The 9mm Emissary 4.25″ blends form and function seamlessly in a firearm built for defense and loaded with custom-grade features. It’s constructed with a forged stainless steel frame and forged carbon steel slide, with a beautiful two-tone finish. The blued carbon steel slide pairs with a stainless steel frame featuring a distinctive squared trigger guard with additional room for ease of operation with a gloved hand. The slide’s “Tri-Top” cut gives the Emissary custom styling, while a flattened top strap is finished with 40 LPI serrations to diffuse light and reduce glare. On top, the tritium and luminescent front sight on the Emissary pairs with a Tactical Rack U-Dot™ rear sight for easy target acquisition in all lighting conditions.
4.25″ BULL BARREL The shortened heavy-profile bull barrel is designed for maximum accuracy and concealability.
U-DOT™ SIGHT PICTURE The tritium and luminescent front sight of the Emissary pairs with a Tactical Rack U-Dot rear sight for easy target acquisition in all lighting conditions.
FLAT TOP SLIDE SERRATIONS 40 LPI flat top slide serrations diffuse light and reduce glare.
Rock Island Armory thought they could sneak out the TPAS without me noticing. I’d have been a giddy little school girl about the idea if I had known. I’ve become a big fan of this new trend of Retro shotguns coming out. Mossberg started it, and lots of companies have followed suit. Rock Island Armory is the latest to do so with the TPAS.
So what’s the TPAS? As far as I can tell, it stands for Trench Pump Action Shotgun. In reality, it’s a Turkish clone of the Ithaca 37 in a riot gun configuration. Ithaca 37s are a classic shotgun configuration that’s been around for decades, and while they’ve fallen out of favor, they are still made in small numbers for high prices. The TPAS provides an Ithaca 37 clone at an affordable price for all your nostalgia needs.
Plus, it comes with the wood furniture and old-school appeal you want from a Trench Gun-style weapon. Rock Island Armory rocks and rolls with a heat shield, five-round tube, sling swivels, and an Ithaca-style front rifle sight. It’s not fancy, but it’s set up to replicate that old cool school that nerds like me love.
The TPAS And Ergos
Yep, welcome to the complaint department! Well, not really. I understand this is a clone of a gun designed in 1933, and it’s replicated almost perfectly here. This means 1933 ergonomics. The pump is textured like a corncob and very small. Calling it a corncob pump is accurate for its texture and size. It’s small but grippable.
The stock is all wood with a great texture over its pistol grip. That texture is aggressive, and you can feel it. The length of pull is about 14 inches, so it’s not a short stock for any reason. Don’t expect much of a recoil pad either. There is a little black piece of rubber, but I don’t think it soaks up much recoil.
The TPAS lacks a side ejection port. The gun loads from the bottom and ejects from the bottom. This is great in a duck blind, so you don’t throw hulls into your buddy’s face, but it’s not the best for the fighting gun. You can’t do a port load, and a slug select drill isn’t exactly easy.
Control It
Control-wise we have a cross-bolt safety behind the trigger and a huge pump release that I adore. It’s seriously nice and very easy to reach when necessary. When you unlock the pump, the action nearly opens itself.
That brings us to the action. The TPAS is an Ithaca clone, so you only have a single action bar. That could create binding, but I haven’t experienced that just yet. What shocked me was the smoothness of the TPAS. Holy crap, that action cycles brilliantly. It’s super clean and smooth.
The TPAS At the Range
I was excited to shoot this beast, so I brought a range bag full of goodness. I brought some hard-hitting, high-powered Fioochi birdshot, stock standard Federal Buckshot, and a little Federal Flitecontrol. Slug wise I brought a single box of Winchester Defender segmenting slugs. The TPAS is beefy at a little over 8 pounds, but the gun is well balanced. The rear grip and front pump provide enough texture to dig in tight for a little push/pull.
Launching that full-powered buckshot didn’t provide much of a challenge. The super-smooth action makes it fast cycling and fast-firing if you know how to control a shotgun. I could deliver two rounds of buckshot from a cruiser ready, low ready setup in less than 1.5 seconds.
The TPAS front sight is easy enough to see and stand up and off the barrel far enough to deliver a perfect point of aim and point of impact action. I could use the white-colored front sight to dial in and ring steel gongs at 50 to 75 yards easy enough with the slugs. By the time I got to 100 yards, the ammo was low, and I went 2 out of 3 on an IPSC target.
The gun fights you a bit, as any pump shotgun will do, but it’s controllable. Surprisingly so. I bought this for the historical experience, but I ended up being quite surprised by the potential and action of this gun. The action’s slick, and the gun cycled and ejected everything without complaint.
Retro Forever
The Rock Island Armory TPAS surprised me the hell out of me. I wanted the Ithaca 37 experience without the Ithaca price, and I got it. I dumped 300 rounds of bird, buck, and some slugs without any complaints. The gun is a beast. My complaints are minimal, and my only true complaint is the text all over the receiver. It’s highlighted and illuminated, and I don’t care for it.
Other than that, the TPAS is an awesome gun. It’s easy to use, cycles so cleanly and goes bang when I need it to. Sure, it’s not perfect or even modern, but for a fun perspective, it rocks.
The Scout Rifle conjures up visions of a fleckless scout foraging and trekking ahead of the main body of troops. The most famous scouts in America were those in service during the Civil War and on the plains in the many actions in the west. These men not only traveled ahead of the main body and broke a trail, they also hunted and fed the main body by intelligent use of their marksmanship skills. Yes, a time before MRE’s.
They often carried a rifle that was lighter than the foot soldier or cavalryman’s rifle. It was often a high capacity lever action rifle, as the scout would be in great danger is caught alone. I have often kept a light handy rifle of the general type on hand. I think that, the favorite of many westerners, the Winchester .30-30 is a good example. The Canada Rangers used this rifle during World War Two. But then the bolt action rifle came to rival the lever action in portability, and best it in strength, power, and accuracy.
I owned several Lee Enfield Jungle Carbines in .303 and found these excellent all around emergency rifles. The true Jungle Carbine became a bit expensive for such use and later a better rifle was adopted. Today my Scout rifle is a Ruger M77 .308. This rifle outclasses the earlier rifles I deployed by a wide margin.
Ruger M77
Colonel Jeff Cooper deserves a great deal of credit for popularizing the Scout Rifle. By pushing shooters to be all they could possibly be, he was the catalyst for considerable improvements in the 1911 handgun. His contribution to riflemen is at least as profound. Cooper’s bolt action rifle with a forward scope and relatively compact action has become a classic. Quite a few of us that need a good rifle have adopted the Scout and many enjoy it for recreation. Others have a Scout Rifle put up for emergency use. While I have the greatest affection for America’s rifle, the AR-15, I think that in many situations the Scout Rifle would be my choice. I own several AR-15 rifles and only one Scout Rifle. The Scout Rifle demands a lot of shooting to master and this rifle suits me well.
There are quite a few so called ‘Scout Rifles’ that are mediocre at best. I do not want to deploy a push feed action in an emergency. The Ruger M77 claw extractor is the Mauser type. It controls the cartridge during the feed and extraction cycle. No other type of bolt action is suitable for emergency use, in my opinion. I am aware of cheaply made competitors and also .223 caliber Scouts. If I were to use a .223, it would be a good quality AR.
The .308 Scout Rifle is another matter. The rifle features a ten round detachable magazine. The rifle is available in barrel lengths of 16 or 18 inches. While I strongly prefer the .308 Winchester, the rifle is also available in .350 Legend. I have never seen an example but Ruger lists them.
A short handy rifle gives up something in velocity to a long barrel sporting rifle. With the efficient .308 cartridge there are plenty of loads that perform well in the Scout’s relatively short barrel. The rifle handles quickly and is easy to store. The rifle weighs but seven pounds with a scope. The Ruger M77 Scout Rifle features a credible muzzle brake. The Ruger features an excellent aperture sight and bold post front sight out of the box.
The rifle may be fitted with a scope in the conventional mounting position or a long eye relief scout scope on the front mounting rail. For many of us the fully adjustable ghost ring sight may be all that is needed. If your scenario involves action in the urban blight then 50 to 100 yard shots are probably the rule. If you are hunting with the rifle then a quality scope is needed. If that scope is needed at close range, consideration for combat, use then it should be an optic that allows rapid acquisition and a high eye relief.
The action is a short action. This simply means the action is designed for short cartridges in the .223, .243 and .308 class. A .30-06 cartridge demands a longer action. The Ruger action is very smooth and very strong. The magazine is easily released and changed. The magazine release lever is in front of the trigger guard. The magazine locks in solid. Feed reliability is excellent.
My rifle is the Gunsite Scout with synthetic stock. While the wood stocks are well done and treated to avoid rot in most weather conditions the synthetic stock is the superior choice for hard use. The Ruger is supplied with a comfortable recoil pad. The rifle is short, smooth, handles quickly at a length of just under forty inches, and again only weighs about seven pounds loaded and topped with a scope. The rifle is well suited to thin skinned game to about 150 yards, perhaps 200 in the hands of a good shot who has taken a braced position. The rifle is an accurate combination. With iron sights I was able to make hits on a six inch steel plate well past 100 yards off hand. This requires good concentration and it is tiring. The bolt action is smooth and the safety is a well placed three position type. Handling cannot be faulted.
