If you click on that link, (I know you don’t want to, but it’s instructive) you’ll see that Minnesota and California are quite different when it comes to gun control laws, but remarkably similar in rates of gun homicide. If you change Minnesota to Maryland, however, you’ll find that the inverse is true. Almost exactly the same gun laws, yet half again as many gun deaths. Why is this relevant?
Well, if you’ve been watching the news recently amidst all the commotion surrounding the new “Assault Weapons” Ban bill, lots of legislators are touting California’s relatively low gun homicide rate as evidence that its draconian gun regulatory scheme works. A smorgasbord of soon-to-be-challenged in court restrictions on carry, ownership and manufacture of guns, as well as various scary features make California the forefront of legacy gun control, and the latest absurdities CA and others are cooking up in response to recent SCOTUS rulings.
Maryland shares borders with Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Viginia, where gun laws are much looser, which the anti-gun lobby often touts as explanatory, but California borders famously pro-gun Arizona, and Nevada -and hell even Oregon is a libertarian guntopia by comparison- and nobody seems to point that out for some reason.
Whatever the proffered explanations, the simplistic argument that “gun laws reduce gun deaths” is demonstrably false. You can find plenty of other counter-examples on Everytown’s own site, and if you find yourself in a discussion on the topic, The Other Guy is more likely to take such a source at face value, so use their data against them!
We aren’t proposing to know why CA, MN, and MD have such similar yet disparate rankings on this topic, but if one believed that gun laws predicted gun violence, this would be heavy evidence to the contrary. Correlation is not causation, no matter how much one might wish it were.
Three things are trending in LPVO development right now, smaller, lighter, and lower cost for quality. The PLXc is no exception. In fact it nicely illustrates the developmental momentum on nearly all fronts.
The Primary Arms Compact PLx, or PLX-C or PLXc, or however you’d like to place the letters, I like PLXc, so we shall proceed with that title. The PLXc is able to demonstrate a strong combination of current tech and lessons learned in the modern LPVO options suite.
The PA PLXc
The Compact PLx in a Reptilia AUS on the author’s M6IC-SPR, a very comfortable setup. Replacing the older 1-6 VCOG.
Unless you’re Trijicon selling to the Marine Corps, which makes sense, Marines are Marines, most other scope makers are engineering to match or exceed the feature sets we’ve had in optics past, but in increasingly less weighty scope bodies. Manufacturers have been increasingly able to improve on other quality aspects over previous iterations and not merely miniaturize. Glass is better, controls are smoother or better designed, and costs are down.
Truth be told, there is really only one thing “new” in the new scope, its size. It’s housing is more typical of what we’ve come to see from 1-4x and 1-6x scopes, but this is a 1-8 FFP in a highly quality well glassed 30mm tube, 24mm objective lens.
Unsurprisingly, the PLXc is offered with the Primary Arms ACSS reticle system. The ringed chevron with range and wind assist markings is cleanly done and doesn’t commit the cardinal sin many FFP reticles do, too thick and too busy. It’s just enough at 1x to snap on quick, assisted by the wide and crisp FOV, and it gives the shooter information without being in the way at higher magnification settings. Exactly what you want out of an LPVO FFP reticle.
It does all this at less than 10 inches long (9.28in) and less than 17oz. For comparison, the Trijicon SCO is 32oz. For a more direct comparison, if I run an Aimpoint CompM5s and magnifier (3x-c model to 6x only have 1 oz difference) on Scaralworks LEAP mounts I’m at about 23oz. I put the PLXc in a Scalarworks 30mm LEAP scope mount and I am at the exact same optical weight, with 8x top magnification, everything in between down to a clear and wide FOV 1x, and far more information I can draw from the reticle than a dot.
No, still not your red dot replacement
If you are seeking an RDS type solution with magnification, the PLXc is not it. That super bright aiming point is still something most FFP optics struggle with, it isn’t their place. Look at Second Focal Plane options and RDS+Magnifier combinations, they are both still excellent options.
Now, if you want/need the always scaled, cleanly reticled, precise, and quick front focal plane option for a balance of accuracy, distance capability, and rapid shot placement capability, the PLXc does these exceptionally well.
It boasts an admirable field of view, 121ft at 1x, for comparison the USMC SCO (VCOG, 1-8x) has 109.2ft. at 1x in its absolute unit of a housing.
Consider where your rifle is living, not its full range of capabilities, when considering an optic.
In many instances, military application for example, an FFP optic with ballistic reticle matching the ammunition (or a quick reference of holds for the milliradian or MOA grids) will help the troop increase their hit probability substantially. Their rifles routinely live out to 300 or 500 yards, with an optic like the PLXc everything within 600 yards is pretty well within reach on almost every conceivable rifle or carbine. An M16A4, MK12 SPR, or .308 16-20″ types could reach 800 yards without much difficulty and a proper round.
Adhering to the 1x per 100 yards rule, the PLXc is a strong GPR optical contender.
In contrast, if you are living within the 50 yard world and are setting the rifle up to be most efficient there, but with the ability to push range and observation, the PLXc can certainly do the job but might not be the best LPVO or optical choice. You are likely prioritizing the fastest sight picture you can achieve, and that gets easier with a bright center reticle.
Dots remain speedy sight picture kings with the ability to superimpose the bright red (or green) dot over center mass and manipulate the trigger.
The PLXc is still limited on the brightness, most FFP optics are. They have very little reticle to contrast against in the etched glass. However it is etched glass, and therefore a solid state reticle, and the contrast illumination on it is very good for etched glass. In the bright conditions where the illumination is starting to fade you don’t need it illuminated, and in dark conditions it has solid contrast. You can hit the dark target with white light.
If you want this optic and its admirable capability set, you can certainly make it do the work without too much grief. If you need to chase the shiny red dot like a cat, SFP for you.
Precision within the range envelope
Making precise shots within a given range, even a distance some would consider ‘close’ starting at about 50 yards, say in the 70-77 yards arena where the average police sniper shot distance is hovering, then the ACSS M8 reticle could be exceptionally useful to you.
