It is easy to see why the PDW, the Personal Defense Weapon, has become such a mainstay in the modern gun owner’s lineup. That weapon type is exactly the system some looking for an effective protective system would be considering.
Small for mobility.
Easy to use.
Controllable recoil.
More accurate than a handgun with greater effective range.
9-Hole goes over the 4 identifiable types of PDW, from the rear echelon weapon the the M1 carbine and M4 carbine were originally designed to be, to the compact hybrid type weapons of the MP7 and P90, to the Pistol Caliber Carbine/Sub Guns, to the modern rifle caliber micro platforms like the AK74su and MK18.
In reality, a modern 16″ carbine (using the loose definition of 16 that can include unmodified barrels to pin and welds) will fulfill the role of homestead rifle very nicely. I love 13″-14.5″ barreled guns in rifle calibers, it’s a happy middle ground. But there are still places where the super shorties, the pistol calibers, and the oddballs live 5.7x28mm have a strong niche.
The PDW is designed to be the most portable of CQB carbines. For fighting at traditional pistol distances and a little beyond, it is the both highly portable, more concealable, and convenient for those using them.
Now there are different types of PDW’s, these types are based on the priority of the design. The M1 Carbine, for example, was a rear echelon firearm, as was the P90 design. The MP7 is designed to fill the gap between a holstered sidearm and a slung carbine by operating in both roles, the Flux Defense designs are in that same use theory also.
PDW is a broad category that is outside a traditional fighting rifle. A Traditional fighting rifle is an overt weapon system for combat arms troops. The PDW covers a spectrum of specialized roles where there is a clear priority in addition to effectiveness in a fight, usually concealability, portability, or both. These weapons are also specifically designed to be used in the defense role. Responding to an attack against troops behind the line, an attack on a VIP, an assault against a small low-profile security element, an attack against undercover officers, use by officers or troops who cannot transport a larger rifle like those on a bike, atv, or jet-ski, or use in a limited space environment like inside a house or vehicle.
PDW’s can be used offensively by troops, however their design elements focus on reactive actions. The MK18, for example, is a design for making a compact useable suppressed carbine shorter than the M4, it can be used for covert offense or defense. It could also be used for compact defense with modifications like the LAW folder. It isn’t limited to the PDW designation but can very much fill the role.
Ultimately that is what PDW is, a role and not a weapon. The 20″ M16 like rifle you have for home defense is a PDW if used in the role, is it ideal? Perhaps and perhaps not, but it is pressed into the role. The X95 Carbine is one of my preferred PDW’s, but it is a regular service rifle with the IDF. In the US it is an SBR, but so is the M4/M4A1 another preferred PDW. For the role of travel GAT I usually use a CZ Scorpion EVO3 or an XCR as the both fit nicely in a bag. Those are more traditionally fitting the role of PDW in the convenience and discretion of transport elements.
Ultimately, PDW’s broad definition could clash with the specified jobs of a specific firearm within a specific agency, element, or personal owner. It could be a PDW+, more than just a PDW.
So what is a PDW?
In short, a carbine type firearm larger than a traditional sidearm intended for a defensive role, protecting persons or property, that has been optimized for portability, concealment, or both.
Opening Day of deer archery season 2021 has been accomplished – I was there and participated! Which in itself is a victory of sorts given all the “barriers” I have written about over the past month or two. My tag is yet to be filled but it was only day one and I still have high hopes for success this season.
My new Ten Point Havoc RS440.
My first “day” of the season actually started the night before when I had the conundrum of deciding whether to pay $150 for a hotel room in the area for the six hours of sleep I’d get til I got up there. I also briefly entertained the idea of just driving straight to the property and sleeping in the car. But in the end my exhaustion from the work week overcame me and I just went to bed at 7pm with an alarm set for 2 AM.
The part I HATE about deer hunting.
That alarm came way too soon, but I was out of bed and out the door to the car by 3AM. It reminded me of residency (ugh – flashbacks). The drive was cool and foggy and that, combined with a couple bathroom stops (because my confused body didn’t know what time it was) conspired to make my arrival later than planned. But I still had my butt in the blind by 6AM for a shooting time start of 6:47.
Me, with headlamp lighting the way to my blind.
At about 7:04 I saw my only deer of the day. It was even a buck. I had heard some blowing earlier when it was still dark, so that might have been him. He was at about 40 yards, so nice crossbow range, but even with the scope I couldn’t be absolutely positive that he had the required three points on one side (mandatory state antler restrictions – ugh). I looked and looked but just couldn’t be sure, so I let him walk. He disappeared shortly afterwards, not to be heard from again.
I was actually surprised I saw him. I’ve seen mostly doe on cam, and that was what I was prepared to take – freezer filler, not trophy antlers. But I didn’t see a single doe. Oh well, it’s not even really the rut yet, so things are just getting started. Still, I was glad to have at least seen SOMEthing. That keeps my spirits up until next time.
Somewhere about three hours later when I had put down the crossbow and poured myself a cup of thermos hot tea (temps were still in the 40’s), I heard leaf rustling.