I set the rifle up with the Burris 2-7x32mm Scout Scope. The Burris optic allows firing with both eyes open when the scope is set at the lowest magnification. It isn’t difficult to quickly get hits on man sized targets well past 100 yards. The rifle is, quite simply, well balanced and handles well. Setting down to a braced position the rifle is quite accurate in slow fire. With the scope set for maximum magnification the rifle will group three shots into about 1.5 inches on demand at 100 yards. I have selected a number of loads that have performed even better. Connecting at 200 yards isn’t difficult it simply takes more time and concentration.
Ammunition performance and matching to the rifle is critical. I have used the Black Hills Ammunition, 168 grain load for many years. This load will break about 2450 fps in the Ruger’s 16 inch barrel. That will do the business inside of 100 yards but some of us would like more velocity. Going to the Black Hills Ammunition, 152 grain Dual Performance load gets performance up and accuracy remains excellent. The 150 grain SST as loaded by Black Hills, Fiocchi or Hornady makes a good choice for thin skinned game. Load selection is critical but we have a number of good loads that perform well in the Scout Rifle. The .308 offers excellent performance against cover, including vehicles, and will take heavy game smaller calibers could not. The Scout Rifle is versatile and should be considered for all around use. It requires an investment in time, ammunition, and learning to achieve proficiency. Then you will be well armed indeed.
Average performance, velocity, 100 yard group, 3 shots, fired from a benchrest
Black Hills 152 grain Dual Performance: 2590 fps 1.1 in.
Hornady 168 grain Black: 2499 fps 1.1 in.
Handload 168 grain A Max/ 46 grains Varget: 2600 fps 0.9 in.
Burris scope specs Magnification: 2-7x Power Variability: Variable Objective Diameter: 32 mm Length/Weight/Tube Diameter: 9.7 in/13 oz/1 in Field of View: 23-8 feet/100 yards Eye Relief/Exit Pupil: 9.2-12 in/16-4.6 mm Reticle: Ballistic Plex Adjustment Info: 1/4 MOA Optics Coatings: Multi-coated Finish: Matte black Waterproof/Shockproof: Yes/Yes Parallax Setting: Factory-set 100 yards
Illuminated Reticle: No Mounting Rings Included: No
Will the Sig Sauer XM5 Rifle be the Army’s successor to the M4/M4A1?
Over the Mother’s Day weekend I was out in Arizona at the Sig Sauer FREEDOM DAYS event. The SIG team had several of their latest and greatest on display, including a new 10mm which will drop into the stream soon for those who (like me) love the battleship equivalent pistol caliber. But the star of the whole show was, surprise surprise, the XM5 and XM250 NGSW combination.
I was among the lucky who got to shoot the actual XM5 and the XM250, not just the MCX SPEAR. I shot that a bunch too, like a kid hopping on his favorite ride at Six Flags for the sixth time, and I came away with some thoughts, some opinions, and some information that I believe is getting lost in the ranging debate of why we are replacing the M4A1 and M249 in service for the combat arms portions of the US Army.
Current projections if I am recalling correctly, and subject to any whim of the Army’s decision making process, are looking at approximately 180,000 total weapons, ~125K rifles and ~55k machine guns.
I’ll break this into four parts. The XM5, the XM250, the 6.8x51mm and case technology, and my overall perspective on the program and some possible future developments that could result from it.
The XM5
“It’s FDE, so it’s good.” -Me, allegedly.
For anyone who hasn’t tuned into this program prior to now, the XM5 is the rifle the US Army selected to replace the M4A1 with forward units. It is an MCX SPEAR model with a 13″ barrel and chambered in the new contract specified 6.8x51mm (.277 Fury for SAAMI) using SIG’s hybrid stainless/brass case technology, developed for this program.
Army said, “Here’s the bullet, make it do the thing, but better.”
So SIG looked at the MCX they scaled up for the CSASS and said, “I bet that’ll work.” and set about putting the two together and making it run.
I can’t sum it up better than SIG did themselves over the weekend.
“If the MCX Virtus is our M4/AR-15 thing, the MCX SPEAR is our AR-10. Plain and simple.”
The MCX SPEAR, even the XM5, does nothing to reinvent the battle rifle wheel. It’s simply another well built _._x51mm receiver system with modern controls and a folding stock. It weighs 8-8.5lbs (barrel dependent) putting it solidly in the middle of its rifle category for weight. For comparison the KAC SR-25 CC (16″) and the Armalite AR-10 Tactical 14″ both weigh 8.4lbs and the M110A1 weighs in at 8.73lbs. The FN SCAR CQC variant still wins the weight game at 7.7lbs featuring its 13″ barrel.
Yes, it is heavier than the M4. Yes, it recoils more than the M4. Yes, our round counts per magazine are going to drop by 33% (assuming 20 round magazines) and the rounds are heavier than 5.56 (they are lighter than 7.62 though). Yes, this means that combat loadout, ammunition discipline, some of TTP work, and the logistics around those concepts are going to change. No, I don’t see this as a net negative or significantly impairing the combat performance of the individual rifle user, rifle squad, or the light and mechanized infantry as a whole who are going to be using these in combined arms.
As to the rifle itself, the one I shot was well used and had seen 3-days of additional Arizona desert abuse as the demo gun.
It shot fine.
What was it like?
Like shooting an MCX in .308 would feel, or shooting any nice .308 autoloader. It’s more recoil than the 6.5 Creedmoor variant with a 16″ barrel, but not an annoying amount.
What was it like shooting in full auto?
Like shooting a modern select-fire rifle in .308, like a select-fire SCAR 17.
Is it as a controllable as an M4? No. Is it wildly out of control? Thanks to inline recoil and good gassing, no. A short controlled burst is doable on a c-zone steel plate at reasonable distance (I think the plate was at 60 yards, I got two hits) and if you don’t hold it it’ll walk high (missed the third into the dirt).
The difference from a 7.62, and one we didn’t have the space to appreciate, is that the ammunition performance is drastically better. The muzzle velocity on the XM5 is much higher than the SCAR CQC, the rule of thumb SIG said is add 350fps for a 6.8×51 hybrid cased rifle. I’ll expand on this down in the ammunition section.
Shooting the XM5 feels like shooting any nice 13-16″ .308 that has a nice control suite, name your favorite and it feels about like that. It’s as ambidextrous as you could want, has a side charger and a standard AR type charging handle. Both are smooth and easy to use. The recoil spring isn’t obnoxiously stiff trying to work the action. The side charge folds smoothly out of the way to reduce snagging likelihood. Adjustable gas. Bolt lock/release work smoothly. The trigger is nice in semi-auto and in full-auto, breaking when I wanted. Easily the best trigger the military will be issuing generally that has ever rolled out.
It behaves like every other battle rifle pattern I’ve played with in the last decade, especially the handful of select-fire ones I’ve shot. I think the slightly heavier weight lends itself to the shooter, that the rifle is in the weight it needs to be to eat some recoil without being too heavy. That’s my $.02 on the issue.
But it isn’t drastically nicer than other nice rifles. It was never meant to be. I think this is what people are getting wrapped around the axle over, “Why the MCX? Why not [nice rifle I like]?” I feel the answer is, “It could’ve been. It could still be. But why not the MCX?” If you were to put a SPEAR, SCAR, SR25, and LMT on a table in this 6.8 caliber and say pick one, it’s like… “Yeah, whatever you guys don’t want is fine. I’ll make it work. The FDE one, probably.”
I’ve heard the ‘combat proven’ and ‘track records’ lines a few places, as if any new rifle now needs a work history before its done being built. This isn’t the US job market, these are machines. We’ve got MRBS numbers to hit, exceed, and improve upon through experimentation. Even if we had fielded a new SCAR or SR25, it would still be a new rifle in a new round. We had to do it sometime. No ‘combat proven track records’ there either. In order to get us off the X of 5.56 and 7.62 limitations we had to do something different. MCX was the pick. The same complainants, in the next breath, will claim that the XM5 isn’t anything new so why change at all, which in all actuality the XM5 really isn’t. It’s just a well built version of a pattern we are really good at these days, AR-10ish rifles, but in a new caliber.
Ladies and gents, it is all about the caliber… and the HPHV ammo, but I’ll get to that below.
The XM250
Okay yeah, this is an MG68 not the XM250. Army went with non-folding stock design for now, they might switch it back to this one. Why aren’t my toes dug in hard? I’ll get to that.
To those complaining the XM5 is heavier than an M4 and takes a bigger bullet so you can’t carry as many, the XM250 is the reason why. It is worth the swap.
Seriously, especially those who carried SAWs will appreciate, it is all worth it here.
This thing F*CK$!
I’ve been trying to be better about my profanity in articles, but I cannot more succinctly sum it up. The XM250 is money. It’s the light machine gun dream gun. Anyone who has used an M249 and been frustrated by any aspect of that weapon will love the XM250. Anyone who carried an M240 instead of the M249 to avoid the frustrations of the M249 will love the XM250.