ACSS M8 Yards
The chevron reticle type will forever remain one of my favorites for placing a precise shot. Dots are well and good for covering a point of aim and squeezing a quick shot off, but anyone who has tried to shoot with a dot and it ended up obscuring a large portion of the target after a certain distance can appreciate the fine aiming point that a chevron gives. The chevron is still easy to use as an occlude and shoot solution too, just like an RDS, as it is about 1 MOA thick, 3 MOA tall total, and about 6 MOA leg to leg.
I knew the actual dimensions, or saw them at some point, but I couldn’t find them while writing this. The short version is put the chevron on the target and squeeze the trigger if the chevron fits inside the target. Even a 6″ steel circle target should fit to 100 yards and a to-scale silhouette type to 300 yards.
The chevron also benefits from the fact it’s always to scale, illuminated or not. An overly bright dot can obscure a small target even when the dots projection size is small, 2 MOA being an industry standard, the occlusion may be effectively much larger than that. You can adjust, of course, but it’s consistency is one of the additional factors I live about the sight picture of a solid state reticle. The first factor being that the reticle is very clear and crisp with my astigmatic eyeballs
Offsetting factors
For trajectory estimates, starting close, the round will rise up to the bottom of the horseshoe of the reticle at about 10 yards, be between the legs on the chevron at around 40 yards, and be within the filled chevron body from about 60 yards until 200 yards, with 100 yards being the chevron tip itself. This is a rough assumption off an M193 type 55gr load, at above 3k fps muzzle velocity, and a 100 yard zero. Other rounds and zeros will change the trajectory, but doping good holds and doing the math on any load you want shouldn’t be hard to write up.
The 0-300’s on most rounds are going to be similar enough to make the BDC usable, you’ll notice increasing difference beyond that as velocity and BCs vary. The most notable change would be in using .300BLK or 7.62×39, as they have significantly lower muzzle velocities. Using an SBR will also steepen your fall off.
If you’re setting the rifle up for serious precision intent, map it out with your ammunition for more exact holds at distance. Don’t rely on an app, get real data.
Not a VCOG, doesn’t need to be.
Rifle beside truck tire, because reasons.
I’ve compared the PLXc to the VCOG SCO at a few points now because the VCOG represents a similar performance envelope with a vastly different constructive intent. The VCOG is built for extreme end durability, like the ACOG and Aimpoint CompM series are, weight savings are not a critical element if it compromises the optic durability parameters.
The PLXc occupies the tier below this extreme end. IPX7 is usually the emersion rating along with typical high rate recoil/shock hardening. Optics like the Razor II, Razor III, NX8, VUDU, and Tango6T all occupy this ‘durable’ category with the PLXc, and several of those have been adopted into military use.
Shorter underwater time limits and depths for the stand out differences from the VCOG. You could dive with a VCOG to 20 meters. With any of the other listed scopes you could safely cross a river with the water at chin height and the rifle under water but you’ll want to get out of the water in a timely fashion, IPX7 lists 30 minutes at 1 meter depth/pressure. The optic will not care about rain. The VCOG will have a higher absolute limit for crush damage and impact damage thanks to the tougher (and harder to machine) aluminum, but neither it or the optics in the tier beneath are going to care much if the rifle tips over, gets tripped and fallen on, or falls off a truck tailgate.
Let’s be real, we live in a fall in the mud, rifle falls off tailgate, trip and knock the gun around world. Not so much the swim out of a torpedo tube 20 meters down, infiltrating unspecified beach. We can appreciate the PLXc, Razor, NX8 type durability fully, the VCOG is a tad overbuilt and mission specific beyond our reality.
It doesn’t hurt that you can get two PLXc’s for the cost of a VCOG, it is more logistically friendly in that regard. If I am mapping a budget for say department patrol rifles in a northern (or southern) rural area with longer shots, potentially dangerous wildlife, and substellar weather I might have my rifle out in for several hours, the PLXc would fill that bill nicely.
Through the looking glass
The PLXc excels with that expansive field of view. Most LPVOs give you a notable tube effect looking through them at 1x, the PLXc has a very clean eyebox that has minimized this, once your diopter is set properly for your eye. I think the 30mm tube and the glass selection lend to this exceptionally nice disappearing act the scope body performs during use. I don’t know if the PLXc has the best FOV in the 1-8 sphere, but it beats the VCOG, NX8, ATACR, and S&B PM II Short Dot by various degrees.
At maximum magnification the eyebox narrows down, per usual, but is still clearly defined, you either have a clean and useable sight picture or you can’t see through the scope.
The reticle is useable through the entire magnification range, something that should be an obvious design intent but was often overlooked to focus on 1x, 8x, or both without much consideration to the middle. The PLXc suffers no such limitation.
Illumination, as noted above, remains the hardest limit on this scope. In a bright environment the chevron and horseshoe can contrast but they won’t shine. The contrast is excellent on the high settings in bright environments, it doesn’t get easily overwhelmed, but I wouldn’t call it daylight bright. Many early options, even from premium manufacturers, suffer from illumination overwhelm or the reticle bleed into the sight picture on high settings.
The PLXc suffers none of these, optical progress.
Click, click, boom
The Nightforce NX8 is likely the most comparable optic, as it is sitting in the same size, weight, and focal plane range. Even not too far off in price, being only $250 above the PLXc.
I would take either with no other options, but I prefer the PLXc for two reasons. The .1 MRAD adjustments on the PLXc compared to .2 MRAD on the NX8, I think FFP optics at 8x and 10x benefit from the finer adjustment, and the field of view.
While the NX8 is undeniably a finely built optic and there would be little reason to replace it if owned already, if I were picking a scope between the two I’d be most likely to pick the PLXc. It would arguably be a difficult choice against the ATACR now too.
Comparisons
I’ve done more comparing and contrasting in this review than I typically do for a firearm review. That is for two reasons.
First, the optic is going to provide additional function to a firearm where a firearm can stand alone.
Second, the field of LPVO optics is neatly stacked with excellent options so finding where this one fits into that is more a comparative search than saying if this optic is standalone reliable. Optics don’t stand alone.
The overlap between optic types in similar magnification ranges also causes some confusion on where an optic is designed to perform strongest. Like an M4A1 clone(ish) and a Mk12 are both AR-15’s, not dissimilar in size, but are built for very different jobs. Optics are the same way, even if they both say 1-8x.
