Contextualizing Military Experience in the Gun World

By

-

July 26, 2022

The military is a huge, diverse organization that’s built around the conducting war. War is a complicated subject, but somewhere in there sits small arms and their contributions to combat. Although small arms are only a small part of modern warfare, they are extremely overrepresented in the general mindset of the civilian population and often in the minds of service members who think their military experience makes them small arms experts. The military even tells them they are and gives them a badge.

Today I want to contextualize military expertise and how it ties to civilian firearm ownership.

In the firearms world, veterans sit on two sides. Most tend to be pro-gun, but a sizeable chunk is anti-gun. Both sides use their military experience to pose as gun experts. We see a lot of people justify their opinions on gear, guns, and tactics with their military experience. There is an admin Marine on Twitter who tries to convince the world that the AR-15 is way too dangerous for the average gun owner.

So the question is, is the average veteran or servicemember a firearm expert?

Nope, not at all.

Military Expertise – Not All Experiences Are Equal

First, what makes someone a firearm expert? Tough to say because expertise is so spread out in the gun world. Let’s simplify it and just bring it to the world of modern firearms, gear, and tactics that apply to the civilian world. Most people in the military will have some degree of firearm experience.

To someone who has absolutely zero experience, a veteran’s military experience seems like it makes them an automatic expert. I hate to burst your bubble, but there are plenty of people in the military who know nothing about firearms in the grand scheme of things. They were handed a rifle and just followed step-by-step directions.

Combat arms are a very small part of our military force. In the Army, only 15% of troops are CA. When we dive in deeper, we see that an even smaller percentage are special operations, somewhere around 3% or so, and that likely includes support troops.

Of all of the military, only about 10% saw combat during the GWOT. Even that phrase can be contentious. Having mortars land 100s of yards away can be considered seeing combat or even being in a single small arms engagement. I’m not trying to downplay the danger involved in either event, but seeing any kind of combat doesn’t make you a small arms, gear, or tactics expert.

If someone has verifiably served in a special operations capacity, that person likely knows his guns and gear well, the ones they used, or at least more than your average person and average servicemember.

What Their Experience Means

Military experience varies greatly. If the service member didn’t serve in combat arms, they likely have extremely limited experience with firearms, tactics, and gear. It’s not their job, so they might qual once a year and might’ve done some training in boot camp. My wife was a medical officer in the Air Force. In her service, she received 0 firearm training and never even touched a firearm. Not her job.

The training combat arms troops receive does focus on individual skills. Marksmanship is important, as is the ability to reload, shoot under pressure, and even clear rooms. Most of their training is focused on working offensively within a squad and team. Some of those skills and tactics translate, but what civilian defensive shooting has a guy with a medium machine gun laying down cover fire?

I’m not trying to say our troops lack training, but their training isn’t always, or even mostly, relevant to civilian self-defense. Additionally, most soldiers and Marines are only exposed to what’s issued to them when it comes to gear. When I was in, I couldn’t afford an OWL or modlite. I wasn’t allowed to choose my plate carrier. I even caught hell for adding my own vertical grip to my issued M16A4.

Nothing in my infantry training made me an expert in firearms or defensive shooting. I became an expert in how to rock and roll with an M240. I was a pro at maneuvering on the enemy, and how to call for fire. Some of that M16 training certainly makes me comfy with an AR. It was the training I sought separate from the service that made me ready to deal with self-defense scenarios.

Military Experience and Firearms Training

Believe it or not, plenty of vets like guns. That leads them down the path to learning and shooting well beyond their in-service experience. If you look at most of the tactical trainers on the market, they likely have some military experience. Dudes who join the military tend to be dudes who like shooting guns. It’s not a big surprise to see the jump.

That military experience can be valuable, but if it’s the only experience someone has with guns, then they have a very limited scope of experience and training. It’s certainly not enough to make them qualified to be an expert on concealed carry, gear, or even modern rifle handling. The guy who touched his rifle four times his entire enlistment isn’t qualified to make sweeping gun control proclamations either.

Whenever someone uses their military experience to justify an opinion, it’s wise to contextualize that. If a grunt says I find PMAGs to be more reliable than XYZ mag, then he might know what he’s talking about. If that same grunt proclaims an IWB rig best and uses his military experience to back up his selection, well, he’s likely full of it.

Keep that in mind, and remember not all opinions are equal. Even when they are coming from the mouths of veterans, for not all veteran experience is created equal.

USPSA Club Level Matches As Experimental Labs

By

P.E. Fitch

-

July 26, 2022

Put Your Gear To The Test!

If you are fortunate to be conveniently located near any shooting range or venue that hosts Club Level 1 USPSA matches, attending them can be a very fun way to try out new gun and gear combinations and see how they pan out in place of going to more serious (read: more expensive and involved) specialized courses. (Courses are good too, FYI. But you get more out of them if your gear is ready right off the bat.)

Since USPSA has loosened its rules concerning AIWB (appendix inside the waistband) holsters, WMLs (weapon mounted lights), and magazine pouch placement on the body, among other things, it has never been more convenient to “play around” with guns and gear sets in a safer and controlled environment. Furthermore, most of the USPSA divisions cater to a wide variety of handguns, and there is always “Open” division for those that do not fit neatly into any other division.

Putting my Wilson Combat Beretta 92 Brigadier Tactical through its paces using a PHLSter Floodlight AIWB holster with a Surefire X-300U

Besides the typical gamut of tests and standards or drills, taking carry guns and gear to a match is part of my personal checklist to evaluate them. Again, this affords me a simple and direct way to put that gun/holster/etc through its paces. The different stages of a club match are not grueling evaluations where guns will be fired until their metal turns cherry red, or get run over by all 18 wheels from a big rig, after being set into concrete, while being dropped from a Huey. However, given the nature of USPSA stages where you need to shoot and manipulate the pistol efficiently while also moving and thinking with that gun in your hand under time pressure—this has a way of making issues, no matter how subtle or obvious, come up to the surface to reveal themselves.