That’s all before reminding everyone that the XM250 outranges the M249 and the M240. This all at the featherweight division scale tip of 12.1lbs. An M249 is 17lbs. The M240L, our weightloss programmed variant, is 22.3lbs
The XM250 broke everything we’ve had to accept for a “light” machine gun and made it an actual light machine gun, or automatic rifle as your nomenclature and use may prefer. Currently the XM250 is not slated to have a user quick change barrel, the barrel change is really quick and easy but currently done in a maintainer role and not mid-live fire, the experiences in GWOT showed Army that sticking to one barrel is the practical answer and Army kept that. The Marines dropped belt-feds below the M240 level entirely, this might bring them back. We shall see.
They do have quick change barrel variants done and ready if the Army, or another customer, wants that.
The advances and advantages in the XM250 continue by fixing and adding to the trigger mechanism. You can work the action with the safety on without breaking anything. Your safety selector is AR style, and you can fire in semi-auto which is the third position. Far more is offered to the shooter with less to mess up. Charging handle is now on the left, so most shooters will be able to easily use both hands to leverage the gun.
As someone who has been running a machine gun line where a bunch of mouth breather grade NCOs screwed their young soldiers by throwing them into a qualification after having barely seen a M249, the XM250 will help those soldiers. It’s an easier weapon to pick up from an M4 knowledge base. The ‘just go do it’ mentality in Army weapons handling is probably my sorest spot, but back to the new goods.
The XM250’s feed tray opens sideways, instead of forward. This makes the tray smaller and prevents optics interfering with loading, or being damaged by opening the cover. The tray has a 1.5 MOA variance in zero, they checked. You aren’t trashing your zero by reloading if the optic is on the tray. I don’t know what the MOA on the impact zone of a 3 to 5, or a 7 to 10, round burst is, but I bet it’s a little wider than 1.5 MOA. You can receiver mount the optics too, no issue, but if the dot ends up on the tray it isn’t an accuracy concern.
Speaking of accuracy, SIG reps told me a fun little anecdote that at a test range playing with the 6.5 variant they grouped 3 semi-auto hits on a 24″ steel plate at 1,800 yards (LPVO on top). At that time the shooter stopped firing rounds for the day and just let that insanity stand. Quit while you are way ahead.
The recoil mitigation system built into the XM250 is straight, glorious, belt-fed black magic. The gun doesn’t recoil so much as it shakes. So much recoil gets taken by the system that much longer bursts are significantly easier. Sight picture is much less disrupted. Controlled automatic fire is possible in far more variations of offhand and poorly supported firing positions, hence my relaxed position in the picture. In any position or at any range not conducive for delivering accurate effective automatic fire, the shooter can put it in semi-auto to make those shots. The select-fire capability is an important aspect that will increase what the individual troop can do with this weapon and showcases its deliberate development as an automatic rifle.
The XM250 is a far greater leap forward to the automatic rifle and light machine gun users than the XM5 is to the rifleman. No question about that. The XM250 in any caliber, to include a 5.56 variant, would offer the M249 user significant improvements. The XM5 in a 5.56 variation (so an MCX Virtus) would offer modest benefits at most over an M4A1.
But they aren’t 5.56 weapons.
6.8×51 and the Hybrid Case Technology
80,000 PSI. HPHV.
No, that isn’t some new infection. High Pressure High Velocity is the direction that SIG drove the NGSW, this is a direct evolution of what we did previously with 5.56x45mm in the M855A1. But in that we also loaded the prescribed mass projectiles we’ve already been running, which means we were still stuck with roughly the same ballistics we’ve had. Snipers though are going from middleweight to heavyweight projectiles for higher ballistic coefficients. 6.8mm is giving us that higher ballistic coefficient.
The US Army selected a projectile diameter that makes sense. 125-150 grain projectiles in 7.62mm are mediocre ballistically, too short and fat to fly well. We’ve had a 7.62 that could do 3,000 fps at the muzzle, at around 110gr weight, for years but it lost velocity really fast. All the benefits of firing a .30 caliber at higher velocity were only appreciable in close, .30 caliber projectiles have to get into the 168-175 grain range before they start hitting that nice flight profile, with 200-220 being really nice. That 200-220 sweet spot is why 300 Norma Magnum, PRC, and similar rounds are so popular, the are loaded with excellent BC projectiles.
Shape and mass both matter for ballistics so it does make sense for the rifle to chamber the heavier end weight we are used to in a rifle cartridge, 150gr bullets. At 6.8mm diameter we are getting that nicer profile that 77gr hits in 5.56 and and we do it at the manageable 135-150gr weight to still managing recoil. We are getting a projectile that flies better than any ball round we’ve fielded previously.
We’re also sending it as fast as we do our 5.56 rounds thanks to that 80,000 PSI. Faster projectiles, better velocity retention on those projectiles, all resulting in greater base accuracy expectations and better terminal effects.
But how did they get safely to 80,000 PSI?
Simple, more case space and a stronger case base.
Hybrid Case base model
One of the brilliant simplicities of SIGs ammunition technology is that there is no reason it will be limited to this 6.8x51mm. This is a concept that can be applied to most current brass cartridges. The pure brass design was one of the primary limiting factors on our ammunition. Specifically, the brass at the base of the case which wasn’t supported by the chamber walls and offers that path of least resistance for a case failure.
Brass starts to fail, depending upon its actual composition, in the 68,000 PSI range give or take. This is why ammo pressures have been topped out just below that, and that proof loads basically went to 80,000 PSI and stopped. A proof load case didn’t need to survive the shot, it is testing for failure after all. So since brass can’t really be loaded above 68,000, why test higher than 80,000?
Nobody did.
SIG making the base out of stainless steel did two things. It increased the case capacity so that higher pressures could be achieved, thanks to some extra space, and it made it safer to play with higher pressures because the base of the case won’t fail at 68,000 anymore.
How much pressure have we seen?
SIG has been able to take these cases to 120,000 PSI.
Not to failure at 120,000 PSI, just to 120,000 PSI.
According to SIG, they haven’t been able to load enough powder into a case in any viable way to push the pressure above 120,000 PSI. Previously they have never needed a reason to push the pressures since they were already capable of overpressuring the current case material.
So in answer to the question about the XM5 and XM250 safe pressure testing (proof loads), they proof the guns at 120,000 PSI. 50% above spec for the ammunition. Because they can. Because the cases can take it.
Now this is going to work with other rifle calibers as well. Not necessarily the +350fps quick math SIG has for the 6.8, but allowing for more case volume and safer higher pressures. Testing can then be done to see if simple improvements to a barrel, or barrel and barrel nut, are needed to up the velocity capabilities on current rifles.
So that immense stockpile of 5.56 rifles the military will maintain for the foreseeable future might see a few product improvements still too, ones from this program. While not generating the kinetic effects we expect to see out of the 6.8x51mm, having the ability to load 5.56 with 77gr at the velocities we’re only getting in 62 and 55gr would produce tangible benefits. We also might be able to further optimize it for short barrels with higher pressure curves and suffer much less velocity bleed in carbines like the MK18’s
We might be able to further the supersonic/subsonic performance of .300 BLK, maybe so it is performing more like current 7.62×51 in supersonic while subsonic rounds are still doing their thing as designed.
We don’t know yet. SIG just did this and started doing the mad science thing about where this could go. Where current manufacturers can push their guns, and how easily they can make changes to accommodate isn’t known either. This is new territory that nobody has had to test previously as brass had a hard ‘do not cross’ pressure threshold.
Ultimately I think this is the most significant thing NGSW gave us, and why (among several reasons) the other submissions didn’t carry through. This HPHV change to ammunition is opening a new avenue to explore in metallic cartridges where we had pretty much optimized every variation of brass we had available already. What are the limits if we can safely load at 80k, 90k, or even 100k PSI?
Also, New Suppression System Thoughts
I will quickly add that the suppressors, the Lo-Tox NLX, are a cool new flow through design, one that sought to reduce the gas hitting the shooter as they are going to be more regularly added to rifles going forward. This was paramount in tandem with its signature reduction benefits, less gassing of the shooter. The long term effects of the gas exposure over time are… less than great and suppressors generally up the amount in the shooter’s face significantly. Lead amounts in the blood are a problem regular shooters must track.
The M4, unsuppressed, put about 100ppm of gas in the shooter’s breathing space. Suppressed weapons with traditional cans put upwards of 400ppm into that same space for the shooters lungs to absorb. The Lo-Tox NLX cans Sig has fielded with the XM5 and XM250 have lowered that to about 70ppm. Less lead in the lungs.
My thoughts on the NGSW
We had to do something different if we wanted a different result. Staying on 5.56x45mm in increasingly slightly more reliable designs hadn’t been getting us anywhere since the XM8. Yes, 5.56 works well but we have pretty much tapped it out. If we wanted to see a performance change we needed a change in ammunition. SIG’s case technology allowed that, an actual change in more than just a new caliber.
Where True Velocity (when it worked at all) simply offered a new material for the same rounds, and Textron’s weird push through caseless rounds have several other significant issues in an infantry weapon (though might be viable in a vehicle bound system, someday), SIG actually cracked one of our hard material limits while maintaining what we like about current metallic cartridges.
The simplest solution to the problem is often the best.
The XM250 offers a much greater increase in capability compared to what it is replacing, the M249, than the XM5 is offering over the M4.