I quickly abandoned the tea and quietly scrambled to get back in position. I couldn’t see well enough out the partially unzipped side window (The trade-off of multidirectional vision vs scent control), so I just waited and listened.
I decided that it sounded too big to be a squirrel and I was getting excited – but then I heard the purrs and clucks and saw a flock of turkeys to my right, ambling their way through my field of vision. I’d seen them on cam before, but it was still fun to see them in person – even if they weren’t a deer.
After a snack and a doze in my comfy seat, and another alert hour until noon, I decided to pack it in. I figured nothing would be moving again until twilight, and that wouldn’t be for six more hours, with shooting times ending a bit after 7pm. Even with a book and my phone I was getting bored and cranky with my body still not knowing what time it was, so I gathered up my gear and hiked back up to the car.
That is another thing that I just don’t understand about the damn ATVers (which I saw more of on cam after I left – Grrrr). They seem to think they’re such hot shit on those stupid things, but I was in and out of those gas roads with my standard issue Subaru. If a semi-old lady female pediatrician in a soccer mom car can do it – what makes YOU so coolio? LOL *sigh*.
I didn’t stay until twilight. I had originally planned to, but after I moved a different cam around on a different area of the property and ate some late lunch the malaise set in. I realized that even if I didn’t shoot anything it would still be 10PM til I got home (after leaving home at 3AM). And if I “did” get a deer, gawd knows how long it would take to find it in the dark (even if I called in the local guys I know), gut it, transport it to the processor, and get home. My exhaustion won and I drove home mid afternoon instead of staying til the bitter end.
Even so, fatigue notwithstanding, I’ve at least gotten a taste of the season now. To me it was a victory just doing what I did and I can hardly wait until next weekend to try again!
But that is simply physics, since all firearms are lethally dangerous.
Reality shows that the dangerous weapons are the ones of convenience and concealability… again… and still… and will forever be.
An individual firearm’s lethality, since every single one of them from a .22 Short to a .50BMG can kill with a single round, is not a tremendous concern when it comes to it being chosen for a criminal act. The convenience of using it and the convenience of acquiring it are far larger concerns when it comes to selection.
Unlike the US Military, a police force, or even a discerning buyer with a requirements list carefully discerned from asking good questions online or from the learned folk, a criminal who thrives on acts of opportunity will also use weapons of opportunity. This makes the easiest weapons those that are cheap, available, concealable since what they are doing will certainly bother somebody else, and convenient. Sometimes larger weapons enter the stream from sources like theft, other times straw purchases or other methods of supply make them available to the criminal class. But these sources are trickles compared to the stream of convenient inexpensive handguns in the used/surplus market and theft markets. Convenience
However, by and large the criminal class won’t know a Daniel Defense from Daniel Day Lewis. Unless it was the item of convenience, they have no basis to know. Even if it was an item of convenience they rarely care enough to be discerning. Convenient and deniable far outstrip traits like extreme round count between failures, accuracy, or an over the beach test.
So, rifles and shotguns are inconvenient due to size and cost. This makes them unlikely to be used in criminal acts, not impossible. This also means when used they tend to be unopposed by similar firepower until they run into military, law enforcement, or a prepared citizen resistance. Someone shoots and is shot back at by a handgun because the convenience factor overshadows all other considerations for both the law abiding and the criminal.
This really is simple. The AR-15 isn’t that dangerous in the grand scheme because it is inconvenient to use for most criminal purposes. The only purpose it isn’t inconvenient for are ones so high on the risk scale that the particular firearm used doesn’t matter because the mass slaying of people follows a predictable arc too.
The attack happens, casualties happen, after the initial casualties occur and the remainder have fled the area the shooter either kills themselves, encounters lethally armed resistance, surrenders, or attempts to flee. The firearm does not make nearly so much a difference to the situation as the force differential. The attacker possess and is using lethal force indiscriminately or with little discrimination while the victims of the attack are reacting and unlikely to be able to match the return force. This is where things like concealed carry by off-duty officers and citizens make a significant difference as the time to a matching response and return of force is significantly shorter.
We see the same disparity of force in situations that don’t involve firearms if the victims cannot flee the method of injury. The arson in Japan at the studio that killed 36 is a direct example. Deliberate indiscriminate or wide target force against an unprepared victim set results in mass casualties. Since nobody ‘expects’ to be attacked every moment of every day (minus, perhaps, the hyper paranoid who take very odd measures to counter it) these attacks often result in casualties regardless of any policies in place to prevent or mitigate violence. Violence on this level triggers a reactionary response, not a prepared one. This isn’t a platoon of infantry expecting the enemy to advance into their line, it is an office, a bar, a restaurant, or other public space where violence is not an expected norm. Instead it is a notional possibility and that notion trends towards lesser forms of violence from disgruntled or irrate individuals. A bar is more likely to deal with a belligerent drunk swinging on someone that needs to be tossed on their face at the door than a mass casualty attack. Both are possibilities, but one is a regular occurrence more than likely while the second is thankfully rare.
Mike ‘Garand Flanel Daddy THE Thumb Haleysan’ Jones has another video out. This time covering the 40mm LV at short range.