Conclusion
The PLXc is benefitting from a solid decade of rapid LPVO development in the competitive commercial space. Primary Arms listened to the lessons learned by it and other optics companies as the mass market(s) figured out there requests.
The Leupold 1.1-8 CQBSS was one of the earliest examples and the PLXc is among the latest. The PLXc is shorter, lighter, with a better field of view, and 2.5 times less expensive than the Leupold, current day, for the same performance envelope. That’s a decade of development at work.
For someone looking for an optic to exploit full service rifle/carbine effective ranges or push into the DMR category, it should be on the consideration list. It could save you space, weight, and a bit of money while giving up nothing.
Making the decision to draw a gun on someone is a weighty one, with dramatic potential consequences, let alone actually pulling the trigger. There is, perhaps moreso now than ever, a sense of hesitancy in some armed citizens and police, given the last two years of court cases and media coverage surrounding both Officer Involved Shootings (OIS) and armed citizens exercising their first, and second amendment rights.
There is wisdom in the concept of serious contemplation of moral, personal, financial, and legal outcomes surrounding use of force. Nobody worth listening to would suggest that firing blindly at someone without a clear and articulable threat of death or grievous bodily harm. That would be indefensible on every level, and would make the shooter a criminal, and at best a wanton asshole.
If you’ve watched the news, or any of the videos posted by John Correia over at ASP, then you’ve seen someone hesitate to react appropriately to a lethal threat. Cops aren’t immune from this, (disclaimer: the video linked in the following text is upsetting to watch, as it is the final moments of a police officer)it’s not even a new phenomenon and besides the fear of being branded a murderer in the media, police recruiting is often scraping the bottom of the barrel nowadays. I don’t think anyone would argue that law enforcement training is TOO rigorous or in-depth, but calls to defund them, and the perception many have of them as being arbitrarily violent is not improving that situation: Presuming you are a decent person, if all you ever hear about police is how violent and sinister they are, will you be drawn to law enforcement as a career, or will violent, sinister people be the ones drawn to the profession?
Self-fulfilling prophesies aside, whether you are a cop, or an armed citizen, training more than the minimum is paramount to increase the odds that you can successfully defend yourself and others, not to mention your reputation and literal freedom. Going to jail after making the wrong call and unjustifiably shooting someone does you and your family no good.
Equally important though, and excellently analyzed by the venerable Force Science Institute in the article linked above, is the aforementioned hesitancy to go to guns. If you encounter a threat that meets the AIOJP standards for use of lethal force, waiting to see if it all turns out okay might end your life as quickly as a bad shoot could, but somewhat more permanently, and lot less figuratively.
The 0.83 seconds it takes to react to a deadly threat, assuming you’re 100% focused on it, and can see it coming, could literally be the rest of your life. Creating distance, achieving a positional advantage, and attempting to negotiate or de-escalate the situation can all be done with a hand on your gun, ready to draw (which can cut the time to first shot by up to a quarter), and it can also be done with that gun pressed out, sights on target. One might even argue that your attempts at negotiation would even be more effective this way.
Whoever you are, if you’re armed in your day-to-day life, it’s worth keeping all these things in mind, and integrating them into your training and solo practice. Instinctively moving to cover, giving commands, and creating distance will always put you in a better position than standing still, or having to think on the fly. Give FSI and their online resources a look, and see if you can integrate their suggestions into the work you put into going home alive every day.
The classic Saturday Night Special. I love that term, and much like assault weapon, it’s a nebulous term that morphs and shapes to mean whatever gun grabbers want it to. It’s been around for over a hundred years, with one of the first reported uses in a 1917 newspaper. Today we will look at some of the best and worst Saturday Night Specials and some of the famous options.
Defining the Saturday Night Special
What’s a Saturday Night Special? It depends on who you ask. Common sense says it’s a cheap gun, sometimes imported, that appeals to lower-income people who need the means to protect themselves. According to gun grabbers, it s a cheap gun used by criminals to harm others. Historically it’s been a class of weapons used by marginalized people.
The ‘68 GCA went as far as to try and block imports based on very silly points criteria. If your gun doesn’t meet the points criteria, it’s a Saturday Night Special and can’t be imported. I kept all of these definitions in mind when I wrote this article, which might make some of my choices surprising.
Rohm Revolvers
Rohm Revolvers take the top spot, arguably making them the worst Saturday Night Specials. These revolvers came in various calibers, including .38 Special. They were most popular in .22LR and .22 Short. These pot metal pistolas were some of the cheapest guns on the planet and were imported from Germany in the 1960s.
Post-war Germany was a different place, and not everything was an HK. The Rohm revolvers famously lost timing and often shaved lead until the frames cracked and the guns broke. Not exactly a high-quality firearm, but they sold for 13 bucks. What did you expect?
After the GCA passed, Rohm began shipping the parts of the gun to Miami to be built there, thus bypassing the law completely. You can stop the signal.
Raven MP-25
When I think of the phrase Saturday Night Special I can’t help but picture the Raven MP-25. The MP-25 was the first pistol I ever purchased, and I did so for a measly 60 bucks. The guy at the gun store was reluctant to even sell it. He warned me it was a piece of crap. The MP-25 is one of the most famous or infamous Ring of Fire guns.
Ring of Fire is a name given to a number of firearms companies, mainly Saturday Night Special producers, all situated close together in California. The Raven MP-25 is a simple blowback-operated firearm firing the famed 25 ACP cartridge. It’s got crappy sights, a frustrating safety, and a heel magazine release. Not exactly high-tech.
Since it was made in the United States, the GCA wasn’t an issue. Surprisingly the gun always worked for me. It went bang every time I pulled the trigger, and while that might have only been 150 times, I’m still impressed.
Jimenez JA-380
A gun I owned that barely went bang when I pulled the trigger was the Jimenez JA-380. It turns out pot metal guns don’t do well with .380 ACP cartridges. This was a gun I stumbled across on accident and was given to me when I helped a nice older lady move her couch. She didn’t want it and didn’t know how to get rid of it.