The XM5 is basically adjusting the effective range of the rifle outwards, it isn’t changing how easy or well the rifle itself runs by much. We are also losing capacity in exchange for that range, but we are gaining alot of range. The creature comforts of the control scheme are a nice little upgrade too. I consider the weight increase negligible, the XM5 will still be the among the lightest weapon systems employed and the savings are made up massively in the XM250.
Comparatively, the XM250 gives us that same range boost with several significant improvements to how well the soldier can run an LMG. It fixes many of the failings and limitations we accept in the current M249, and it does it saving 5lbs. It is a dramatic improvement in how effectively the automatic rifle can be employed.
The Lo-Tox NLX suppressors are addressing an issue we’ve had in previous suppressor designs for high volume users, gas in the face that can create medical problems if not carefully monitored. Blood lead toxicity is a thing. These do so while maintaining the signature reduction benefits of lower muzzle noise and flash.
The 6.8mm ammunition pick offers our most ballistically optimized ball ammunition round to date. It will keep or improve upon the A1 projectile capabilities we saw in M855A1 and M80A1. We are finally taking advantage of our available internal, external, and terminal ballistics knowledge in a practical way to push what our small arms can do beyond their Cold War technology iteration.
The Hybrid Case technology is probably the advance with the most far reaching possible effects. We could see a drastic shift in ammunition capability across the space of metallic cartridges, not just in this single “new” round, 6.8x51mm. We can expect to see the other aspects of ammunition loading, powder and primers, to start experimenting with ways to safely and effectively reach the new available pressure limits for ammunition casings. We will see manufacturers start testing and building for these new limits as well, especially as this becomes viable in legacy calibers. We will probably see another ‘split’ where certain older firearms will not be rated for the new high pressure variants of their ammunitions.
The XM5 is cool, but it’s just another rifle and we’ve gotten good at building those. The XM250 is what a light machine gun should be, it offers the users a significant improvement over the M249. 6.8mm is a good projectile diameter for what we want in an infantry rifle, but we’ve known that for a century. The hybrid cases are the aspect with the most potential to positively push firearms forward.
*Post updated to reflect Army’s Selection of Sig Sauer XM5 to eventually replace the M4/M4A1 carbine rifle, and the XM250 will eventually replace the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon
I joke a lot about needing “dirt therapy”. I’ve noticed over time that digging in the dirt, planting in my garden, even walking in the woods all improve my mood. Does anybody besides me love the smell of damp earth? The smell after a rain, the smell of digging in the dirt, the smell of the hunting woods – does it give you a boost of happiness? I don’t know about you, but when I open the screen door in the spring and step out onto the deck, that first deep breath of spring air in the morning gives me a relaxing “Ahhhhh” feeling.
I even distinctly remember the smell of my dad’s hunting clothes when I got a kiss goodnight as a kid. It was a warm, almost moldy/woody smell and it was comforting. There are names for those smells and it turns out there’s a reason for those good feelings.
Bear in mind as you read this that I was a microbiology lab tech before I was a doctor and a writer, so germs are one of my “things”. I even used to identify some of them by smell. So this idea intrigues me, but in consideration of others I’ll try not to nerd out TOO much here.
Petrichor
The first nerdy scientific word I have for you here is Petrichor. Petrichor is the smell of the first rain after a period of warm, dry weather.
The molecules that produce that smell are called geosmin and 2-MIB. These molecules are not actually produced by dirt, but are most commonly produced by a genus of bacteria called Streptomyces, which acts a bit like a fungus.Geosmin’s smell is detectable by humans at 5 parts per trillion and it can also make drinking water smell bad to some people.
Apparently beets also make geosmin, which explains why beets always taste like dirt to me. Although I love the smell of dirt, I don’t want to actually eat it. So there, I have a scientific explanation for why I hate beets. You can use that excuse too if you want – you’re welcome.
So now that you know about THAT bit of trivia, there is another bit of ongoing research into a different species of soil bacteria called Mycobacteria vaccae. Mouse experiments have shown this organism to actually induce good feelings if ingested or inoculated. Yes, you read correctly – this could be an actual antidepressant soil germ that holds promise for treating PTSD as well as other forms of depression and anxiety.
Hygiene Hypothesis
To understand why this is so exciting it’s important to understand a couple of concepts that have been going around the immunology world for a few decades. The first is known as the “Hygiene Hypothesis”.
The Hygiene Hypothesis discusses the fact that babies and toddlers exposed early to pets, farm animal, and soil tend on average to have fewer allergies, asthma, and autoimmune issues. The thought is that the early immune system tunes itself to common microbial antigens as it is developing and tends to ignore those antigens rather that react to them with later exposure. Thus, being raised in a “too clean” world may be detrimental to the programming of the immune system. I sometimes liken it to a high energy dog breed. If you don’t give the immune system something to do early on, it can soon start chewing on the furniture out of boredom. It’s a poor analogy, but you get the idea. An immune system that chews on the furniture produces things like allergies and autoimmune diseases. A bored immune system is a thing to be avoided.
Old Friends Hypothesis
Then there is the “Old Friends Hypothesis”. This thought arose out of some research which showed a much lower incidence of inflammatory bowel diseases such as Crohn’s and Ulcerative Colitis in areas of the world where intestinal parasites are still common. Mouse experiments indicated that certain parasitic worms helped to balance the gut bacteria in mice genetically predisposed to a Crohn’s-like condition, producing positive effects. Research continues to grow in this area and it looks like the gut isn’t the only organ system affected in this manner by environmental organisms.
The human gut, immune system, and serotonin system are quite closely interconnected (even though many people think about serotonin as only related to mood and brain function). IF these systems co-evolved with the presence of the bacteria and parasites that shared space with early humans, then maybe in a too clean world without these “old friends”, some of our systems don’t function optimally. Maybe in addition to having bowel problems and immune problems we have depression and anxiety issues as well.
This may hopefully lead to some treatment options for serious diseases. We have for example over the past couple decades discovered the value of certain gut bacteria and have added “some” probiotics back into our digestive routines, but there are many more microbial “friends” yet to be discovered. Mycobacterium vacccae may be one of these “old friends” that our bodies (and brains) are dearly missing.
Mycobacterium vaccae research
Investigation is ongoing, but at least in mice, the research is promising. In one experiment mice fed live M. vaccae showed a reduction in anxiety behaviors and better maze performance than controls. In another experiment mice injected with M. vaccae showed “a more proactive response to stress exposure” and increased stress resilience.
This is certainly intriguing. If it works for mice, will it work for people? As we spend even more time in our ever more sterile worlds (which all the pandemic sanitizing didn’t help) we are all as a species seeing the effects of our removal from the natural world and its inhabitants – especially the microscopic kind. Could these and other as-yet-unknown microbes hold the key to better physical and mental health for us all? More research needs to be done, but the prospect is exciting. (Yes, remember I’m a germ geek.)
Get Outside
Obviously it’s going to be a while before “old friends” therapy makes it into mainstream human treatment programs, and no one is advocating we start eating a cup of garden dirt for breakfast every morning to help our moods and belly issues. But we can all work on our exposure to the natural world. We can get outside more, get into the woods, sit in a turkey blind, dig in the dirt, and plant a garden (then eat the veggies that grew in that dirt that weren’t commercially “sanitized” first).
While we wait for more research and treatments into various physical and emotional ailments, we can all get back out into the natural world, get our own dirt therapy, and reacquaint ourselves and our bodies with the earth we all came from. I know that sounds pretty hippy-dippy, but turns out – it’s science!
Bead sights are likely the most produced shotgun sight ever created. They adorn the barrel of side by sides, over unders, pump guns, semi-autos, and more. For decades they were the standard option for shotguns. Compare that to the AR-15. If the AR-15 evolved at the same rate as the shotgun, we’d still have A1 sights and carry handles. Bead sights, much like carry handles, work but are far from perfect. In fact, they kind of suck.
Well, Bead Sights Don’t Always Suck
I use the title bead sights suck to get those juicy clicks. In a lot of roles, they are a perfect choice. If you are shooting birds and clay pigeons, then a bead sight makes a lot of sense. To be fair, bead sights can work for tactical and defensive shooting. They’ve done so for over a century. They work well in optimal scenarios, but how many scenarios are optimal?
They have lots and lots of faults. Darryl Bolke said it best in an article for Lucky Gunner.
“The bead sight is essentially the bare minimum, and you will get bare minimum performance from them.”
Some Beads Can Suck More Than Others
I typically prefer Mossberg shotguns over Remington. However, when it comes to choosing a bead sight, Remington does it better. Some bead sights can suck a lot more than others. Mossberg mounts their beads sights directly to the barrel, but Remington places their bead sight on a pedestal. That extra height makes a huge difference.
Mossberg’s bead sights have the effect of making it appear the gun is shooting high. The old sage advice used to be to aim at their belt buckle to hit them in the chest. Remington pushes their sights upwards on a pedestal to take care of this problem.
Some shotguns use a front rifle sight setup which is rather handy. It’s better than a bead but still far from perfect. Other bead sights, like the XS big dot tritium sights, are better than a standard tiny bead but still don’t fill the gap.
So What’s the Problem With Beads?
