligning close quick shots and the MRAD crosshair giving precise, quick holds. The glass provides the crisp, rich sight picture needed to find and fire on the target.
The Larue mount and power source AA keep the VCOG SCO a field manageable item. There is no requirement for an armorer’s bench, levels, or a torque wrench. It is an entirely by hand manageable optic. This toolless/tool-limited design philosophy pushes the VCOG SCO to the forefront of my recommendations for when you have field-specific requirements.
The Razor III remains my favorite LPVO. However, the VCOG SCO is now my ‘recommended’ LPVO. When I recommend something, I attempt to blend all the factors of efficacy, simplicity, and reliability into a weighted preference.
Final Thoughts
The two factors that may disqualify it from consideration for any given individual or group are going to remain cost and weight. But if I was handed the requirement of ‘LPVO: Simple, Durable, ‘ the VCOG SCO would be the selection. The extra weight removes a tremendous amount of ‘armorer level’ requirements for mounting, leveling, and maintaining the optic. Likewise, it is well suited for unforgiving work environments. Those are too often overlooked features when it comes to optic selection, especially at an agency or unit level.
In a future generation of the sight, I would like to see if Trijicon can save weight and open up space by shortening it. An optic with the length of the NX8 or PLXc and the VCOGs layout, intuitive simplicity, and durable construction would be an excellent place to further the line.
As you have heard from me before, when preparing for grid-down emergencies, having back-ups to your back-ups is essential for dealing with the unexpected. One thing many people don’t think about is—what if I am stuck in an enclosed space and cannot safely use any of the combustion cooking methods that I had planned for? The solution for that type of problem is having a charged-up portable electric power station and low-wattage hot pot on hand.
Preparing for Emergencies with a Power Station and Electric Pot
These “power stations”—rechargeable super-batteries, really—used to be prohibitively expensive. But with advancing technology, there are more choices than ever that won’t break the budget of a careful saver. It used to be that you would expect to pay about a dollar per watt-hour. This means a 500-watt unit would cost you around $500. But prices are coming down with new brands and higher wattages coming on the market.
My particular model is a Jackery 1000 from a few years ago. However, there are many other companies now with faster charging options and lower prices.
The other technological advances that work hand-in-glove with this are electric appliances with lower-wattage options marketed specifically for camping/RV-ing. Most common household appliances have a much higher power draw than you can get from a budget power station. So, the niche for lower-wattage options is there and being filled.
Electric Pot Options
If you have all day to heat/cook your meal, there are slow cooker “oven” options like RoadPro and HotLogic. They used to be mostly for truckers to use in the cigarette outlet of their vehicles. But there is a 12 volt outlet on most power stations, so the wider public is using them now as well.
However, if you need your food or water boiling within a few minutes there are low-wattage electric hotpots all over the internet now. Mine is a 2-quart Dezin, which I got from Amazon a couple of months ago. It has a low setting at 300 watts and a high setting at 600 watts, both of which are in the range for my 1000-watt power station. My model also came with a handy steamer basket.
Available on Amazon
I tested this combo in my kitchen a month ago. To bring 2 quarts of water to a full rolling boil on the “high” setting took 18 minutes. I didn’t think that was bad at all.
Kitchen test run.
Now that I’ve given the background allow me to share my story of how this equipment saved me from wet misery on a recent weekend excursion.
The Story
Some of you may know that I am a history nerd, particularly about the 18th century. However, I have never had the time to do costuming, reenacting, or anything of that sort, before my retirement last year. Thus, after hand-sewing linen and wool all winter, I attended my first event last weekend. Since the event was close to home, I did not “encamp” as I didn’t have the proper equipment.
Nonetheless, attendees were asked to bring a period-appropriate covered dish to the “fort feast” on the first evening. No problem I thought, I’ll bring green beans and potatoes (from my dehydrated stash), prep ahead, refrigerate, and just reheat in cast iron over someone’s cook fire on the day.
Yeah, about that. Did I mention that there was periodic torrential rain, tornado watches, and a small stream flooding the first night and day? Weather like that is kind of hard on 18th-century campfires—and the cooks. There were hearths going inside the log buildings, but space and coals at those were at a premium, considering we were feeding over 100 people. So what did I do?
I hid in my car and used 21st-century technology!
I stayed warm and dry in my car by using technology!
First, I boiled 2 quarts of water to dump into the lidded cast iron to heat it up. Similar to how the English pre-heated the teapot. Then, I boiled the refrigerated pre-cooked beans and taters in two runs (I had four quarts and only a 2-quart pot), dumped the water out of the hot Dutch oven, and filled it with veggies. I then, oh so innocently, sauntered from the parking lot to the fort in the drizzle with my kettle of hot veggies.