It appeared new in the box, and that box was cardboard but unexpectedly had foam cut for it. I got two mags with it, and after purchasing a box of .380 ACP, I see why she gave it away. I couldn’t get a single magazine worth of ammo to cycle through the gun. Tons of stovepipes to the point of frustration.
Eventually, the inside of the slide cracked, and the gun simply didn’t work. It took less than 100 rounds of 380 ACP to rip this thing to pieces. I gave it to a friend, and it’s currently a literal paperweight.
The American Bull-Dog
What the hell is an American Bull-dog? Well, I’m glad you asked. In the 1870s, the American Bull-dog offered those of a lower income level a revolver. These were inspired by the British Bull-dogs of the time. The American Bull-dog could be had for 3.31 in various calibers, including .38 S&W, .32 S&W, and .44 Webley. Keep in mind a Colt cost 20 dollars at the time.
These were compact revolvers and even had double-action triggers. What made these guns so cheap was a mix of shoddy work and the fact they used designs in which patents had expired long ago. Bull-dog eventually became a term applied to small revolvers in general, and multiple companies used it to advertise their cheap pistols.
These are the Saturday Night Special of their day, and they were targeted by early gun laws of States like Arkansas and Tennessee, which specifically banned any handgun that wasn’t an ‘Army or Navy’ model. This legislation specifically targeted poor people intending to disarm newly freed slaves.
Walther PPK
Adding the Walther PPK seems like sacrilege. It’s insane, crazy. How dare you include a fine specimen of Teutonic engineering to a list full of crappy guns! Hey, I’m with you. I don’t think the PPK is a Saturday Night Special. It’s a damn fine gun, but the GCA of 1968 thinks it’s a Saturday Night Special.
When the GCA of 68 passed and its point system went into effect, the PPK couldn’t pass muster. Its caliber and design are too small for the ATF to approve for import. While most of us just wanted to larp as Bond, the American government made that very difficult.
This led to the creation of the PPK/s, a slightly larger model that got just enough points to be allowed importation. Are the two guns really all that different? Well, no, but the ATF and Federal Government doesn’t care.
It’s Saturday Night Baby
The Saturday Night Special has always been a source of much controversy in the United States. Right now, the current scare tactics rely on the phrase assault weapon, but Saturday Night Special was the term before that. The Modern SNS might something like P80 Kits. Their tactics don’t change, and we need to keep fighting tooth and nail to preserve our rights and prevent and even overturn the GCA of 1968. Stay ready, my friends.
While dining at El Sombrero this evening I was surprised to see a Public Service Announcement on the TV displaying the character Smokey the Bear with the caption: “Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires”. I recall the impact that ad had on me as a child in my long-past and misspent youth. The PSA startled me because El Sombrero is 900 miles south of the Texas border. I wasn’t expecting to see him here. The shock piqued my inner adman.
It struck me that that message could be reframed as “Only You Can Prevent Gun Fire”. This statement could overlay any of the many heroic civilians who have stopped shooters in public places. Or, perhaps, a series of pictures of the latest civilians who have performed such public service.
What’s the effective idea here? Is it really a binary proposition? It is only the individual hiker or camper who can prevent a wildfire. It is not Forest Service smoke jumpers who parachute into the sound of crackling timber to fight fires in process.
In reality, with most problems of social concern, it is a combination of effort by professionals and lay(wo)men alike. In obstetrics, it’s the professional doctor or midwife who ensures the safest possible delivery. But the patient has as much as 9 months to line up these professional resources. With home fires, it’s the builder who bears initial responsibility for constructing the home to code. The homeowner maintains the premises as free of combustibles as possible and keeps fire extinguishers ready to use. Professional firefighters rush to the report of a 911 call.
Then what of assaults by firearms?
Public shootings are least like the obstetrics example. We don’t get months of notice that an attack is pending. We can’t really speak of “preventing” a public shooting in the same way as we can prevent a crisis in labor and delivery through proper prenatal care and case management on the delivery date. Professional public servants really can’t do much to prevent public shootings. Failure to recognize this simple fact is to divert our attention from effective mitigation.
We can look at public shootings from an analogy of emergency rooms and ambulance services. The emergency occurs. The ambulance is summoned and mitigates the damage as best they can on the street. Then the professionals in the ER do the best they can to save those who survive the ambulance ride. It’s the best they can do. Police can’t really do any better. Sometimes they can be pre-positioned for scheduled public events. But ambulances and ER doctors can’t be everywhere at once.
Perhaps the best example is that of the home fire. Builders can implement some preventative measures ubiquitously. Still, homeowners must maintain their premises as fire safe as possible. We keep and replenish fire extinguishers. It is us, the (civilian) homeowners who are “first responders” when fire breaks out, before professionals can reach the scene.
We have the data. Each gunshot homicide is investigated and documented in great detail. We understand the problem very well. What works? A good guy in blue who rushes to the sound of gunfire? Or the good-guy—irrespective of the color of his profession—who is already at the scene? How many must die as a consequence of our fetish for professional responders? When those professionals cannot reach the scene in seconds? Or when, upon arrival, fail to run to the sound of gunfire?
Only you, the good guy at the scene, can prevent gunfire.
.
.
— ‘MarkPA’ is trained in economics, and is a life-long gun owner, NRA Instructor and Massad Ayoob graduate. He is inspired by our inalienable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and holds that having the means to defend oneself and one’s community is vital to securing them.
CHICAGO, IL — A teenage security guard at Lollapalooza is accused of creating fake mass shooting threats to get out of work early, according to reports.
Prosecutors said Janya Williams, 18, sent her boss an anonymous text Friday threatening a mass shooting at the festival and claimed her sister had warned her of a mass shooting threat on Facebook, Block Club Chicago reported. Williams also created a fake Facebook page under a pseudonym, wrote a threatening post, and screenshotted it without publishing, authorities said.
Yeah… don’t do this. On the scale of bad ideas, this ranks legendary.
I don’t know what line of substance the good idea fairy snorted into their cranium to then whisper to Janya and say, “Hey, you know how you need to jet early from work… I have a plan. The secret ingredient is terroristic threats.”
Yes.
Terrorism.
This isn’t pulling the fire alarm (don’t do that either), most people who do this, and yes it is prevalent enough that there is a most who do this category, get charged with terrorism.