They lack precision. “BuT iTs A sHoTgUn.” Yeah, I know, that doesn’t mean aiming isn’t necessary. My load of buckshot clings tightly together in the home ranges, and I want to steer that shot to a lethal area. Bead sights give you a point of reference but don’t provide a consistent, fast, and easy to acquire sight picture. Without a rear reference point, it’s tough to be precise.
It’s easy to look over the bead, or to be too far to the left or right of the bead when you aim, which causes accuracy issues. I want to have proper alignment when I send that load of buckshot downrange. I want as much accuracy as possible. If the threat inside my home is behind cover and I can only see a small portion of them, then I want to know that my buckshot will hit that small portion.
On top of that, being able to see the bead, especially in the dark, can be difficult. In a fast-moving gunfight, in the dark, I’m looking for a minuscule gold bead and relying on it.
So What Can We Do?
There are lots of alternatives out there. We have the classic ghost ring sights. They are great, give you a rear point of reference, and easily to align. With a proper, big, and easy-to-see front sight, you won’t have issues hitting your target.
Ghost rings are great, but the pistol-style sights by Trijicon and XS are probably the better iron sight choice. They aren’t as common and require a rifle-sighted Remington. Sadly, they don’t seem to have escaped the boundaries of the Remington guns.
The all-time best option for a shotgun is a red dot sight. A miniature red dot sight, like the kind you see on handguns, is perfect for a shotgun. It’s easy to see, gives you a target focus, and allows you to engage rapidly and accurately. The red dot reigns supreme on handguns and rifles, so why not shotguns?
Bead sights on shotguns can work, but we’ve pressed the performance on handguns and rifles and seem to be stuck in the 1900s on shotguns. On tactical shotguns, we should demand more than the bead sight. All tactical shotguns in 2022 should be drilled and tapped for a red dot or rail to attach one.
C’mon, it’s 2022, and the shotgun is a long gun. Why are we still using teeny tiny bead sights?
Being a woman within the firearms and outdoor community can be tough when it comes to clothing choices. We need items that move with us and don’t hinder the job at hand yet still allow us to feel presentable and attractive. We shouldn’t have to look like a man to do the job of one. The Vertx Womens Lifestyle collection fills the clothing vacancy that we have been so long waiting to be filled. Our first article of clothing we talked about was the Kesher Ops Pant. Then, the Womens Fury Hardshell Jacket. Now, the Swift Hoody. A simple and comfortable piece of clothing with additional access to our carry, loops for comms compatibilty, and a comfortable hood that doesn’t block our view. All made with the same core regulating 37.5 Technology within the material.
From the Company
“Pink it and shrink it may be the design philosophy of some women’s brands, but Vertx focuses on the end-user, and in this case, a layering piece that’s become the Women’s Swift Hoody.”- Vertx Designer
Vertx is showing its large amount of knowledge and time when it comes to designing womens clothing. Shrink it and pink it is what many other clothing companies have done when going from their mens line to creating a womens line. Knowing women..that just doesn’t work. Vertx has women designers on the team that put years into developing one product, such as the Swift hoody, to ensure that it wasn’t just shrunk and turned into a feminine color, but actually fit to the womans shape, kept attractive, and still hid what we may have under our garments during the job.
Fabric and Technology
Like other items in the Vertx Womens Lifestyle Line, the Swift Hoody features Vaporcore 37.5® Technology. This technology keeps your core temperature regulated. It has been noticed that a lot of Vertx’s clothing can be worn both in the warm spring days and the chillier fall, the Vaporcore tech is why.
The hoody also is entirely lined with an Internal AbrasionGuard™. This ensures that your EDC gear doesn’t introduce wear. Don’t worry though, the lining is durable but still comfortable.
Key Features
The Pouch
The Swift Hoody features a lined pouch that allows the user to access their Everyday Carry (EDC) equipment without letting anyone know that they are going for it, or even have it. Inside the pouch are two zippers that can be unzipped from the inside while wearing. This allows the user to put their hand through and grab onto what they need. To others, it just looks like the user simply is resting their arms in the pouch, yet in reality they can hold, grab, and present anything on their belt line all while their hands are inside the pouch. It is a very wide access so it doesn’t hinder movement while the hand is inside.
The Hood/Neck
The design of the hood and neck is very different than other hoodies. It is actually made to aid the user when worn. The “Crossover hood design adds coverage without blocking peripheral.” So while it adds coverage it won’t block your eyes and head from looking side to side.
The neck crossover design doesn’t choke but covers the chest enough to stay warm.
The Backside
The back of the Swift Hoody features a specific hem that aids in keeping covered when bending or sitting. Instead of other companies just adding longer material, Vertx added a hem that’ll keep the shape of the hoodie to cover the backside.
Options to Buy
Colors: It’s Black, Blue Surge
Sizes: Small, Medium, Large, Xlarge
Price: $89.99
Stephanie’s AAR (After Attirement Review)
Note: I am 5’2,125 lbs, and wear a size small.I am also wearing a Phlster Engima in some of the photos which helps with concealability if you don’t want to wear a belt but still gives you your usual kydex holder to safely wear and draw from.
I have worn the Vertx Swift hoody in both warm and cooler climates within Virginia. The temperature regulated material used isn’t just a gimmeck. During hiking it was about 70-75 degrees and I wore a tank top, the hoodie, and a sports bra on top with leggings on bottom. I didn’t overheat at all and stayed comfortable. During the cooler weather of about 40 degrees I wore this both with and without the Vertx Fury Hardshell as a wind breaker. I was warm but when the wind stopped I just ran the hoody. I was fine. I also wore the hoody for a day at a National Rifle League Hunter match in Georgia and kept cool in the day and warm at night.
The shape of the hoodie does help conceal materials on the belt well. I have ran both the Phlster Enigma with leggings and a holster with jeans with the Discreet Carry Concepts Clips. Both concealed fine. I was also able to grab the gun quickly with the kangaroo pouch access. The gun shown in the photo is a Sig P365 with Holosun 407K in a Phlster Skelton holster on the Phlster Enigma.
At NRA HQ worn during a cold day inside the range.Looks like a normal hoody and resting hands inside pockets but in reality have my hands ready to access the gun.
Wearing the size small I had free movement in my chest and arms and the length of the sleeves were perfect. I did not use the thumb holes on the sleeves.
My favorite thing about the Hoody? The Neck design. It doesn’t make me feel claustrophobic but does still give me protection from the elements and keep me covered.
If I were to change anything about the hoody I would ask that that change the material on the kangaroo pouch. It wasn’t uncomfortable, just sometimes I do only wear a sports bra with a hoodie so the difference in material is a tad weird.
Overall, it’s a happy addition to my closet as it is the only second layer type of clothing that gives me access to my gun without having to show that I’m going for it. In sketchy situations I believe that that is necessary. Not presenting..but being ready.
Faxon Firearms has stepped into the ring of drop-in Glock Barrels. They’re known for their quality workmanship, and so far, these don’t seem to be an exception. Glocks are synonymous with customization, and often the easier to do, the better. If these barrels live up to what Faxon is advertising, they might be a great grab for folks looking to skip the gunsmith.
What Faxon Firearms Had To Say
Faxon’s Match Series Pistol Barrels for G17 / Glock 17 are machined 100% in-house from stress-relieved 416-R stainless steel. These barrels are then given a black Nitride or PVD coating to increase lubricity, barrel life, and resistance to surface wear. All barrels are conventionally rifled to allow a broader range of ammunition to be used, including cast lead. The barrels drop into factory-spec slides with no gunsmithing required. Better-than-factory tolerances ensure a consistent, tighter lockup than OEM.
Technical specifications for the G17 Barrel
Handgun: Glock G17
Barrel Caliber: 9mm
Barrel Profile: Flame Fluted, Drop-In (Compatible with Gen 1-4)
Outside Finish: Salt Bath Nitride & Chameleon (Rainbow) PVD
The Glock G17 is an incredibly popular handgun, and Faxon has more than one barrel available for it. Available designs for the G17 include fluted, not fluted, threaded, and not threaded. Finishes include the rainbow chameleon PVD, gold, and black.
If you prefer the more compact dimensions of the Glock 19, Faxon has you covered. Their aftermarket G19 barrels are compatible with all generations of G19 and are offered in a variety of finishes and styles.
Faxon Firearms manufactures barrels for the G17, G19, G34, and G43/43X, among other products. Chances are they probably have a barrel for you; the barrels MSRP begins at $139.00.
Today, the boys are all shocked that none of them were kidnapped by the government, and they reminisce about the great golden era of submachine guns: the 90s.
Arizona is hot. But that didn’t stop me from attending the Sig Sauer Freedom Days event that is standing in place, for the weird year of 2022, of what we would normally see at SHOT range events. It’s a standalone event. Set up like a firearms amusement carnival. And I, for one, am delighted with the format.
Sig Sauer brought out a spread. All their current offerings in rifles, handguns, a whole bay for MPX variants, one for air guns, and yes the NGSW winning XM5 and XM250 are on display.
The MG338 is here too.
I’ll have a seperate rundown on these later at the end of the event, haven’t shot either yet.