The “Fort Feast”, which I ate out of a wooden bowl.
Final Thoughts
I know that in the interest of “living history,” I should have just suffered, but heck with that when I had another option. And that is exactly the point. This setup gives you options when fire, from whatever source, is not possible or safe. This works during a power outage at home, as well as during a downpour when camping with the kids.
I ran this 2-quart pot three times to get what I needed and still only used 35% of my available charge. If you were careful, you could probably feed your family for a couple of days on a single 1000-watt charge. Then, recharge the power station when the sun comes back out or while driving your car. This would work well for a car bug-out too as it wouldn’t produce any smoke.
The power station and hotpot option is undoubtedly the most expensive choice when planning for emergencies. But if you are an apartment dweller with an electric stove, other than a candle stove, it may be one of your only options for a grid-down emergency.
As for my experience, I have zero guilt. My daughter put it best, “Mom, if 18th-century people had that technology, they would totally have used it too!”
The first generation Beretta APX Carry is a single-stack striker-fired polymer-framed ultra-compact pistol chambered for 9mm Luger with a three-inch barrel. It uses the same (scaled down) action and design cues as its bigger counterpart, the first-generation duty-sized 9mm Luger Beretta APX.
Like its bigger brother, the Beretta APX Carry also has those unique evenly-spaced protruding ribs throughout its slide. This slide serration arrangement is perhaps this handgun’s most distinctive feature—physically and visually. Although they worked quite well, these ribs were phased out for the second-generation of the APX family. In addition to being the dedicated go-to ultra-compact option inside the APX family, the original Beretta APX Carry is also the older Beretta Nano’s successor.
These days, the original APX Carry has been supplanted by the APX A1 Carry, but both are fundamentally similar. However, there are some tweaks and cosmetic differences between the two, namely the omission of the “original” slide ribs and the addition of an optics-ready slide. The trigger on the A1 Carry is also said to have a shorter and lighter length of pull. To be clear, this write-up is about the original APX Carry.
As a writer, I cover all manner of handguns that sell across different price points. I can’t help but notice that APX pistols appear to be some of the most competitively priced striker options currently available in the US Market. Especially considering that Beretta is a major and storied gun manufacturer.
I originally came across the APX Carry by chance after a close family member impulse-bought one for approximately $350 retail in early 2021. I never paid it too much mind, but after plinking with it this morning, I took a more critical look at it.
Beretta APX Carry First Impressions
I don’t hide the fact that I’m not necessarily the biggest fan of “slimline” handguns in general, but they’re present in the environment and are worth discussing. Despite their shortcomings, their form factors and ease of carry are undeniable. Overall, the Beretta APX Carry is a decent pistol with a great fit and finish. For its price point, it doesn’t feel cheap either.
Though this particular specimen doesn’t get shot extensively, it has been nothing but reliable since it entered the family. It has cycled a myriad of factory 115-grain and 124-grain loads, including CCI, Winchester, and Fiocchi. Moreover, the gun hasn’t had any issue cycling my subsonic 147-grain handloads consisting of a 147-gr plated Xtreme bullet over 3.3 grains of HP-38. I estimate its lifetime round count to be conservatively around 300 rounds.
The Beretta APX Carry next to the original Beretta APX.
The original Beretta APX Carry “feels” as if it should have a higher capacity for its size since other slim 9mm carry guns like the Sig Sauer P365 series or even the Taurus GX4 series have really upped the ante on “clown-car” pistol capacity. In fairness, those models use a staggered column magazine while the APX Carry feeds off a true single-stack magazine.
I find that the APX Carry most resembles the original Smith & Wesson M&P Shield due to its similar height, length, width, dimensions, and round capacity. The Walther PPS M2 is also reminiscent, as this Walther handgun feeds off a single-stack magazine and is only slightly bigger than the APX Carry.
Beretta APX Carry Features
Close-up showing the front sight and how it fits over the slide.
The Beretta APX Carry takes its style cues from the original standard Beretta APX duty pistol. It has the same grip angle and texturing style, not to mention the signature ribbed slide. However, its grip is quite thin and doesn’t accept interchangeable backstraps.
Like the rest of the APX family, this ultra-compact pistol uses a modular chassis similar to the Sig-Sauer P250 and P320. The encased trigger group also bears the gun’s serial number, which allows users to easily drop the unit into a frame of a different color or style to mix and match.
Beretta did a good job, including an iron-sight set consisting of a plain-and-serrated rear sight with a standard white dot up front. For a no-frills set, this combination is very hard to argue against. The only peculiarity about the front sight is that it doesn’t utilize a traditional dovetail. It has a narrow channel that lets the sight blade slide in or out from the muzzle side of the slide and is held in place by a set screw.