So maybe just tell your boss you need to leave. Or fake having COVID or the flu if you feel compelled to lie about it. Maybe avoid picking the media’s scariest external threat right now, the one where there are actual dead children thanks to the depraved predations of psycho losers. Avoid picking the thing that panics literally everyone. The flu is fine, nobody wants the flu but they aren’t going to stampede out of a public venue to get away from it and mobilize SWAT teams to hunt down a deranged killer that you made up to get off work before 2pm.
Or just leave. Like, JUST leave. You’re a voluntary hourly employee and the worst that can, at a rent-a-cop level, happen is usually you just don’t work there anymore.
Just say no to terrorism. Yes, made up terrorism too.
A post on the CAGuns subreddit recently illustrated that the wheels on the Hall of Justice in LA County could use some grease. According to the OP, it took what amounts to a year and most of a February to get a CHL approved in the most populous county in California.
The fact that it’s being issued at all may come as a surprise to many, but in what is now effectively (along with every other state in the country, thanks SCOTUS!) a shall-issue state, this is atrocious. Thankfully the recipient didn’t seem to be under immediate threat, but one can only imagine what it must be like to be the subject of stalking, harassment, or abuse in LA County. Attempting to protect yourself from a credible threat with more than a piece of paper and the honor system hopefully won’t always have a multi-month lead time, but this situation certainly doesn’t lend itself to the citizenry embracing abiding the law when it comes to self-defense.
As the impacts of the rollbacks on unconstitutional gun regulations shake out, we will likely see the gears start moving a little faster on things like this, even as state governments play fuck-fuck games with our rights, trying to end run the Supreme Court. All else being the same, state laws like CA, NJ, and NY’s heavy handed concealed carry regulations, and attempts to open up gunmakers to lawsuits for… well, making guns should die long, expensive deaths on the steps of the highest court in the land, but until then we can only hope for the best and harass our representatives to do the right thing.
You can’t point to a single cop show or action movie where the shoulder holster isn’t prominently displayed.
James Bond, Die Hard, Miami Vice, Last Man Standing, The Mummy, Bad Boys, Bullitt, Lethal Weapon, The Matrix, The Untouchables, Dirty Harry, the list goes on and on.
Despite it being an iconic “plain clothes” carry method, it’s been oft relegated to the preference of “fudds” in recent years. Why is that?
With the glut of appendix/inside the waistband options these days, it’s understandable that older carry methods would fall by the wayside, but is the shoulder holster obsolete, or just misunderstood?
[FYI: Appendix is no spring chicken of a carry method either.]
I’m inclined to say the latter, and here’s why.
I’ve been fortunate enough to fall under the tutelage of Darryl Bolke in the last couple of years, and he has seen fit to share with me not only some of his own personal experiences but conversations that he’s had with other industry experts as well.
So what was the death knell for shoulder holsters? In a word: square range training.
For institutional training (law enforcement), it’s far more challenging for a Rangemaster to operate a safe course of fire with a line of shoulder holsters than it is working off of duty belts. For competition, it’s virtually impossible for someone not to violate the 180 rule without some very intentional body positioning on the draw and holstering.
So they didn’t so much fall out of favor as they were forced out of favor, due to the existing administrative rule sets.
So was this an example of natural selection, or is the shoulder rig still viable?
From a purely concealment standpoint I do feel that there are better options that will allow you to hide a comparably sized gun without the wardrobe limitation. Hollywood has given us a false idea of just how easy it is to effectively conceal with a shoulder holster, mostly because it’s not actually in use unless it’s on display for the scene.
With that being said, if you look at the shoulder rig less as a concealment solution, and more as a “gentleman’s LBE*” as Jack Clemons called it, it suddenly becomes a bit more appealing.
Shoulder holsters make larger guns easier to live with, donning and doffing is simple, and the shoulder holster will always keep the gun in the same spot regardless of what you’re wearing (obviously keeping it hidden requires some wardrobe considerations).
If you look at where shoulder holsters were most commonplace, it was with investigators and bodyguards. Both roles have you seated for extended periods of time. Instances like that certainly benefit from bringing gear up off the beltline to make it more accessible (look at the GWOT trend of mounted combat arms troops attaching holsters to their body armor).
While I doubt I’d ever recommend one to someone as their first holster, I do still think there are circumstance where a shoulder holster could be an appropriate choice.
Have you ever noticed a big disconnect between Hollywood and the rest of the world? Surely you must have. They love to show guns in their films but are also against the right to keep and bear arms. That’s the most glaring example, but have you ever noticed how some guns get a ton of representation in moves, even though they were never nearly as successful as film and media want them to be? Today we are going to look at pop culture’s most overrated guns.
I mentioned film initially, but for this article, we’ll factor in film, TV, and video games. We will break down five guns that pop culture would have us believe are widely successful but, in reality, are nowhere near as common.
1. Desert Eagle
The Desert Eagle takes the number one spot because, holy crap, it is famous. The Desert Eagle is easily the king of pop culture guns. It has over 600 film credits alone and pops up in every video game, movie, and TV show where it fits. It’s often portrayed as a monstrously powerful pistol capable of stopping the biggest, baddest bad guys with a single shot. It’s gloriously overrated.
In reality, the Desert Eagle is a fine weapon if you want a magnum caliber automatic. It’s not a practical weapon for combat by any means with its hefty recoil, massive size, and limited magazine capacity. It’s okay for hunting but other than that, it’s a fun novelty. No self-respecting commando, soldier, secret agent, or criminal would use one as a fighting pistol.
2. SPAS-12
The SPAS-12 ruled the 80s and 90s in film and TV and still rules in video games. These distinctive shotguns graced films like Terminator, games like Counter-Strike, and even TV shows like the Walking Dead. You’d be hard-pressed to find a more distinctive shotgun than the SPAS-12. It’s a shotgun that’s convertible between semi-auto and pump-action, and depending on the media, it’s often portrayed as one or the other.
In reality, the SPAS-12 only looks good. It’s huge. Heavy, fragile, and unreliable. It needed heavy loads to function but also tended to break easily. Oh, and don’t forget that the safety would accidentally fire the weapon. Loading the gun was a pain, and it was expensive. There is a reason why the SPAS-12 never saw success. It makes me angry to see how overrated the gun is in video games when so many other awesome shotguns exist.