By taking the guns I typically carry or want to carry to matches, so far I’ve learned:

• That the tritium lamp front sight on my Beretta Brigadier Tactical ought to be replaced with a front fiber optic sight.
• That I actually prefer a full size grip on a Beretta 92 as opposed to the Vertec style grip.
• That the stainless steel finish on my Beretta 92X Performance is not that stainless.
• That the half moon cut out at the bottom of the front strap on older Gen 5 Glock frames will impede mag reloads at inopportune moments.
• That having a super heavy gun to soak up recoil is not the edge I expected it to be and lighter guns are quicker to draw and move around with.

I found out this Beretta 92 mag has a spring that’s on its way out after picking it up when I was done with a stage. It has since been marked as a range mag only.

Besides having all of these observations and revelations about my gear, the urgency and stress imposed by the clock has definitely made a better shooter. Regardless of what they say about competition shooting, it really does fill in gaps and blanks that are not covered by formal square range instruction. And it really is a great way to gain confidence with your gear on the easy side.

Shooting a stock Glock 48 from concealment using a PHLster Enigma Express

Can you Suppress a Revolver?

By

Travis Pike

-

July 25, 2022

Who doesn’t love a good wheel gun? They might not be the most efficient firearms these days, but they are still a blast to shoot. Revolvers are interesting weapons, and due to their simple design, they are typically easily accessorized. Tossing optics and lights on a gun doesn’t create an issue, and theoretically, attaching a suppressor could be easy since the barrel doesn’t move. This leads us to a question, can you suppress a revolver?

Yes, you can suppress a revolver, but most revolvers cannot be silenced. That answer is about as clear as mud, so let’s explore the idea of trying to suppress a revolver. I’m using the term suppress in regards to attaching a suppressor or silencer.

The Main Problem With Trying To Suppress a Revolver

The big problem with suppressing a revolver is the gap between the cylinder and the bore. This gap allows burning gas to escape and blast outwards, which creates its own noise. That noise is just like the noise coming from the barrel’s end.

Tossing a supressor at the end of the barrel does nothing when you have that gas and explosion escaping from the space between the cylinder and the barrel. This eliminates about 99% of the revolvers out there. The solution is something known as a gas seal revolver.

Gas Seal Revolvers

A gas seal revolver is a weapon where the cylinder connects to the barrel and eliminates the space between the barrel and cylinder. There are several ways this works, and typically the cylinder moves slightly forward as the trigger is pulled.

The most popular variant of these guns is the famed Nagant revolver. This oddball Russian revolver uses an oddball round combined with a cylinder that seals between the barrel and eliminates the space. It’s famously one of the easiest revolvers to suppress. While the Nagant is the most famous, it’s far from the first.

Savage produced the Savage Navy revolver during the American Civil War era, and this featured a gas seal system. Of course, weapons weren’t suppressed these days, but the revolver is notable for the gas seal and numerous other odd innovations.

More Than One Way To Suppress a Revolver

The gas seal method is one way to suppress a revolver, but it’s not the only way. There were a few experiments in Vietnam to create a suppressed revolver for tunnel rats. This wasn’t to create a sneaky tunnel rat but to try and preserve their hearing in extremely close quarters. The result was not a revolver with a suppressor attached to the end but a suppressed cartridge.

This weird cartridge design used a captive piston that was held inside the cartridge. When fired, burning gun powder propelled the piston, propelling a small load of ‘shot.’ These loads were reportedly much quieter than a standard firearm.

This same captive piston design extended to a Russian revolver known as the OTs-38 Stetchkin. Although this variant fired a single .30 caliber projectile, the barrel aligns with the bottom cylinder much like the Chiappa Rhino.

The same piston technology would be seen in the Knight’s Silenced Revolver rifle, an experimental platform developed for special operations. Sadly, the revolver seemed to never leave the prototype stage.

Other solutions involve encapsulating the entire cylinder with a large suppressor system. This was the solution dreamed up for Germany’s SEK teams. The designer, Joe Peters, built a crazy suppressor design for S&W Model 625 revolvers that looked like it walked out of Star Wars.

What I’d Like to See

Yes, you can suppress a revolver, but it’s not always simple. I wouldn’t mind seeing a modern suppressed revolver. I’d love to see an integrally suppressed, gas-sealed .22LR revolver. It would probably be expensive and complicated but neat. Integral suppression allows for a short weapon with a long sight radius. The famed rimfire .22LR is easy to suppress, and the rimfire reliability would be less of a problem in a revolver.

It doesn’t seem like suppressed revolvers will ever be a mainstream concept. The best way to have one would be to buy a surplus Nagant, thread the barrel, and suppress it. Until S&W starts answering my emails, that’s about all we can hope for.

Warning Shots – Are They A Smart Move For Concealed Carry?

By

Travis Pike

-

July 25, 2022

The classic warning shot. It’s nothing new and has been around since we’ve had firearms to shoot. It’s a long-held naval tradition to fire a warning shot or shot across the bow to ensure compliance. Most of us aren’t naval ships enforcing tradition, so what does all this have to do with you?

Well, today, we are going to talk about firing warning shots and the tactical use of your loud noisemaker. A small-arms warning shot is a shot fired from a firearm to enforce compliance without the need for lethal force. We are primarily talking about concealed carry, and here’s the bottom line up front. Warning shots are a bad idea.

(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Karis Mattingly)

I’m not saying they are all bad. I’m sure there is at least a single situation where the proper application of a loud noise can be used effectively. What I’m saying is that they are a stupid and risky idea in 99.99% of domestic situations. This is coming from someone who benefitted from warning shots. In Afghanistan, we used the occasional warning shot when we believed an unarmed male was spotting us during firefights. A wartime situation is a fair bit different than a concealed carry situation.

Be Wary of Warning Shots

There are both legal and tactical considerations when it comes down to warning shots. From a tactical and safety perspective, they seem like a very bad idea. In our wartime situation, we put those tactically applied warning shots into a proper backstop. Even in a gunfight, we had the time to take a well-aimed shot to ensure the projectile couldn’t harm another person unintentionally.