I did shoot…
THE MCX SPEAR – 6.5 Creedmoor (suppressed)
While not the actual XM5, it’s the slightly elder cousin. This 16″ rifle weighs in at about 8.5lbs slick, is ambidextrous and side charging, runs on the omnipresent short stroke gas piston of modern service rifles, and is extremely pleasantly gassed. The recoil with the suppressor on, Sig’s flow-thru design I believe, is about what I would expect out of a 77gr loaded M4.
The shooting experience wasn’t flawless fun and games though. I stepped up to the line, second person of the day to fire the MCX SPEAR, loaded the rifle, thumbed the selector to fire, and *click*
…
The primer of my first round decided working Friday’s was for chumps. The remaining rounds rang steel, all while barely disrupting my sight picture. We tried the misbehaving round again… and a third time. It wasn’t fired, it quit. Oh well.
During that first misfire though, I experienced exactly why it is very wise of SIG to keep the AR located charging handles. Yes, even though the MCX SPEAR has a well located side charger.
I am familiar with the MCX SPEAR. I know it has a side charger. I even run other rifles with side chargers. But when this new rifle went click, I didn’t grab for the foldaway side charger to clear it. Nope, I looked at the bolt to see if it was closed and grabbed for the AR charging handle. Smoothly back, out popped the lazy round of ammunition, release, immediate action complete. Fired. Rang steel.
I’m certain with a little time on the MCX SPEAR I’ll acclimate to the side charger, but my point is that handing this to AR familiar troops is going to be very easy. I’m told the recoil on the 6.8x51mm is more stout, honestly it certainly couldn’t be less stout than in the 6.5. This was smooth. It just taps you to let you know it cycled.
“But does it do anything [EXPENSIVE MODERN AUTOLOADER] doesn’t do!?”
Nope. Well maybe it has an ambi-bolt lock and your rifle doesn’t. But if your expecting this modern expensive battle rifle to do something wizbang that other modern expensive battle rifles don’t do, don’t waste your time. It doesn’t. I don’t think it needs to either.
But if you’ll be in the market for a modern, ergonomic, pleasant recoiling, autoloading rifle, this will probably be on the consideration list. If additionally you want a folding stock, ambidextrous controls (including bolt lock/release), a left side mid-receiver charging handle, an AR style charging handle, and selectable gas… then yeah, this is pretty much your gun.
It’s a little heavier than the SCAR17 but lighter than the HK417. But picking it up, with its can attached, felt like holding my 17 with its Surefire on. It will be a contender. Superfans of other platforms will continue to disparage it. Superfans of Sig will probably praise it. Rifle fans like myself will acknowledge its place as another fine functioning rifle among fine functioning rifles, I want to SBR a 13″ variant myself. Not too picky on caliber either at the moment.
Commercial Release Date?
That’s complicated.
The X in the XM5 is one of the main reasons why. That X stands for eXperimental, for those unfamiliar with military designations. The Army may want to change stuff on the rifle still. If they do, Sig will make the changes.
When the Army finalizes their TDP (Technical Data Package) on the XM5 and it becomes the M5, Sig will have a final parts list to look at for reciprocating onto the MCX SPEAR commercial line. Things like safeties, charging handles, gas regulator shape, sling attachment positions, all of these might be changed by the Army and then make no sense for Sig to produce those parts in bulk and then to later change them.
But when that happens, or Sig at least has enough final indication it is happening, expect to see rifles, pistols, and SBRs start rolling from Sig. Maybe, and I cannot emphasize the maybe enough, by end of year or early 2023. So much depends on the Army not changing small part designs that it isn’t certain until they are certain. As an Army small arms maintainer being one of my MOS’s, I understand their logic completely. Having giant bins of obsolete parts kinda sucks.
Happy Switch Rattler BB Gun
The other really cool thing I saw, and got to shoot a bunch because of no line, is the updates to their airgun line. They are bringing the full profile of the guns into the air gun lineup. Proper magazine dimensions and everything.
These are some of the first working prototypes of the new guns. They’re fun.
One of the larger criticisms of the airguns was their goofy deviations from the real firearm profiles. Sig is remedying those deviations and producing BB guns (.177) that will now mirror the airsoft guns and real firearms they are based upon. Still commercial 12g CO2 for operation.
Oh, and these have 3 round burst. Which is really fun to ping steel plates with.
What else?
Not much that I don’t already own to be honest. I tended to jump in lines with shorter than 6 people waiting, ate at the food trucks, talked with the partner venders like Guns.com who were out promoting. Tried an iced coffee from BRCC, which was good and is making me question my disdain for iced coffee.
It was a good first day.
Attendance.
Plenty.
The 98 degree heat and amusement park type wristbands for “rides” (shoots) didn’t keep the event from being just about perfectly busy. No lines, even the popular firearm lines, were too long. The only place that wasn’t busy was registration after about 1:00 in the afternoon. There were people everywhere without it being crowded. Tomorrow may be a different story with it being Saturday, fewer locals and not-so-locals working, and so more folks might make the trip out.
Let’s have a blast from the past and go back to 2008. Imagine you’re in the gunners seat for your Platoon Leader (PL) on a night patrol in Afghanistan. Your equipment list is as follows. M2HB Machine Gun, ELCAN thermal, M145 MGO, and GI optic mount. Now imagine during pre-checks while the convoy is set up and ready to roll you find out that your optic mount doesn’t fit on the receiver of your M2. Force won’t seat it due to thick rounded rivets on the receiver. So what do you do? You don’t have tools, you don’t have repairman or mechanics on hand, but by God you have a hacksaw.
No B.S. This is a true story. The soldier took a hacksaw to a .50cal machine gun to file down rivets enabling his optics to mount on his .50cal right before a patrol.
That was 2008, it is now 2021 and we are still running this same Government Issued Machine Gun Optic Mount. The Military deserves better. We have the machines to do it, we have the brains to engineer a better product, why are skimping on the safety of those who protect us?
[Editor’s Note: It is laziness and budgets, it is always laziness and budgets.]
Until B.E. Meyers
B.E. Meyers is a company that has had generations of prior military folk working hard to give us products that are made strong and built smart. They see the issues that our guys are facing and work to improve them. That is why we have the MAWL, or the target marking IZLID.
Now, we have the BOARS-M2 Optic and Accessory Rail System. A low profile mounting system that allows your optic to quickly disconnect from the gun yet return directly back to zero once remounted. The mount clears a gunners shield and without being removed still allows view of both rear and front iron sight in case the optic goes down.
The Issues with the Mil Mount
The current Government Issued (GI) mount is meant to mount an optic directly to the weapon system. While that design got our military through many combat zones it is now showing severe design flaws. The overall idea of directly mounting an optic to a heavy recoil machine gun in harsh environment isn’t a good one. The moment that optic goes down, needs to be switched out for the mission at hand, or simply brought into your hooch for safekeeping for the night, is the moment that that mount needs to be moved. It is no longer a quick optic change, it is now a whole mount change. Zero is lost.
HERE is a mount that is similar to the GI mount for reference.
The GI mount features small hex screws. Due to these screws not being captured screws, if loosened too much they can fall out and be lost. Let’s go back to that night patrol story. In the night those screws come loose or the mount needs to be removed, fumbling with gloves on in the dark, kiss those screws goodbye. Those same hex screws also dig into the receiver over time due to consistently being tightened to different specs. The more that those screws dig into the receiver the more that the reciever gets wallowed out creating holes. Those holes no longer allow proper tightening of the mount. Zero is not sustained.
Photo of a Soldier using the GI optic mount with a PAS-13. “the lowest possible profile behind the weapon system” The GI mount does not give you that low profile but instead has you seated straight up. https://www.whs.mil/News/News-Display/Article/1897862/increasing-lethality-us-army-reserve-small-arms-trainer-course-developed-at-for/
The largest flaw that can be seen directly involves the design on the M2 .50cal Machine Gun. This issue has been seen in Guard units, active duty units, small special units, etc. Much of the M2 is put together using rivets. Just like anything, (except the GI optic mount I guess) the M2 has gone through updates and upgrades. Due to these upgrades, such as upgrading to the M2A1 fixed headspace MG, the receivers have been completely rebuilt. During this rebuild there have been different types of rivets being used. Some flat and thinner, and some rounded and thick. The random draw of rounded and thick riveted receiver is a severely unlucky one due to now the GI mount not wanting to slide over the top of the receiver. So what do we do? Back to the story…we hacksaw. That mount is now mated to that receiver. Will it be marked to that gun? Probably not. It will go back into a cage with all of the other “universal mounts”. Until the next operator grabs that M2 and does it all over again with another mount. The cycle continues.
Additionally, if a M2 is found with the incorrect rivets installed it will need to be returned to depot level maintenance for overhaul. This means that you are down a gun for awhile.
A M2A1 found within a Minnesota National Guard unit. You can see wear marks from someone trying to mount the GI pas mount over the rounded rivets. Also shown at the bottom of the photo is a flat rivet that can fit under the GI mount.
The current GI mount also does not allow the operator to see the iron sights of the gun while mounted. This adds additional time to engagement of a target if the optic goes down. The current mount, while mounted, additionally doesn’t allow the user to remove the backplate of the gun. If maintenance, malfunction remedies, anything of the sort is needed, that mount now needs to come off, zero is lost.