3. Glock 18
Handguns are great, but what if they were full auto! That clearly means they are better, and the Glock 18 is somehow one of the most prolific machine pistols in pop culture. What shooting game doesn’t have a Glock 18 these days? Movies like The Matrix and Skyfall make the gun seem like the ultimate handheld weapon.
In reality, the Glock 18 is quite rare and was a special firearm ordered by an elite anti-terrorism force decades ago. Other than that elite force and Saddam Hussein’s personal model, the Glock 18 isn’t a common gun. Standard Glocks can be converted to full auto, but those aren’t Glock 18s. In reality, machine pistols are absurdly difficult to control and not super useful. That being said, they are cool, and I see why they are constantly used in film and video games.
4. Remington/Buchmaster ACR
The Remington ACR evolved from the Magpul Masada and was set to take over the world. If you believe every mid-2000s movie, then it was certainly a success. It pops up in every Call of Duty and Battlefield game, and it’s in the Transformers flicks, Planet of the Apes, and even Batman vs. Superman. The most valuable thing about the ACR in these movies and video games is that it doesn’t look like an M4.
There is nothing wrong with the ACR design-wise (anymore? soon again, probably?). It’s reportedly a great rifle, but Remington and Bushmaster did what they always did during their twilight and messed up the launch. It was double the original stated MSRP, and the promised caliber conversions appeared (kinda) years after they were promised. Support waned, and Remington went bankrupt. While it’s an excellent gun, it’s seriously overrated in media. But like the G36 before it, it looked cool as hell on screen.
5. Kriss Vector
When you need a gun to arm your futuristic army, or you need a top-tier SMG for your video game, it’s likely going to be the Kriss Vector. This odd duck of gun design looks like it stepped out of 2099, but it’s been kicking around since 2006. It’s the futuristic choice of forces in the Divergent series, in the Maze Runner, and many more. Every tactical shooter features the Vector, which stands out exceptionally well.
Like the ACR, the Kriss Vector isn’t a bad gun. It hasn’t had more success in police and military forces because, by 2006, the arms world figured out how to make short carbines in 5.56 work. The Vector came about when SMGs were already taking a back seat. Although, it’s seemingly a popular PCC and braced pistol on the civilian market. It’s controls are kinda goofy too.
Blasting Away
Pop culture can influence the success of firearms. Dirty Harry helped sell thousands of Model 29s, and between Lethal Weapon and Die Hard, the Beretta 92 will never die. Hollywood and video games often choose guns for their look, not their function. That’s true of the Model 29 and the Beretta 92 series, but those also happen to be great guns.
Sometimes they get it right. Other times, the SPAS-12 gets more screen time than it could ever deserve. Without pop culture, most of these guns would be far from overrated and likely be little blips on the greater cultural zeitgeist, but now they’ll be preserved forever.
On this episode, the boys, minus Caleb, are reviewing the massive summer blockbuster hit, Top Gun Maverick.
DANGER ZONE
This was a fun episode. Jack and I loved this movie from the standpoint of… well… MOVIE making. We don’t care about the story elements that are less than realistic (there are many) we wanted unrealism used skillfully for story telling and Top Gun: Maverick does that insanely well.
The movie is fun.
The movie respects its protagonists. It tells a simple and fun story, we have good character arcs and when its time to go off the rails and have fun. We do that.
Not satisfied with having an entire federal branch of law enforcement dedicated to shooting dogs and knocking on your door to ask you to waive your 5th amendment rights, New Jersey has decided that in response to recent SCOTUS decisions, to generate their own gun-centric enforcement department. But this is no ordinary gun task-force, per acting AG Platkin’s press release, the Statewide Affirmative Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Office’s primary purpose, is to assist in “civil enforcement actions” against gun manufacturers for, well, making guns. Under a recent Public Nuisance law, which is similar to that passed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, gunmakers are open to prosecution by NJ if they “knowingly or recklessly contribute to a public nuisance in New Jersey through unlawful or unreasonable conduct, or that fail to maintain reasonable controls, relating to their sale, manufacturing, distribution, importing, or marketing of gun-related products”.
Sound vague and nebulous? That’s intentional. The recent spate of laws like this will likely wind up argued before the Supreme Court, but until then, it’s worth noting that, using only numbers from anti-gun websites guns aren’t dangerous. What do I mean? Well, consider that there were (per the gun violence archive) 19,411 non-suicide deaths by firearm in 2020, in a country of (at the time) 329.5 million.
Using these BBC numbers, we also see that there’s 1.25 guns per person in the US. We’ll pretend that’s the real number, and not a wildly low estimate for the sake of this exercise.
So that’s (329.5milx1.25) 407,375,000 guns in the country. And we’ll assume further, to make this number as favorable to the antis as possible, that each and every one of those deaths involved a unique firearm, despite that clearly being not the case. What do we get? Guns are used to maliciously/intentionally kill people at a rate of 1 in every ~20,368. And that’s the lowball, highly favorable for the anti-gunner’s argument number.
Some context: Using the same math,
-1 in every ~6,431 cars are used to kill someone.
-1 in every ~3,026 Swimming Pools kills someone.
-Stairwells kill about 12,000 people a year.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics, naturally, but when you see that stairwells are less than half as dangerous as “weapons of war”, it makes you think.
But somehow firearms manufacturers are an especially dangerous class of industry that’s responsible for criminal use of their products, apparently. I suppose it’ll be interesting to watch this move through the courts, but it would be nice if we could stop playing judicial games when legislative avenues are lawfully closed off.
I was a huge fan of Mythbusters as a kid. In fact, it was one of those shows my whole family enjoyed. I remember some gun episodes here and there, and recently I was looking to debunk the .50 BMG can kill you just by passing by you myth and stumbled across the episode where Mythubuysters debunked it. That made me think, what other episodes on guns did the Mythbusters do? That might be a fun article to write.