I don’t see that being all that possible in a concealed carry situation. In the time it takes a violent situation to occur, I don’t see how you’ll have the time to draw, find a proper backstop, and fire a warning shot. If you randomly fire a round into the air or ground, you are still creating a risk. Bullets travel a long way and can ricochet off the ground.

I’m not a lawyer by any means. That being said, firing a warning shot seems to be capable of putting you into a very precarious legal situation. The biggest threat is your shot harming an innocent person. The second being property damage, and the third being justifying that warning shot.

In most states, firing a firearm in a defensive situation is using deadly force, even if it’s a warning shot. That means you must already be justified in using deadly force to have ever fired the warning shot. Warning shots do not act like an in-between for non-lethal and deadly force.

If you are in a nonviolent, verbal argument don’t fire a warning shot. It will be considered the same level of force as trying to shoot someone. If someone is attacking you and you fire a warning shot, then it’s justified. It’s still likely not the best option for dealing with the threat however since if you are justified in the warning shot you are justified shooting the threat directly.

Too Many Downsides

There are too many downsides to the average concealed carrier firing a warning shot. If it’s at the point where lethal force is required, it’s required. By then, you probably need to shoot your attacker. I’m not one for absolutes. If I war-gamed, I could come up with a specific situation where it’s the smart thing to do. As a general rule, I put it up there with leg shots.

Sure, I might need to make a leg shot. I’m not considering that a valid tactic for 99% of engagements. In a situation where you need to stop a threat but for whatever reason you can’t shoot the threat, like, for example, maybe they have a baby strapped to the torso in a Baby Bjorn, you’d still likely be better served with a dedicated non-lethal or less-lethal tool like pepper spray than a warning shot.

On the other end of the spectrum, trying to use a warning shot to dissuade someone from non-violent behavior is likely illegal. Even if you believe that person might become violent. Until they actually do, you might find yourself in a legal area you don’t want to be in. A gun should never be used as the tool that falls between a shout and a shoot.

My advice is don’t have warning shots as part of your plan. Know your state and local laws, and as always, avoid stupid people, at stupid places, at stupid times.

A Svelte 15rds: Shield Arms Magazine Catch and Magazines for Slim Glocks

By

V. Caldwell

-

July 25, 2022

When it comes to personal defense my primary concern is accurate shot placement, control, and wound potential. Most of my personal defense firearms have an eight to fifteen round capacity. A compact handgun that holds ten rounds of 9mm Luger but has a small footprint and is easy to conceal is attractive.

The Glock 43 was a long waited slimline 9mm, Glock’s first. Glock more recently introduced the Glock 43X and Glock 48. Each features ten round magazines. This is possible as the 43X has a longer grip frame than the Glock 43. These are typical Glock magazines in design with a polymer shield covering a steel inner structure. The Glock 43 is a very reliable handgun. On that basis I am reluctant to modify the Glock or any other reliable handgun with aftermarket parts.

After a considerable test and evaluation I find the Shield Arms conversion magazines a viable upgrade for those wishing to have greater magazine capacity. Magazine capacity isn’t everything but in this case it seems well worthwhile to upgrade the pistol. Shieldarms.com

The Shield 15 round magazines are well designed and executed. The magazines are steel magazines with a modest base pad. These magazines are designed to hold fifteen rounds of 9mm Luger ammunition. This makes for a 50% greater reserve of ammunition. This capacity really adds up. A pistol and a spare magazine now means thirty rounds of ammunition rather than twenty. If two spares are carried the total load is forty five rounds rather than thirty.

This is a considerable boost in reserve. I don’t foresee needing that much ammunition but it is better to have it and not need it than the opposite, and I always carry a spare magazine. The Shield magazine fits the Glock 43X or the Glock 48 grip frame. Function is good. However Shield Arms recommends that the standard polymer magazine catch be replaced with a metal magazine catch. A steel magazine rubbing against a polymer magazine catch isn’t ideal. The magazine catch is properly designed and dimensioned and is a straight up drop in modification to the Glock 43X. By measurement the steel magazines are about .005 wider than Glock magazines.

To install the magazine catch first clear the pistol and be certain it isn’t loaded. Field strip the pistol normally. Lay the slide aside. Looking toward the magazine catch in the frame, looking from above, it is best to use a light.

There is a tensioned spring in the magazine well that holds the magazine catch and provides power for the magazine catch to return to position after pressing the magazine catch to release the magazine. A long hooked tool works well to move the spring aside. The spring is picked up and out of its notch in the magazine catch. Then you roll the catch out- or wriggle it out to one side. The Shield Arms magazine catch is aluminum rather than polymer. The fit is exact. The magazine catch easily fits into the Glock frame. Replacing the wire spring is simple enough however sometimes takes a bit of play to get the spring locked back in place. You may actually pull the wire spring out of place and later replace it. I think that with the small frame gun removing the spring is easiest. The new metal latch isn’t an extended type, all to the good when wearing a pistol concealed and close to the body. The Shield Arms magazine catch is well designed and positive in operation.

I had on hand several Shield Arms magazines. Some high capacity magazines are difficult to load to full capacity. It is good to have a strong spring but not good to have difficulty loading the last few rounds. All magazines were loaded without difficulty, just a firm push to finish up loading. I did find that when loaded to full capacity a firm slap is needed to fully seat them if the slide is at rest, not unusual.

My recommendation is to load the magazines to fifteen rounds and then lock the slide back before loading the pistol. Insert the magazine firmly home then drop the magazine. I loaded and unloaded the magazines in the pistol and found that all locked in place in a positive manner. Original Glock ten round magazines still function but require more effort to remove they do not drop free. This isn’t a important as the shooter will be deploying fifteen round steel magazines.

I have test fired the Shield Arms magazines with a variety of ammunition. I was careful to be certain the feed angle is still good for jacketed hollow point ammunition. It is important to be certain the magazines are firmly seated. I find the Shield Arms magazines and magazine catch reliable and a viable upgrade to the Glock 43 X pistol.