I wish I had the requisite trigger time with it to disclose whether this alternative sight channel is as secure as the standard horizontal dovetails found on most pistols.
Recoil Mitigation
The Beretta APX Carry weighs approximately 20 ounces, which is in line with steel-framed snub revolvers and other semi-autos in this category. Its slide seems top-heavy, and my hunch is that this gun was probably designed with a heavier slide to help dampen the harsh recoil from the combination of a three-inch barrel and the 9mm cartridge, as these types of guns don’t have the smoothest recoil impulses. Subjectively, the APX Carry does feel a little less harsh during recoil, and I’m curious as to whether that’s a result of a beefier slide.
Beretta APX Carry Magazines
The two magazines included with the pistol.
Two single-stack 9mm magazines are included with the gun—an 8-round unit with a chunky extended base pad and a 6-round unit with a more compact base pad. The former’s base pad actually makes for a very comfortable firing grip and allows me to fit all three firing-hand fingers on the front strap with no issues. However, the base pad on the 6-round magazine is a little less roomy but still provides a welcome ledge for the pinky finger nonetheless.
Interestingly, the total length of the front strap with the 8-round magazine and its base pad end up being equivalent to the front straps of some compact or even full-size pistols. Personally, the last three fingers of my hand sit exactly as they do on a Beretta 92 front strap.
Part 2 (coming soon) of this write-up covers my thoughts on the Beretta APX Carry’s trigger and my remarks after shooting it.
There are two things in this world made from a series of tubes: the internet and the Sten gun. Almost everything about the Sten gun is tubular. The barrel, obviously, but also the receiver and the majority of the stock. It’s the definition of a tube gun, aka the toob. The Sten is the British forces’ iconic World War II submachine gun.
Sten should actually be spelled STEN because it’s an acronym. The S and T stand for Reginald Shepherd and Harold Turpin, the gun’s creators. What does the EN stand for? Well, that’s up in the air. Some claim it’s Enfield, but Enfield didn’t develop the gun. Other sources claim the EN stands for England, which might be the more credible entry into the argument.
Shepherd and Turpin designed the Sten to fill an immediate need of British military forces. The British Expeditionary Force in France was desperate for submachine guns, but the British had none to send. They scrambled to fill an easily predictable gap in their armaments. After World War I, it became clear that the submachine gun would be the cool new kid on the block.
The Birth of the Sten
Everyone adopted an SMG. Americans had the Thompson, Germans had the MP-40, Russians had various PPSH guns, and the list goes on. That is until we hit the British, who declined to seriously develop a submachine gun in a post-World War I world. Out of desperation, they bought Thompsons, but they really needed a weapon they could produce quickly and cheaply. After the disaster at Dunkirk, the need grew even more.
The design started with a simple sketch for a simplified trigger design. From that sketch, the Sten gun was born. They designed this gun to be so ludicrously simple that the receiver of the tool room sample was made from the leg of a Vickers machine gun tripod. This tool room sample fired 100 rounds during a demonstration. Prototypes came and went, and the design proved viable.
Oh Hi Mk
This officially became the Sten Mk1, and shortly after improvements, it was turned into the Sten Mk1*. The Mk1 wouldn’t serve for long, but it set the standard for Sten guns. While the Sten is as British as Earl Grey tea, the Germans had a little influence on the design. The Sten gun took design cues from the British Lancaster SMG, which took cues from the German MP28. This is why the magazines are horizontal rather than vertical. Admittedly the Sten gun was slightly behind the times, but damn did it work!
Since the Brits were doing this on the cheap, the guns were fairly crude. They used stamped metal and very minor welding, which required little machining. Tiny machine shops could produce parts, and assembly was done at Enfield. Singer, as in Singer Sewing Machines, snatched the first contract for the Mk1. Over 300,000 Mk1 Stens were produced before they were designated as too complicated. The MK2 simplified the design further and made a few changes to make the guns easier to use for paratroopers.
The Mk2 ended up being the most widely produced Sten gun. While the Mk2 made some changes, it was still a Sten gun at its core. The Mk2(S) even added an integral suppressor in ‘43. Which leads us to the question, what is a Sten gun?
What is a Sten Gun?
The Brits made the Sten gun as simple as it could be. It’s an open-bolt, straight blowback-operated submachine gun with a fixed firing pin. The trigger only has one goal, which is to release the bolt. When the bolt’s released, it flies forward and fires the gun, and the gun continues to fire until the trigger is released or the gun runs out of ammo.
We don’t get a real safety on the gun. The most you get is a slot that the bolt slides into and locks. Surprisingly, the Sten had a fire selector. The Tommy wielding the gun, pressed a selector right or left to turn the gun from safe to semi-auto.