Holy crap, they did over two dozen featuring various firearms myths. I planned to list them all, but that’s just too many. So I went through and found the episodes that debunked some of the more common gun myths and did away with the more esoteric myths. I ditched episodes that tried to see if a sword could cut through a hot machine gun barrel to be a bit more grounded in my selections.
The Best Mythbusters Episodes for Gun Guys
Episode 216 – Fire In the Hole
One story to come out of World War 1 was that troops armed with hunting shotguns, specifically bird guns, were called to the front to knock grenades out of the air and even redirect them to the enemy. This myth became popular enough to make it into a few video games, but I’ve never seen it confirmed. The MythBusters teamed up a pro trap shooters and learned the ins and outs of hitting moving targets.
It turns out it’s possible, and the myth got a plausible score. They used a handgun, rifle, and pistol with grenades to show that each could hit the grenade and either cause it to explode or even disarm it in the case of the shotgun.
Episode 177 – Wheel of Mythfortune
This episode is not so much about debunking a myth, but the Mythbusters test a variety of handgun stances and techniques to see if one is more efficient than the other. Adam and Jamie arm up with a Colt Gold Cup National Match gun to test these theories.
Weaver From the Hip One Arm Gangster Style Akimbo Akimbo Crossed
Predictably the only two that worked were Weaver and single-hand shooting. Gangster style scored the lowest. This is unsurprising by anyone who has ever fired a weapon, but it was nice to see confirmed.
Episode 134 – Unarmed and Unharmed
A common movie myth states that a good guy can shoot the gun out of a bad guy’s hand without causing harm. I like the idea that somehow it’s possible, although impossible, with human skill levels. I don’t have to wonder because the Mythbusters busted it.
Adam and Jamie didn’t necessarily test the idea’s accuracy, but if a bullet’s kinetic force can knock it out of your hand. They tried three different positions, draw, shootout, and hostage, and in most of the situations, the simulated kinetic energy didn’t knock the gun out of their hands. They also figured that shrapnel and accuracy issues would make it essentially impossible.
Episode 121 – Thermite Vs.Ice
While the episode’s title sounds odd, a segment is dedicated to the Russian SKS and its pesky floating firing pin. The Mythbusters looked at a myth from Russia where Russian gangsters would drive around listening to loud music, and the vibration of their car stereos would cause the weapon to discharge due to its free-floating firing pin. This myth was busted, and they couldn’t cause the gun to fire with noise.
However, the next test saw the SKS being hit with the shockwave of an explosion. They placed several SKS rifles around a bomb and lit it off. One of the guns fired, making the myth plausible. It just needs a very strong shockwave.
Episode 112 – Coffin Punch
The Mythbusters decided to see what was bulletproof. Actually, the fans did, and Jamie and Adam took out eight items and shot them to figure out what could stop a bullet. The Mythbusters broke out the arsenal for this one, including a Glock 22, a SIG p239, an AK, an AR, and an 870.
They went out and shot the following to see if it’s bulletproof.
A Police Badge – Plausible when made from nickel An iPod – Busted by an AK 3 Pizzas in Boxes in a Warming Bag – Plausible with birdshot from a shotgun. Human Fat – Busted, and they used 16 inches of human-temp cow fat Human Muscle – Busted using 14 inches of cow muscle Cornstarch and Water – Busted after being shot with the Glock 22 Bathroom Tiles – Plausible with handguns and buckshot, but not slugs or 5.56 Belt Buckle – Plausible/Busted. The bullet penetrated each time, but they did have a police officer who had been shot in the belt buckle say the bullet went through the buckle but only bruised him.
Episdoe 189 – Hollywood Gunslingers
This episode works to debunk a ton of gun myths, and I can’t dive into all of them. Although the notable tests are how far a bullet can travel through water, can a bullet cause explosive decompression in a plane, and can a MAC-10 fire as it falls downstairs?
This is one of the best Mythbusters episodes, period, and it is probably their ultimate gun episode. It’s certainly worth a watch, and a few results surprised me.
You Get Six
You get six out of dozens of Mythbuster episodes where guns starred in the myths being busted. Still, that is only a fraction of the myths involving guns. I forgot how fun the show is, and it’s worth a watch even now in 2022. Some of the myths won’t surprise you, but others might. Check it out, and you might learn a thing or two.
Back at the beginning of June, I attended the Non-Permissive Environment/Counter Robbery class put on by Darryl Bolke of Hardwired Tactical, Cecil Burch of Immediate Action Combatives, and Chuck Haggard of Agile/Training & Consulting.
Given the nature of the class, I brought all my smallest guns to flush out any potential problems that could manifest.
Surprisingly, it wasn’t the 22 LR that gave me any issues, but my 32 ACP KelTec P32.
Now I’m sure nobody’s surprised that it was the KelTec that gave me issues, but you may be interested to know that it wasn’t a mechanical failure of the pistol, but an ammo-related malfunction: Rim lock.
For those unfamiliar, 32 ACP is a semi-rimmed cartridge (something uncommon in semi-auto pistols, for reasons that will soon become apparent), meaning that the lip of the extractor groove is slightly wider than the case diameter itself.
This matters because in a magazine-fed firearm that partial rim can create a shelf that’ll cause the top round in the magazine to hang up and not feed properly (rim lock).
When rim lock occurs, it’s not something that can be fixed with your typical immediate action (tap-rack-reassess). You either have to get the top round in the magazine clear, or you would have to replace it entirely with a fresh one. Given the nature of most civilian defensive encounters, neither of these are realistic propositions in the moment.
The better option would be to mitigate the risk altogether and stack the deck so that rim lock is less of a concern. How do you do that?
Chuck Haggard informed me that, as it turns out, not all 32 ACP casings are the same! Most Amerian-made 32 has a very angular profile at the rim, which creates a more pronounced shelf that’s more conducive to rim lock. European ammo (Chuck specifically called out the Fiocchi 74 grain full metal jacket) has a more beveled rim. This is preferable because that bevel creates a ramp that the top cartridge can skip over if it ends up behind the round beneath it. (Les Kismartoni is also fond of the Sellier & Belloit FMJ for the same reason)
Now some folks would say that the easiest fix for this would be to simply carry a .380 instead, but I will say that the 32 is far more shootable in these small pocket guns than .380.