Gunday Brunch 61: Lets Go to the Mall

By

Keith Finch

-

July 24, 2022

Who loves the mall? Especially the food court and the arcades and going 8/10 on some dirtbag and stopping a mass shooter. Today the boys are talking about the heroic actions of Eli Dicken during the Greenwood Mall shooting.

Incentives Over Mandates: Encouraging Gun Owners To Do Better

By

Lars Smith

-

July 23, 2022

Stefanik — Photo Credit: Tom Williams/Getty

Why do we constantly hear from gun control proponents that gun owners should be licensed to reduce accidental gun deaths? Let’s ignore the fact that it’s basically a poll tax for the 2nd Amendment, resultantly wildly unconstitutional, and look at the merits:

One need only drive a car a few miles on their local roadways to understand the value of mandated training: There is none. Licenses to operate a vehicle do not decrease the rate of deaths on America’s roads due to collisions. The primary thing that’s done that over the last 50 years is regulations on driving under the influence, and technological advances in car design, manufacture, and safety equipment. The primary function of a licensing program for drivers is to generate money for the state.

Okay, so there aren’t any merits. Well, none beyond creating a registry of gun owners, which is 1. federally illegal, and 2. historically has always become a shopping list for a government intent on disarming its citizens. But if that’s the case, and mandated training doesn’t work, is there anything to be done about the admitted problem that is lack of gun owner education? Something which might put a dent in the small, but still tragic number of firearms accidents that lead to death or permanent injury in the US?

As it turns out, there might be, and it doesn’t require forcing anyone to do anything. In a measured response to the usual knee-jerk “We have to do something!” legislation recently signed, and the proposed assault weapons ban currently attempting to work its way through congress, Rep. Elise Stefanik, (R-N.Y.) proposed something entirely different from the mandates and bans we normally see: An incentive.

Her idea is basically this: If a gun owner wishes to learn, we should encourage that. Tax incentives of up to $250 for each firearms safety, or concealed carry class, or the purchase of a gun safe would become available to all Americans under her bill. While not everyone would immediately run out to sign up for a class, many certainly would, and even more would no longer have a valid excuse for avoiding such. It would certainly improve the level of firearms handling safety, and shooting quality of the average American gun owner, by some amount, and as we’re all familiar, it’s worth if we can save “just one life”, right?

While it’s unlikely this bill will get past a Democratic-controlled House and a locked up Senate, it will be interesting to see the anti-gun community explain why they won’t spend money on a program that could only decrease accidental gun deaths, and perhaps this bill or something like it has a chance in a future session of congress.

The One They Call M’Bogo

By

P.E. Fitch

-

July 22, 2022

Perhaps you’ve heard of Symtac Consulting, the father-son duo made up of Rob and Matt Haught: high priests responsible for preaching the holy gospel of the Gauge.

But this post is not about either of them nor is it about their awesome shotgun clinics they hold throughout the land, I am writing about the one they call “M’Bogo!”

For reference “M’bogo” is the Swahili word for the African Cape Buffalo, one of the meanest and most dangerous beasts to prowl across the African savanna. The African Cape Buffalo is a founding member of that five animal group that makes up world’s most dangerous game. Hunting them requires powerful and dangerous weaponry with the ability to deliver quick follow up shots in case you miss or fail to put it down with the first shot…lest an enraged buffalo charge and maul you to death.

With the meaning and origin of M’bogo made clear, let’s talk about Matt Haught’s M’bogo.

As currently configured, M’Bogo is a fourteen inch short barreled 12 gauge Remington 870 pump action shotgun. Its soul lies in its barrel—one that was fully done up by the gunsmiths at Vang Comp Systems. Not only was this barrel modified by cutting down a longer barrel to fourteen inches and given the internal treatment that Vang Comp is known for, but it also sports a very cool vent rib customization with an even cooler rear safari style sight module.

M’Bogo is equipped with two rear sights, one express style safari sight that is lighting fast when lined up with the front XS front sight via its wide U-notch and its other rear sight, a leaf sight cut into a semi aperture, flips up into place for use with slugs—specifically Federal Tru-Ball slugs zeroed at fifty yards.

Originally, Matt was planning on installing a pistol sight on the front with a folding rear sight. After consulting with GT, the head gunsmith at Vang Comp, GT devised a more elegant solution utilizing the safari style sight module with dual rear sights. It was the implementation of this safari style sight system by GT that inspired the name M’Bogo on this Remington 870 SBS build.

The Half-Apreture Sight for use with Tru-Ball Slugs

After talking with him, Matt explained how the process of lengthening the forcing cone and backboring the barrel help shotguns maintain very tight and consistent shot patterns. He adds that this is in part because the treatment effectively smooths out the internal bearing surfaces of the shotgun barrel that make contact with the cartridge’s wad and shot column.

Shotgun barrels have a transitional space between their chambers and actual bores known as the forcing cone; the internal diameter in forcing cones somewhat constricts forward of the chamber as it turns into the bore. Many mass produced shotgun barrels have a relatively short length and abrupt constriction—factors which lead to shot being deformed and disturbed as it travels down the bore. Vang Comp’s treatment mitigates this issue and as result, the shot and wad travel down the barrel while being minimally disturbed. Upon exiting the muzzle, the treatment sets up the wad and shot column for success by ensuring very consistent and tight patterns at longer distances than what a normal, out of the box, mass produced shotgun can typically deliver.

A top view of M’Bogo’s barrel. You will notice the customized rear sight module, followed by the top surface of a vent rib that leads you towards the XS front sight. While you can’t see it, this barrel has been treated by the shotgun wizards at Vang Comp.

Another well known and popular modification that Vang Comp does to barrels is that they port their shotgun barrels. Ported barrels typically have slots or holes around the 11 o’clock and 1 o’clock positions, right behind the muzzle, that allow expanding gases to escape at those specific positions in order to counteract the natural muzzle rise that is normal during recoil.