God forbid you jar the gun too hard. During the Sten gun’s service, there were numerous accidental discharges, some of which resulted in casualties. If the bolt was locked to the rear and the stock hit a surface a little too hard, the bolt could fly forward and discharge the gun.
In terms of reliability, the gun has a hit-or-miss reputation. These guns were made quickly and cheaply. They were damn near disposable. If one broke, you tossed it into a pile and grabbed another. Over their years of production, small changes were made to increase reliability and production. By 1942, Sten guns were generally considered reliable weapons.
The World of the Sten Gun
The Sten Mk2 hit the sweet spot for the Sten gun. While it was an acceptable design, there were numerous small improvements, and a variety of generations came beyond the Mk2.
The Mk3 was the second most produced Sten gun. It offered 21 fewer parts than the Mk 2. The gun was lighter, but the magwell and barrel couldn’t be removed, which made fixing the guns impossible in some cases. The Mk3 turned out to be less reliable, and they were discontinued in 1943.
The Mk4 was only ever a prototype and was aimed at bringing an integrally suppressed Sten to bear. It also featured an odd collapsing stock to make it a bit shorter. The Mk4 never advanced beyond a few prototypes.
The Mk5 provided users with a bayonet mount and a wood pistol grip and stock. This was one of the highest-quality Sten guns. There was an experimental series of Mk5 Stens with a swivel stock and periscope-style sights to shoot around corners.
Finally, we had a Mk6 which was a suppressed model of the Mk5.
After World War II
The Sten stuck around for quite some time after World War II. It served with the Brits until the 1960s, and various copies were made around the world. The simplicity of the gun made it an easy choice for military forces from Argentina to Israel. To this day, the Sten is likely off somewhere is some warzone, still showing why tube guns just work.
I’ve dived deep into the world of mini shells. I’ve tested and tried buckshot, birdshot, slugs, and more. I’ve experimented with every minishell I could get my grubby little paws on. I’ve patterned them, tested slugs at range, and even tried a few different adapters designed to make the shells reliable. In all this experimenting, I’ve come up with what I think would be the perfect mini-shell.
When I say perfect, I mean one I would actually consider for self-defense. A load I’d toss in my gun and trust to get me through a defensive encounter. Of course, this is a mere musing, and maybe this particular load wouldn’t work, but I think it would do quite well.
The Current Problem With Mini Shells
The current crop of mini shells has a few problems. The first big problem is reliability. With a normal pump shotgun, you need an adapter for these things to function. I’ve heard they work fine in KelTec shotguns and even Winchester shotguns, but that’s not my experience.
The adapters produced so far have been limited to Mossberg series shotguns due to their skeletonized shell lifter. Essentially, mini shells only reliably cycle in one type of shotgun with an adapter.
Second, they don’t work in semi-autos. I’ve tried 1.75, 1.95, 2-inch, and 2.5-inch. Only the 2.5-inch shells from Nobel Sport will cycle in a semi-auto. The rest turn the gun into a straight pull jamomatic.
Finally, we get to my main problem with these shells, which is a severe lack of payload. I like shotguns because they are a repeating claymore. I get to fire half a magazine of a Glock 17 per trigger pull. Most mini shells have a much smaller payload, with many relying on Number 4 buck, which isn’t always the best round for adequate penetration.
The Perfect Mini Shell
Technically, I might as well make this an open letter to Winchester or Olin. The Winchester brand of shotgun shells has done some odd loads in the past. They have the PDX .410 loads with the defensive disks, the buck and ball slug loads, and at one point, they released a home defense birdshot—much to my chagrin. These three oddball loads aren’t perfect, but they show a willingness to be creative.
A 2.5-inch load would make the perfect mini shell. As mentioned previously, a 2.5-inch shell would cycle flawlessly in a semi-auto shotgun and a pump-action shotgun. This slightly shorter shell would also expand your capacity by one round in a tube-fed shotgun. The 2.5-inch shell size also allows for a decent payload. The Nobel Sport load has six pellets of 00 buckshot. That’s good, but I would go with a Number 1 Load.
You could likely fit eight pellets in the 2.5-inch shell or maybe even ten. Number 1 buckshot is the smallest projectile that adequately penetrates a threat. A smaller projectile allows for more room and a sufficient payload.
In terms of velocity, we’d have to experiment with what gives the best pattern and ensures the cycle of semi-auto shotguns. I think something between 1150 and 1300 feet per second would be perfect. Since this is my dream load, it would also be equipped with the FliteControl wad, but I think that’s asking for too much.
Pure Potential
Most mini shells these days are novelties. They really aren’t a great self-defense option, but can be fun to shoot. The Nobel Sport 2.5-inch loads seemed to have disappeared completely, rendering my single box the last I’ll likely see. I do think a shorter shell could have potential, but it’s unlikely we’ll see it anytime soon.