Gear selection will always be a compromise. This isn’t intended to convince you to start carrying a .32 if you aren’t already, but if it’s part of your loadout, or if you’re considering one, this is information you should have before betting your life on one.
— House Judiciary Dems (@HouseJudiciary) July 29, 2022
Featured prominently in all the current AWB furor online, and in hearings, the House Democrats have done their best (which is impressive given how bad it is) to villainize “assault weapons”, in particular the AR-15. Despite credible rebuffs by their opponents, pointing out fun facts like “you’ve proposed banning the “Mini-14 tactical” receiver, but also whitelisted it with wood furniture, so is it to be banned or not?”, among the usual BS about foregrips and folding stocks and shoulder things that go up, they seem unperturbed by their ignorance, willful or genuine.
But hints at the willful aspects of their seeming inability to grasp that the function of an object is not determined by the crap you hang off of it are showing. The veneer of heroic action to stop a supposed epidemic of violence by criminalizing accessories is slipping, and in an absurdly obvious way: They went to a lot of trouble to point out how “high powered” and “deadly” the 5.56/.223 cartridge is, sharing testimonials and videos of what it can do to human tissue to generate support for their bill. There’s just one problem with that line of reasoning: the bill doesn’t ban cartridges at all.
So we’ve got coverage of what a horribly powerful and deadly thing the cartridge that’s too weak for deer hunting in many states is, and literally nothing to address it. Why do you think that might be? Here’s a few of our thoughts, lets see how they line up with your own:
-It pre-games a follow-up bill to do exactly that: ban intermediate cartridges. When they show everyone ballistic gel tests compared to the lowest mass service-pistol caliber there is in relation to a bill they know won’t pass (at least not if FPC has anything to say about it), they can point to republicans as blocking it, and being in favor of exploding children’s heads at your local mall, which will help with their base in November.
-It also pre-games a follow-up bill to regulate *actual* high-powered rifles. You can see some of this in their breathless squawking about the new SIG Spear, which while not a .338 Lapua, is a step up from the 5.56 they’re currently pissing themselves over, but the logical conclusion of “5.56 shreds bone and organs” is “.30-06 is a deadly sniper cartridge only suitable for assassination”. We’ve seen attempts at this in previous decades, and not just for .50BMG rifles either.
-They genuinely don’t care if their argument is incongruous, they are virtue signaling, and attempting to vilify the most popular semi-automatic rifles in the country, which by definition of being “in common use” are protected by the 2A. They know this, and are attempting to circumvent it with an appeal to emotion.
Whatever their rationale, it’s clearly rallying their base, who don’t know any better, or don’t care. Either way, even as this bill stands little-to-no chance of making it to the president’s desk, they’re putting in work, and so should we all, to stop them. Contact your legislators regularly, and let them know how you feel about such tactics, bills, and bullshit. The thing stopping the “90% of Americans support universal background checks/gun bans/whatever” line is all of us proving them wrong with out calls, emails, and letters. Keep it up.
There is plenty of controversy out there in regards to night sights, their uses, are they necessary, and their general tactical considerations. I’m not here to touch on tactics but on history. I think I might have found a very early example of two things for handguns. First, night sights. Second, an electronic sighting system. A company called L-Tronic made some very interesting sighting arrangements.
Typically night sights and electronic sighting systems are two different things. These days night sights are commonly powered by tritium. Electronic sights are red dots or aiming lasers. Either way, they are totally different, but in 1978 we had electronic night sights.
L-Tronic – Early Night Sights
L-Tronic seems to have been a one-man show run by a gentleman name Cap Cresap. I can’t find much info on the man. A few references to him in his hometown and something about artillery. They are either the same man or share the same name in the same California town. His night sight system was rather clever, especially for the time.
He implanted light emitting diodes, LEDs, into the front and rear sight of your firearm. The front sight were to be trimmed and an undercut exposed where the light was placed and held there with epoxy.
The rear sight got the same treatment with the LED placed in the middle of the rear sight. The front LED would be red, and the rear would be green. Supposedly with a proper sight alignment, the sights would combine light and become yellow.
The LEDs would spring to life, and the shooter could then align the front with the rear and aim their weapon in low light conditions. Obviously, that meant wires and early L-Tronic night sight installations could only be done on revolvers with a vent rib. The rib was seemingly used to hide the wires. A writer named Jerry Ahern described the wires as being impossible to find, and invisible to the naked eye.
How The Sausage Is Made
Cap Cresap installed the LEDs and wires necessary to connect them to a battery. The wires ran into the grip of your revolver, which was hollowed out to accommodate a rechargeable battery, although they later switched to disposable hearing aid batteries.
A button was installed as part of your grips on the off-hand grip. This allowed the middle finger to activate the L-Tronic night sights with a natural firing grip. The batteries would last for six hours of continuous use.
The glowing LED apparently could not be seen by anyone in front of the gun. I imagine at the time, and these dots didn’t glow exceptionally bright anyway. They likely would be useless as a daylight sight. That being said, if they failed, you still had your regular sights to rely on.
What Happened to L-Tronics
There were big plans. Apparently, Cap was working on night sights for M1911s and shotguns. He had figured out how to install his LEDs on a Mini 14 and M16 front sight. Apparently, they were going to use smaller, brighter LEDs and swap wires for printed circuit boards in the future.
According to L-Tronic they had several law enforcement agencies test the sights. The Phoenix PD reported that they increased hit rates by 400% in low light. The LAPD approved the use of L-Tronic sights for personal and duty weapons in 1974. Even the Secret Service tested them and found them satisfactory.
The only information I’ve ever found on this setup comes from a 1978 issue of Soldier of Fortune. I saw Cap’s name referenced by a paper written in 1976 called Proactive Weaponry Planning: A Systemic Policy Formulation Model for Law Enforcement Agencies in reference to shooting in low light, but no other information.
Other than that, the company dropped off the face of the world, at least as far as weapon design goes. A company called L-Tronics existed in Santa Barbara, and they produced electronics for signal detection for search and rescue.
The L-Tronic Night Sights came and went seemingly fairly fast. It was a neat idea, especially for the 1970s. Sure, it’s all about red dots these days, but this was an unusual solution to an interesting problem.