However, Matt specifically told me that he declined porting on M’Bogo’s barrel because he felt that it wasn’t contextually appropriate for him. He wished to avoid hot gasses near his hand while cycling the action of a short barreled shotgun. Additionally of mention, there are methods and techniques that any shotgun shooter can use to mitigate shotgun recoil and index their muzzle back to their target more quickly, such as the push-pull technique, which incidentally, the Haughts are known for in the American tactical shotgun world.

The remainder of M’Bogo’s daily outfit consists of a Magpul 870 SGA stock, a Vang Comp +1 tube magazine extension, a Vang Comp Big Dome crossbolt safety, a Vang Comp follower, a GG&G sling mount adapter, a Hogue Overmold fore-end, and last but not least, M’Bogo’s receiver is configured to use Vang Comp’s velcro card side saddles.

Besides the Tru-Ball slugs that it’s zeroed with, M’Bogo’s diet generally consists of 8-Pellet Federal Flite Control (LE133 00) shotshells. Matt keeps four in the tube in the “cruiser ready” position and three additional LE133 00 shotshells in his sidesaddle in addition to three Tru-Ball slugs. When doing training drills and practice, M’Bogo enjoys Winchester AA birdshot as it is of high quality and greatly reduces ammunition related malfunctions associated with cheaper types of birdshot that can slow down pump action shotguns.

M’Bogo is a shotgun whose every detail has been well reasoned and considered. Every accessory and detail is not there by accident or coincidence. It is also an iterative shotgun that Matt has slowly changed or altered as he gains more knowledge, experience, or insights. I’ve been fortunate to hold M’bogo in my own hands in the past. When you pick it up, you can’t help but to notice how slick its action is and how grippy the Hogue Overmold fore-end is. When you pick it up and mount it to your shoulder and look down its modified vent rib sights, you know that the shot will connect with whatever it is you aim it at. M’bogo’s heft also gives you a feeling of confidence and reassurance.

Heavy is good, heavy is reliable. Or if it doesn’t work, you can always hit them with it.

Left side view of M’Bogo. Here you can notice the sling and the Vang Comp side saddle full of 8 Pellet Flite Control buckshot. Special thanks to Matt Haught himself for providing me with all the photos of his shotgun for this article.

88.8% Of Federal Firearms Offenders Are Already Prohibited Persons, 1/3 Used A Stolen Gun

By

Lars Smith

-

July 22, 2022

gunevidence — Photo Credit: Bryan R. Smith, AFP Via Getty Images

The United States Sentencing Commission “…collects, analyzes, and disseminates a broad array of information on federal crime and sentencing practices”. They comb through reams of federal court data from every case in which a defendant is sentenced, and prepare reports on the collected information, shedding light on potential causes, and observable effects of Federal prosecutions in America.

The sheer volume of data available from their website is astounding, and is a valuable resource anyone who takes the RTKBA cause seriously should look into. But why are we talking about this today? Because today they released their latest report, which sheds some light on what your average federal firearm offender looks like that many of you won’t find especially surprising. The full report is available here, but we’ve pulled some major findings that warrant dissemination, and may be of use if you find yourself defending your right to not be disarmed among your peers, or in a public forum.

Firstly, over half of those who find themselves in court facing federal firearms charges are thoroughly About That Life. 60.6% already have a prior conviction for a violent offense. This pushes against many gun control narratives, and establishes that the majority of the bad guys in this study already did time for some sort of violent crime. Gun control affects legal gun owners by definition, so nearly 2/3 of the criminals in this study are already outside the reach of a magazine capacity bill, or assault weapons ban. Also of note, compared to all other federal offenders, those facing gun charges are more than twice as likely to have been convicted of prior violent crimes.

Not to be outdone, the second finding we’d like to share is that the overwhelming majority of federal firearms offenders in this study were *already* prohibited from possessing a firearm. 88.8% of these guys were barred by law from holding a gun, let alone using one in such a way they wound up in federal court for it. This includes the prior violent felons mentioned in point 1, as well as “…aliens unlawfully in the United States, fugitives from justice, or persons who unlawfully use or are addicted to controlled substances”. Somehow this doesn’t seem to be impeding them in any effective way, at least according to the government’s data. Apparently universal background checks aren’t stopping them, so what gives?

Well it turns out that our third datapoint is that about 1/3 of them are stealing guns, or buying them on the street, after their unlawful harvest from homes, cops, or cars in parking lots (many of which likely have magnet holsters, and punisher stickers on them, but that’s another discussion). 32.4% of offenders in the study committed said offense while in possession of a stolen gun, or a firearm with an altered, or removed serial number, which is usually a pretty solid indication that it was not acquired legally.

There’s more useful and insightful data in the study, but these three findings stood out the most to us, and not least because they echo the findings of what is probably the most successful gun violence prevention program America has ever tried. Operation Ceasefire and similar programs trialed in dozens of cities over 20 years beginning in the 1990s cut the rate of gun homicides by at least a third, and often more. Additionally it highlighted that in big cities, a shockingly small percentage of the population is responsible for the majority of homicides. In Boston, it was found that 0.6% of the city’s residents committed 60% of the murder.

Hardened, career murderers should be the target of science-oriented, evidence-based policies to reduce homicide and violent crime. Instead of programs like Ceasefire that are proven to work, we get gun control, and new studies coming out confirming what we already knew. No hate on the US Sentencing Commission, they’re doing great work, but what good does it do us when it’s ignored, or worse, surprising to people because effective programs using the same data were buried by politicians who have no use for a program that destroys one of their biggest fundraising platforms?

Firearm Policy Coalition Puts NY And Other Newly Minted Shall-Issue Jurisdictions On Notice

By

Lars Smith

-

July 21, 2022

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-statement-to-concealed-carry-issuing-authorities

In response to the recent SCOTUS decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which functionally dismantled May-Issue permitting schemes (May-Issue meaning that a qualified concealed carry permit application could be denied for any or no reason by the issuing authority, regardless of merit), New York’s state government has been actively throwing everything they have at the application process to make it as onerous and personally invasive as possible. Not content with that, they have also proposed creating a labyrinth of “sensitive areas” which would make legally carrying a nightmare of invisible “no-go” zones.