BOARS-M2 Features
The B.E. Meyers BOARS-M2 is a two part mounting system allowing the user to keep one piece of the mount attached to the system indefinitely and remove the second piece of the system to the optic for quick removal (throw lever mount) yet not losing zero. This means that the operator can quickly change/remove optics. Whether it is removal for maintenance, accountability, throwing your $20,000 optic in your backpack to run into the chow hall to grab a burrito, this mount allows you to reestablish zero the moment the zeroed optic is attached to the primary mounting piece. A truly modular system.
The BOARS features a quick release removal to the lower piece of the mount which allows a true return to zero when remounted.
The BOARS features the lowest profile machine gun mounting system on the market being only 3.22″ in height. Allowing the user to be fully behind cover during operation and enabling the user to have a weapon system that truly allows them to have eyeball defilade exposure.
The decisions of the materials used for the mount ensure that no parts of the mount are lost during assembly/mounting and more importantly, that no part of the host weapon is damaged. The hex screws used within the mount are captured ensuring that they do not get lost after loosening. The base of the mount, the part that directly mounts to the weapon, uses friction to stay clamped. This is done using brass paws. Brass is a softer type of material ensuring that the paws do not damage the receiver of the gun.
As far as the materials used and the harsh environment that these mounts will be deployed in, the mount is made with 7075-T6 aluminum allowing it to withstand bangs and bruises that these operators will put it through. The mount uses non-corrosive anodizing ensuring that rust will not be an issue.
Specs
PART NUMBER–BOARS-M2
NSN–1240-01-682-8650
DIMENSIONS–7.5” L, 3.62” W, 3.22” H
WEIGHT TOTAL-28.7 OZ
WEIGHT LOWER–12.7 OZ
WEIGHT UPPER–16.0 OZ
Gun and Optic Compatibility
The BOARS has been tested on M2’s dating all the way back to 1932. Testing in various units such ranger battalions, national guard units, etc. It has also been mounted with optics ranging from the PAS-13 Thermal Weapon Sight and Aimpoint FCS 12 on a Carl Gustav.
In order for a piece of equipment to receive a National Stock Number (NSN) it has to go through very rigorous testing. The BOARS has a NSN (1240-01-682-8650) and is a trusted piece of equipment within our Military.
Where is it in our Military Presently?
From the writer..Well presently, there are 4,500 BOARS fielded but we don’t know where exactly they are. For all we know they could be sitting on a shelf in a warehouse somewhere. During my time in the Army, and now asking around to other units, I have not seen one mentioning of the BOARS and still see Soldiers struggling with their 1970 designed GI mount. The Army is failing our Soldiers. We are wasting our funds at the end of the FY just to spend them, meanwhile, those funds could go to literal life and time saving equipment.
But what they don’t know they can’t change right? Knowledge is power. Here is the news post talking bout the BOARS being chosen for the U.S. Army Soldier Enhancement Program. “Units are encouraged to contact PM-Soldier Weapons, PEO Soldier, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ to place their demands for initial fielding.”-BE Meyers
Where this program is now? No idea.
Don’t be afraid to speak up about the latest and greatest equipment. Oftentimes, it is great for a reason. Less oftentimes, it has a NSN..easy purchase.
For other purchasing options click HERE for how to purchase using Direct, GSA, DLA, and TLS procurement.
Cue the music and the Reagan-era vibes. It’s time to celebrate the Strandhogg, First Spear summertime shirt style.
This new limited edition tee is a tactical (~ish) tip of the hat to Andy Warhol in pop art design and the iconic First Spear Strandhogg plate carrier.
The design is printed on a soft side seamed shirt which means better quality, more comfort, and a buff ‘Built for the X‘ appearance when heading out for some summer fun.
After all, looking cool matters.
First Spear keeps the description simple:
Across the front of this LIMITED EDITION white t-shirt, the popular FirstSpear Strandhögg Plate Carrier is featured in vibrant colors.
On the back is the classic FirstSpear logo. This shirt is a perfect addition to your summer t-shirt collection.
The POP ART STRANDHOGG t-shirt is a limited edition run, designed and printed in the United States, and retails for $29.99 on the FirstSpear website.
Don’t wait these are available in limited sizes and quantities and when they are gone they are gone, no backorders will be filled.
Like everything made by FirstSpear, these T-shirts are high-quality and Built for the X.
We have all seen it. We have all been there and heard it. A blatantly false, absurdly concluded, and astronomically imbecilic comment from a know-nothing politico, pushing their favorite form of do-nothing horse manure… for the children. Or we hear that same comment from GenPop repeated in an earnest, yet ill informed, attempt to curb violence.
I’m sorry, curb gun violence.
But why? Why are gun controllers so dedicated to blatant verifiable falsehood? Why do they lie with such conviction?
It turns out people are more likely to repeat a lie, one that they even know is a lie, if they feel it could be true. If someone could foresee circumstances where the lie would become true, they are less likely to view the falsehood as being morally incorrect. It is a very ‘Ends Justify Means’ sort of view of the world, and it is a subject we have a study recently published on.
The American Psychological Association has released a study (linked above) that covers what is, in essence, an ideological purity albi to telling a lie. If the lie is in service to ‘the cause’ you believe in, and that it serves the greater goals of ‘the cause’ to repeat the falsity, the lie isn’t viewed as dishonest or morally affrontory. At least not in the same way as a “regular” lie would be viewed.
What would constitute a “regular” lie?
It would be one that caused harm and perpetuated a falsehood that didn’t serve a morally ‘greater good’ in some manner, as identified by ideological preferences. An example would be promising to return borrowed money in a timely manner, not doing so, and having no intention of doing so. That would be seen as a harmful lie, and one that constitutes theft.
But as we add variables to the base scenario we can change how that lie is perceived by people, and that perception will shift predictably along ideological lines. Not the broad left and right necessarily, the deeper sympathies we hold.
Just ‘how wrong’ the lie is from a certain point of view can be changed. Within certain parameters the lie and the theft will be ‘justifiable’ to more and more people.
Remember the lie is confirmed a lie, there is no intention by our hypothetical borrower to pay back the funds despite agreeing to do so and promising to do so. This person has unequivocally stolen money from someone who lent them that money.
Suppose we go one step further and set an amount. The amount lent/stolen is $500. A not insignificant amount by most measures but also not world shattering for many people, even those on tighter budgets. The borrower has now stolen $500 from the lender.
But now let’s make the person who lent the money reasonably well off, $500 is 0.5% or less of their annual income, while it represents 2.5% of the borrower’s. A $100K+ earning lender to a $20,000 earning borrower. The borrower lied about borrowing and repaying, they have stolen the money.
But you (and I) very likely already have come up with several very reasonable situations in which a $20k earner who borrowed 2.5% of their annual income, $500, and being unable to pay it back afterward is little to no fault of their own. Sudden unexpected cost is the nightmare of anyone at any income level who is paycheck-to-paycheck. We then further justify it by how little $500 harms the lender comparatively to how much it helps the borrower. It is quite literally of 5x greater value to the borrower than the lender in this scenario.
Recall again, we have established the borrower lied and has stolenthemoney. However we set our base judgement very differently based on the totality of the circumstances as we see them, or in this case as we imagine they could be. Most of us are quick to visualize a scenario that makes the theft more okay. Not totally okay, but almost. We will still state it is wrong, but we understand and can sympathize.
Now, reverse the incomes.
A person who makes $20,000 lends $500 to a person who has an income of $100,000+. Try and find the moral justification for the borrower to steal the money. You can’t, not nearly as easily. The emotive response is much more negative towards the borrower and far more sympathetic to the lender.
The lie, and the theft, remain the same $500.
Last version of the exercise, increase both incomes by 10x. Now it’s $500 between someone who makes $200k and $1 million. At these levels we hardly care who lent it to who. Now we might wonder why they’re even bothering over it. It represents less than one day of effort for either party.
We would still say stealing $500 is wrong, but it feels very different talking about $500 between two people who both earn more than that a day than if one or the other person may earn that in two weeks. But the lie and the theft are the same $500.
We just easily manipulated a “regular” lie that could be universally stated as wrong, stealing $500 from somebody and lying about it is wrong, into three scenarios. One where the lender was very sympathetic and thus grievously wronged, one where the borrower was very sympathetic and thus should be excused the wrong, and one that neither party would be grievously harmed by the loss of the money.
Circumstantial Morality Scaling
People have fewer ‘absolutes’ than we like to think, or that we will claim. Most would state, in the raw, that stealing $500 from someone else and lying about that is wrong. Yes? Lying about returning money is wrong, and stealing it is wrong.
But by adding three very basic outlines to that situation we can drastically change how wrong it feels.
When the borrower is in an ostensibly weaker financial position, it may almost feel okay that they kept the money. At the very least sympathetically understable reasons that the money was kept could be contributing to why, reasons other than simple greed.
When the borrower is shown in the stronger financial position, the assumptions flip. The motive for the borrower lying and keeping the money is much more likely to be assumed as simple greed, not need. No morally better motive is likely to be ascribed.
When borrower and lender are both assumed to be well off, our interest in the theft at all tends to drift into why either party is concerned with the lie and the theft anymore.