Despite the obviously obstructionist nature of these proposals, which fly in the face of the SCOTUS decision, many on the left seem to think these are great ideas, and want to spread them around. As we have reported here at GAT recently, California is coming up with its own absurd scheme to skirt the supreme court and make gun manufacturers liable for things criminals do with their products. They pretend that gunmakers are magically immune from prosecution to justify this, but have you ever seen Honda get sued by the family of a drunk driver? Neither have we, so lets skip the pretense and start talking plainly.

That’s what FPC is doing with this statement. They are putting it out there for everyone who might attempt to play fuck-fuck games with the law, that there are people watching, waiting, and hell, probably salivating after the chance to take these people to court. FPC and others have put spurs to such governors and legislators before with precedents and rulings that predate the existence of Poland. We’re looking forward to seeing them get beat with a Supreme Court decision whose ink is still wet.

The XM250 is a beast.

By

Keith Finch

-

July 21, 2022

Mike “Garand Thumb” Jones is back with another inspired review.

I’ve actually shot this one too, back at SIG’s Freedom Days event I got to play with the MG68, a variant of which is the XM250. If that’s confusing, don’t let it be. The M240L series is a variant of FN’s MAG machine gun, the XM250 is a variant of SIG’s MG68 series of modern machine guns. Same theory, the XM250 is one variation of several that the MG68 can be made as.

It’s hype, and I am here for it. The 250 is straight fire!

400 to 1 – Personal Protection vs. “Professional”

By

Keith Finch

-

July 20, 2022

We are seeing intellectual dishonesty stretched to the absolute limits of remotely possible credulity after the Greenwood Mall shooting. People claiming that Eli Dicken can’t possibly be a Good Samaritan if he was in violation of the malls standing policy against armed patrons.

A “good” person, they summize, would have blindly followed the request of the mall, despite the very real increased risk the mall is asking shoppers to assume and the lack of other provisions for shopper security they provided.

I am hazarding a guess that these intellectual gymnasts don’t know the parable of the Good Samaritan very well, because Samaritans despised Jews and vice-versa, and not a rule in existence would stop them killing each other. They were actively warring at many instances. So if the Samaritan would have acted as culture dictated (mall rules) he would have been well within ‘his right’ to leave the Jewish traveler of that parable to a gruesome death. He didn’t. He acted righteously and counter to culture and saved a life.

So, when two individuals, the shooter and our hero Eli Dicken, violated the no shoes, no shirt, no service, and please bring no firearms signage, a policy that carries about as much force as a quiet fart, and then the one of those individuals who was intent on carnage was stopped within 15 seconds by the other… we are to decry the actions of the decisive and effective hero?

15 Seconds. 15 from start to end. This is what someone able to protect themselves can accomplish.

We cannot control someone’s actions through posted policy, no matter the force of law behind it. They either agree or they do not, and it is entirely up to them. Two people, confirmed, didn’t follow the mall’s rule that day. One of them bent on destruction, the other to protect himself as the law declares to be his enshrined right.

Self defense won.

Meanwhile, we have Uvalde…

Uvalde, which keeps getting worse, and worse, and worse…

Nearly 400 officers were involved, one of which had a shot on the shooter outside the building, others of which were behind the shooter quickly into the school, with armor and rifles, able to pressure and stop the shooter if they had accepted the mortal risks involved in pressing the gunfight…

They didn’t.

Nobody decided. Nobody pressed through despite the risks, such as the police outside taking a shot on him while he was still outside, or officers pushing through the incoming fire to kill the shooter even if they might take a round in the process.

That second bit was a fundamental law of our USMC CQB training. 1. First Marine is going to get shot. Oh well, you have plates. 2. Push through, your team has your back. 3. Be the first Marine. Every other tactic and procedure we spun up about best and safest practices for clearing a room was shaped by those first three concepts of our mindsets.

Now, these two situations are far from parallel in any number of ways, to include the fact that the shooter in Uvalde knew he was being pursued. But that does not change the fact the some violent initiative on the part of the responding officers, instead of CYA calls to higher authority and dicking around in the hallway, had very good odds of ending the situation sooner, up to possibly making the shooter the sole casualty. We don’t know. We can’t know.

But we do know what did happen as the numerous armed officers, who live everyday in a CYA bureaucratic world, failed to stop the killer for 77 minutes. We also know what happened when a 22 year old man, armed to protect himself, kith, and kin in his day-to-day, did just that in 15 seconds against an equivalent threat, arguably a greater threat since Eli Dicken didn’t have a patrol carbine and buddy cops with carbines.

A meme among memes for this situation, @armed.asian on IG.

So given that almost 400 cops couldn’t protect a school, not the first example and sadly probably not the final example of security failures, but a 22 year old man, righteously armed, could end a similar situation in well under a minute, what conclusion should we draw about who is best placed to protect us?

I’ll wait.

“Studies Find No Evidence That Assault Weapon Bans Reduce Homicide Rates”

By

Keith Finch

-

July 20, 2022

The Foundation for Economic Education has a 2019 post that has been seeing a great deal of traffic again.

Why?

It is still relevant. With HR 1808 set for a committee meeting today, Wednesday, July 20th, we need to look at why they’re continuing to push things that don’t work, never have, and never will.

Hint: It’s political clout. Not safety, just political “We tried” *sad emoji* points to use for the midterms.

The studies, data, and examination of the available evidence by scholars suggest that assault weapon bans or buybacks will have little if any effect on rates of violent crime and gun violence.

Mass shootings are unconscionable acts of violence and are the most acutely disturbing form of gun violence. In the wake of such tragedies, many gun control advocates lambast gun rights supporters for allowing “weapons of war” onto the streets of America and not supporting “responsible gun reform.”

The measures put forth are usually either a ban and/or mandatory buyback of “assault weapons,” most of which are more accurately known as semi-automatic rifles. (“Assault weapon” is a vague term that varies state to state and can include common pistols and shotguns depending out other attachable accessories.)