But again, we confirmed at the start that the borrower islying and hasstolen the money.
Lies that ‘might’ eventually come true seem less unethical – APA
The American Psychological Association states,
People may be willing to condone statements they know to be false and even spread misinformation on social media if they believe those statements could become true in the future.
Whether the situation involves a politician making a controversial statement, a business stretching the truth in an advertisement or a job seeker lying about their professional skills on a resume, people who consider how a lie might become true subsequently think it is less unethical to tell because they judge the lie’s broader message (or “gist”) as truer. The study was published in APA’s Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
From the study:
Scholars have long argued that it is unethical to tell falsehoods (Aquinas, 1273; Harris, 2013; Kant, 1787; St. Augustine, 421). From as young as 4 years old, we recognize and condemn lies (Wimmer et al., 1984). Moreover, individuals and groups will incur significant costs to punish dishonesty (Boles et al., 2000; Brandts & Charness, 2003; Keck, 2014; Ohtsubo et al., 2010). Yet, people do not judge all falsehoods as equally wrong (Effron & Raj, 2020; Levine & Schweitzer, 2014; Rogers et al., 2017; Schweitzer & Hsee, 2002). For example, people are more willing to excuse lies that are told with benevolent intentions; people sometimes even judge benevolent lies as more ethical than truths (Levine & Schweitzer, 2014). Moreover, people feel less compunction about lying by omission rather than commission (Levine et al., 2018). Thus, just because people recognize a falsehood as such does not mean they will harshly condemn it.
Gun Controllers Feel Morally Justified in Their Lies
Why?
Because a Gun Controller passing a rule, even if they got their deceitfully, means they have done it to “saved lives” and have “stopped violence” through their actions. Those are both morally laudable goals, among the highest of morally laudable goals are the preservation of life and peace. We have law and religious texts both that continuously and vociferously espouse the virtues of life and peace. They are two core tenets of human civilizations, especially westernized ones.
For example, people are more willing to excuse lies that are told with benevolent intentions; people sometimes even judge benevolent lies as more ethical than truths (Levine & Schweitzer, 2014).
So saying there is no purpose for an “Assault Weapon” or a “Weapon of War” in the hands of civilians is a lie with benevolent intentions. It ignores all the lawful reasons and proper uses of AR’s and associated firearms and maligns the weapon category because the intention is benevolent. The intention being to save lives and keep the peace.
This is why Gun Controllers are so ‘stupid’ in their pursuit of their goals. This is why they ignore evidence they are wrong and that their policies are harmful. The benevolent intention is seen as more sacrosanct than the harsher and dirtier truth that free people can use that freedom to harm each other. Violence is always an option for action. It is not a ‘good’ option in nearly all cases, but it is always an available one.
People sometimes even judge benevolent lies as more ethical than truths
This is especially true in gun control. Because the truth is not pretty. The truth that violent people are largely free to act as they choose until somebody acts directly against them. The same is true for benevolent people and indifferent people, they are free to act. An otherwise benevolent or indifferent person can choose, at any time, to act violently too. Free will is terrifying when you think about it, everyone can do as the choose. Not without consequence, but they are free to act.
So the benevolent lie, “if it just saves one life.” is used to justify and morally white label gun control policy as good, regardless of actual efficacy.
We have all the data in the world that says our prohibitions do not prevent tragedy, regardless of how strict or loose we make them. The will and attitudes of the people determine how violent they are in general, not their access to a high capacity magazine. Setting policies up that restrict the whole population in a vague, nebulous, big-giant-net attempt to catch motivated violent outliers has failed in every venue we have tried it.
Usually the best result Gun Controllers can attempt to point at is, ‘see, nothing really bad happened while the policy was in place’ or the favored tactic of ‘less bad things happened when we measured it this way, so the policy is sound’ both of which usually ignore all negative policy effects and other societal stimuli that could have contributed to the positive outcome.
It is the same spurious logic that keeps someone using a terrible holster or carry method simply because, “It works for me.” The translation of that is, “Nothing bad has happened, as least that I must acknowledge, so therefore I am assuming what I am doing is good instead of dumb luck helping me. I have not critically considered this and picked out risks, benefits, and likelihoods.”
Risks, benefits, and likelihoods continue to be weakest point in Gun Controller logic, they instead rely on utopian thinking of 100% efficacy in their policies.
I am assuming that most, certainly not all, but most Gun Control advocates are the benevolent idiot (and thus the benevolent liar) because they genuinely want to do a good thing. They want to save lives and keep the peace, they are just unable to come to the terms of the difficult reality.
“Red flag Laws”, which allow police to seize the firearms of people accused of being at risk to misuse them, have been passed in 19 states. Do they do what proponents say they do? A recent study by Veronica Pear, PhD and Garen Wintemute, MD, and co-authors says the answer is clearly, “No”. It appeared as “Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law” on JAMA Network April 5.
In looking at California’s Red Flag law they used methods that are better than those of earlier similar studies. They focused especially on San Diego, whose city attorney was a strong proponent of Red Flag Law use and looked at what changed when California’s Red Flag law went into effect. Using data from hospital reports they studied injuries due to aggressive use of guns. They looked as well at self-harm using guns, again reviewing hospital reports.
Based on data from a number of California counties, trends through the years 2005-2015 were determined regarding aggressive use and self-harm. The authors wanted to see If adopting California’s Red Flag law was followed by a reduction in these incidents below the trends predating the law’s going into effect, which occurred in 2016. Examining 2016-2019 they found that neither aggressive use of firearms nor self-harm from gun use was reduced by the new law. In fact, they found that after the introduction of the law the number of acts of self-harm involving firearms exceeded the prediction, although this result was not statistically significant.
The authors say that their methods were more rigorous compared to others who have examined these questions. Another strength of their study was that itincluded injuries rather than just deaths. They emphasize that one factor in finding no change following the new law may be the availability of illegal guns: if the government takes away guns held legally, those who want to harm themselves or others may seek to obtain guns illegally.
Different states have adopted these laws under different labels, including: Extreme Risk Protection Orders, Extreme Risk Firearm Protection Orders, and Risk Protection Orders. Gun Violence Restraining Orders is the term used in California. “Red Flag Law” is a general term that encompasses all these.
Proponents stress their potential to prevent harm although, as this study by Pear and associates indicates, this is highly questionable. At the same time, the threats to Constitutional rights are minimized or ignored, which go beyond just threats to the Second Amendment. These threats include undercutting the right to due process. Is the person whose gun may be seized entitled to the presumption of innocence? What is the standard of proof – clear and convincing evidence? Or just a preponderance of the evidence? Is the subject entitled to legal representation? Shall rules for the admissibility of evidence be followed? Readers can no doubt think of other similar questions.
Strangely, if a Red Flag process leads to your losing your guns in Indiana, they may be destroyed! If you lose your driver’s license, is your car crushed? If you’re disbarred, are your law books burned?
Throughout their report Pear et al stress the shortcomings of laws in preventing violence, and with regard to aggression the authors pay little attention to the perpetrators.
The NRA has seemed to tread cautiously on Red Flag Laws. This may involve not wanting negative press regarding this issue to contaminate efforts to support the Second Amendment in other ways. The NRA has at least called attention to the due process issues, some of which are noted above.
The bottom line: There’s little to recommend Red Flag Laws. The findings of this study reinforce what gun owners have been saying all along. The surprise is that it comes from Wintemute’s group, which usually finds ways to endorse firearm restrictions.
.
.
—Thomas E. Gift, MD is a child and adolescent psychiatrist practicing in Rochester, New York, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Rochester Medical School, and a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
It’s a well known fact that the L85, the UK’s service bullpup, is not a well regarded rifle. It had a more fraught early adoption than the M16 and had unresolved problems for all of its A1 variant history, ending in 1994. The rifles then sat for about 6 years, still with a very poor reputation, until H&K set about fixing this with the A2 variant in the 2000’s.
The fixing and modernization would continue into 2007, 08, and 09 when the RIS systems and upgraded modular optic suites were added… a full decade behind the M16A4 with it’s rigid rail system and optics compatible suite.
So what are operators like the SAS to do?
Get an AR. Everyone else had them.
We can flip, and then back up and flop, over between a direct impingement gas system or a short stroke piston operated one, both are running strong here in 2022, but the AR is the king of rifles right now. Most major militaries and more special units are running an AR variant. M4A1, HK416, C7, C8, M16A4, or specialty variant thereof are all out there in the wild and doing good things as fighting rifles.
The UK went with the L119A1 which was a Colt Canada, formerly Diemaco, variant of the C8 rifle. Specifically the C8SFW which was essentially a 16.1″ barreled M4A1 variance. The A2, like the SOPMOD Block II and URGI, takes the things we have learned about making the AR run better and more accurately into account.
Ian has the scoop of this little known C8 variant. Hit play. Cloners, do your thing.
4.25″ BULL BARREL The shortened heavy-profile bull barrel is designed for maximum accuracy and concealability.
U-DOT™ SIGHT PICTURE The tritium and luminescent front sight of the Emissary pairs with a Tactical Rack U-Dot rear sight for easy target acquisition in all lighting conditions.
FLAT TOP SLIDE SERRATIONS 40 LPI flat top slide serrations diffuse light and reduce glare.