While these initiatives are “common sense” to advocates, if one takes the time to examine the data and evidence, it becomes abundantly clear that gun control in this form will do little to reduce gun violence.

The opening commentary is strong in its outline of the problem. An extreme instance of shocking violence, a mass shooting, triggers very visceral human responses. Those responses are not tempered in logic. Those responses do not solve the problem, nor improve any resultants of humanity’s use of violence as a tool and currency.

These people, wilfully in many instances, misunderstand violence and then scream about their commonsensical solutions for the thing they are fundamentally and wilfully misunderstanding.

Yeah, we can listen to you but we are under no obligation to take you seriously.

Back to FEE

1. Mass shootings with assault weapons constitute a fraction of a percent of gun violence

Mother Jones’s database of mass shootings, defined as shootings involving three or more fatalities, shows that between 2007 and 2017, there were 495 people murdered in such events. When breaking down those shootings by the weapons involved, it is revealed that around half of those victims (253) were murdered by a perpetrator with an assault weapon (AW), such as an AR-15.

In the years since, yes, semi-auto rifles and rifle styled handguns have shown up in more slayings. But those rates are consistent with their record smashing increased market share, increases in pop culture popularity, lower costs for the entry level items, and a full two decades of GWOT influence on the markets.

Even after all of that, handguns remain the tool of choice for the vast majority of lethal criminal violence and remain very common among mass shooters. Just because the rifles are the ones that make headlines doesn’t equate to a proper appreciation for their theat value.

Over the same timeframe, FBI annual crime reports show that there were 150,352 homicides in total, of which 103,901 involved firearms. This means that mass shootings involving AWs constitute 0.17 percent and 0.24 percent of all homicides and firearm homicides, respectively.

To further illuminate the relative infrequency of mass shootings with “assault weapons,” consider the fact that in 2017, some 1,590 people were murdered using knives or sharp instruments.

Over the last five years, 261 people were murdered with AWs in mass shootings (an average rate of 52 murders annually.) At such a rate, it would take over 30 years of mass shootings with AWs to produce the same number of deaths as one year’s worth of knife murders. (It would take 135 years’ worth of mass shootings with AWs to produce the 7,032 deaths that handgun homicides did in 2017.)

Consequently, even a completely effective ban/buyback of AWs would have an incredibly small impact on rates of homicide and gun violence, and then there is always the probability that people intent on committing mass violence will substitute AWs with other available firearms or methods of destruction (such as homemade explosives.)

I’m glad spaces are acknowledging that if we don’t remove motive then removing one convenient method from a highly motivated violent individual or group does diddly and squat in equal portions to stop the violence.

2. Studies find no evidence assault weapon bans reduce homicide rates

There are theoretical reasons to doubt the effectiveness of a ban or buyback of assault weapons, but it also doesn’t help that real-world evidence suggests these measures fail to produce reductions in gun violence.

Between 1994 and 2004, the federal government banned the manufacture, sale, or transfer of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. A subsequent Department of Justice study found no evidence that the ban had had any effect on gun violence and stated that “should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

A recent study published this year in the Journal of General Internal Medicine examined state gun control policies and found no statistically significant relationship between assault weapon or large-capacity magazine bans and homicide rates. A Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study came to the same conclusion.

Then there’s the more recent studies still supporting the conclusion that most prohibitive/ban style gun control remains totally ineffective. RAND tore apart the methodology on over 99% of 28,000 gun control studies, finding them worthless.

3. Australia doesn’t prove gun control works

In 1996, Australia experienced a horrific mass shooting. In response, the government implemented a mandatory buyback scheme that banned and confiscated certain types of firearms, including assault weapons.

A 2016 JAMA study on the matter found no statistically significant change in the trend of the country’s firearm homicide rate following the law’s passage. The authors also noted that the decline in firearm suicides post-ban could not clearly be attributed to gun control since non-firearm suicides fell by an even greater magnitude.

Australia’s relative luck on avoiding a massacre since 1996 proves nothing more than no one has been pissed enough at the Aussie’s to try it. New Zealand had the exact same record as Australia until Christchurch, and Australia and New Zealand’s bans won’t stop the motivated slaying when it comes.

4. There is inconclusive evidence of assault weapons bans on mass shootings

Last year, the RAND Corporation released an extensive scientific analysis of available evidence on gun control measures and how they relate to various crime outcomes. Regarding the effect of assault weapons bans on mass shootings, they determined the evidence was “inconclusive.”

When former President Bill Clinton claimed the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban was associated with reduced mass shootings, Politifact rated that claim as “half-true,” noting that “the ban’s impact remains unclear.”

Using Mother Jones’s data on mass shootings, I constructed the graph you see above. Prior to the ban, on average five people were killed with assault weapons in mass shootings per year. During the ban, that number went slightly down to four. Post-ban, it rose to 22.

But mass shootings with assault weapons didn’t rise until 2012—eight years after the ban ended. In the seven years after the ban, there was only an average of four people killed in mass shootings with assault weapons per year.

Did it really take eight years for angry people to realize that “assault weapons ” were back on the menu? Or was it, perhaps, a hostile series of cultural shifts, not the least of which is the horrific awe we hold for mass killers.

Given the fact that the pre-ban period and the seven years after the ban had essentially the same rate of mass shooting deaths with assault weapons, it is hard to prove that the ban had any effect on mass shootings.

Remember, California’s A rated gun control policies sit within the state with both the most mass shootings and school shootings.

In Conclusion

The studies, data, and examination of the available evidence by scholars suggest that assault weapons bans or buybacks will have little if any effect on rates of violent crime and gun violence. There seems to be no relationship between these gun control measures and reductions in firearm homicide or suicide, and there doesn’t appear to be any clear evidence they reduce mass shootings.

The only reason the politicians want to push HR 1808 is political gain, they need money and a cause because inflation is at 9.1% and the housing market is absurd for anyone on a tight budget. The bill has 212 cosponsors, all Democrats, do the math. This may also be a clapback against SCOTUS for Bruen.

Are Automatic Knives Worth It?

By

Travis Pike

-

July 20, 2022

I’m not quite a knife guy. Knife guys can often be a bit like the furries of the tactical world. Even so, I appreciate a good knife and am admittedly a fan of automatic knives. Automatic knives, aka switchblades, are knives designed to open with the press of a button or the push of a switch. Automatic knives dominate popular media and are a sure sign of an experienced knife fighter, right?

John Wick uses a Benchmade Infidel; over time, enough bad guys have used switchblades to establish that they are the baddie. They are cool! The question is, are they worth it? Are they the monstrous weapon film, media, and politicians make them out to be? Most importantly, are they worth your money?

The Appeal Of Automatic Knives

What’s the appeal of automatic knives? There is something very satisfying about pressing a button or pushing a switch and seeing a blade spring to life. The original appeal to these knives back in the day was the ability to open the blade with a single hand. Opening a folding knife took time and effort when automatic knives came to be.

You often had to use your thumbnail to fish the blade out of the handle. These early switchblades sprung to life with ease. They became the best friend of paratroopers in World War 2. If you got stuck in a tree, you could easily open your knife and cut your way out of your parachute rigging.

Out the front, or OTF, knives are seemingly the only safe way to carry a dual-edge blade in a non-fixed blade design. The appeal exists just like the appeal to Cabot 1911s and Beretta over/under shotguns. Some people just want finely tuned, expensive, and very nice knives.

The Downsides of Automatic Knives

Automatic knives seem plenty cool, so what’s the problem? It’s a multifactor answer, and you have to consider the two types of automatic knives. Out the front is exactly how it sounds. The blade comes out of the front of the knife. Witt out-the-side knives, the blade opens like a traditional folder, but with the press of a button rather than a thumb stud.

OTF knives tend to be somewhat fragile. Not like a ceramic vase fragile, but nowhere near as strong or durable as a traditional folding knife. The blades rely on a somewhat complicated mechanism to spring to life made up of several small internal parts. The fragility comes from the lock easily breaking when compared to a traditional knife.

Side opening automatic knives tend to be tough but are still reliant on several small pieces to operate effectively. They are fine for EDC use or self-defense, but a traditional folding knife will likely serve you better for any kind of hardcore work. These knives are more maintenance heavy and more likely to malfunction when exposed to dirt, debris, and similar gunk. More parts, more failure points.

The possibility of the knife opening in your pocket also exists with automatic knives. Some, mainly side folders, do have some form of safety to prevent this from happening. While smart safety-wise, the main purpose of these knives is to be deployed quickly and easily.

Another issue comes from the price point. These knives are expensive, and you are very clearly paying for the knife’s operating system. The Benchmade infidel costs as much as a used Glock 19 and uses a great D2 steel blade. Alternatively, I can purchase a Benchmade Griptilian with a D2 steel blade for less than 150 dollars.

Opening Fast

Switchblade bans didn’t eliminate the need or market for a fast-opening knife, and the market found numerous ways to produce fast-opening knives without an automatic function. Plenty of standard knives can be used very quickly without needing an automatic function.

I can open my Benchmade Griptilian just as fast as I can activate my Hogue OTF’s blade. Side folding switchblades tend to be slower than fast flipping knives. This seemingly makes automatic knives somewhat useless for a practical purpose.

That doesn’t mean they aren’t fun. They certainly shouldn’t be outlawed in so many places, either. I can fully accept that automatic knives aren’t that useful, but that doesn’t mean I don’t own half a dozen of them. They can be great fun, but if you only have the funds for one nice knife, I wouldn’t make it an automatic.

Failing > Skill Atrophy: Practice Makes Functional

By

Lars Smith

-

July 20, 2022

training — Photo Credit: Sixmaritime.com

I Failed the “No Fail” Pistol Drill

No matter what you do with your free time, when you do it, you are actively getting better at it both physically and mentally. When you sit down to binge watch the latest Netflix series, your tendons and muscles are being conditioned to remain in that position, your metabolism slows down, and your brain focuses its maintenance efforts on the neural pathways necessary for receiving a bunch of passive information. You are honing yourself into a Netflix-watching machine. Similarly, if you head to the range, gym, or the woods several times a week, you are doing precisely the same thing, but for completely different activities. Tendons and muscles condition for those activities, and your brain starts bushwhacking new paths to improve your ability to mentally process and respond to what’s going on. Whatever you do, whatever it is, you get better at just by doing it, even if it’s incremental, and even if you fail.

So for those of us who deliberately choose to drive our minds and bodies toward a particular goal, by devoting our precious free time to related activities, it can be incredibly frustrating when we fail. Even moreso when it’s a regular, or even constant thing. But while it’s tempting to either give up completely, or decide that you’ll never get better, and abandon that goal for a different one (admittedly the least awful of those two options), there’s a better answer that the venerable Greg Ellifritz discusses at his excellent Active Response Training blog: Suck more.

Greg outlines an explicit path toward success, and you should read it, but the jist of it is that failing is a relative thing. Sure, the No Fail drill is a wildly difficult shooting test, but it’s supposed to be. You are probably guaranteed not to get it your first try, because, you probably aren’t in the top 10% of shooters. This isn’t a drill to try out on your first range trip, because without really, really, solid fundamentals, it’s impossible. If you’re in a solid space already as a shooter, and you fail a high-level drill like this, the answer is to keep sucking at it until you don’t. Adjust the standards to a place where you CAN succeed, and then push yourself from there. It’s not cheating, it’s the way to get there without beating your head against a wall. Alternatively, take a class from a vetted instructor (Greg offers some here). Explain the drill and your specific difficulty with it, and it’s very likely that a competent instructor can diagnose and help correct your issues.

Whatever you do, don’t quit. As a wise philosopher once said, “Sucking at something is the first step to being sort of good”. Remember that your actions have consequences, and if you give up and succumb to the couch, you will stop moving toward shooting (or hiking or whatever it is you do) excellence, and towards couch excellence. There’s too many couch experts out there already, so do yourself a favor, get back out there, and go suck harder until you don’t.