For those of you unaware, the munitions designed in the US for our troops have a lot of thought put into them. I mean a lot of thought. One of those things is a minimum safe arming distance for the low velocity 40mm grenades launched out of the under barrel grenade launcher.
There are also safe arming distances for high velocity 40mm, it’s the same process using the rifling to achieve a lock of the safety that works as the projectile is spinning through the air. The rifling and the velocity deactivate the internal safeties with centrifugal force. It’s very clever actually and one of the ways we use energy in the munitions that was otherwise doing nothing to achieve an additional positive result.
Here, Garand Thumb is showing the still significant impact of an unarmed 40mm. It is still dangerous, that is still a high explosive, but the safety only connects and arms the explosive after 14-28m. Kinda like a 4 second grenade fuse is 4 seconds-ish the distance is relative and based on the grenade overcoming the physical properties on a generalized basis.
So, will a 40mm mess you up? Absolutely, but since we don’t want a negligently fired grenade to take out troops en masse or one fired that the tube didn’t clear a close obstacle, the arming safeties are in place. This isn’t true in many foreign munitions.
Many munitions in other less developed nations, or developed in parts of the world that supply other parts of the world that aren’t… shall we say… the friendliest? Those munitions are generally only built to do one thing, work when activated. The safety of the users is secondary if brought into consideration at all. Russian munitions often have safeties as well, but many are more mundane and rely on the user to not be a total incompetent. With mixed results.
The professional military mindset that evolved from WWII through modern day has emphasis on safety because troop safety is a direct part of logistical readiness to win the war. It is, ultimately, a selfish consideration because keeping your manpower safe (within reason, troops in war get shot at and stuff) is the most efficient way to keep soldiers soldiering.
I think we get wrapped up in the mystique of the hype of surrounding a new(er) platform and when we see positive data it compounds into a spiral of legend.
The same can be said if we see or hear about bad data first, it makes an initial negative association. A perfect example come with the M16.
The US Air Force’s use of the M16 (Colt AR-15) was very positive. But the wider trial, the one that got reported on and disseminated second hand, was the US Army’s. That one went bad because the Army made some very dumb mistakes (some believe it was on purpose too in order to sabotage the M16) with failures. If true, those higher ups are responsible for the blood and death caused as a result of them fucking up the M16 with stupid decisions during mass procurement.
Anyway, compare that to the M1 Garand’s procurement that went very well overall (the M1 in 30.0 was actually the more problematic one, but it still ran) and the Garand’s competition was out matched in firerate by 5 to 6 times. The Garand was a clear dominance in the 1930’s and 1940’s while the M16’s jacked up procurement made it look inferior to the AK’s and SKS rifles that were running.
In this video, Dorgan Trostel (Burris Pro Shooter and PRS Champion), discusses how to acquire targets faster for NRL, PRS, and NRL22. Specifically, how to build your shooting position by establishing natural point of aim, using bone support, and developing breathing control.
Dorgan will walk you through each step then tests his training against a know your limits rack at 100 yards with a cross-wind shooting from an unsteady 55 gallon barrel rest.
To learn more about the entire line of Burris Optics please visit: www.burrisoptics.com
Burris Optics, based in Greeley, Colorado, has been an optics innovation leader for nearly 50 years. The company produced its first optics in 1972 and was the originator of the ballistic plex design employed by every hunting optics manufacturer since. Every optic produced by Burris is designed, engineered, and tested in our Greeley, CO facility.
The polymer platform that broke the mold is now built around the all new META™ trigger for the ultimate performance in a striker-fired firearm. Further enhanced with removable magwell, increased capacity of 22+1 (20+1 with short magwell models) and improved slide serrations, the new XD-M® Elite represents the pinnacle of full-size, polymer-framed pistol design.
It’s time for Part 2! What’s the most overrated gun of all time? Is it the Luger? Is it the S&W Model 29? Is it (insert name of your favorite gun here)? Who knows? Keith and Caleb know, and it’s time for them to talk about it, so make sure to tune in.
Let’s just have some fun with 9-Hole Reviews and their videos. No politics today or anything like that. I’m tired.
In the news, Smith & Wesson said, “We’re going to Tennessee!” and is up and moving. That is a move that has been rumored for a couple weeks in hiring circles but it has now been confirmed they’re moving inland.
For those who haven’t followed the project, I have commented upon it often enough here.
This project by Brandon Herrera has been one of the most transparent looks into product prototyping by a small company that we have been brought along on the ride for. If you ever wonder what companies like Robinson Armament or Serbu went through to produce firearms that aren’t just reproductions of current designs, perhaps with small variances, and aren’t backed by a major international name like FN, Colt, H&K, or Sig Sauer, then this is the look.
The development is actually a slogfest of making all these parts actually work together correctly AND be able to produce them consistently, economically, and durably enough to make the production work. They also have to assembled by a team that didn’t design the thing and tested by people who didn’t have a direct hand in the original design too. It is a massive undertaking of bringing theory into practical performance.
Making a working firearm is a massive undertaking, pun absolutely intended for the .50, it is not simply a CAD file and go.
[Ed: This is essentially the talk Dr. Young provided for the annual Gun Rights Policy Conference (hosted online by the Second Amendment Foundation) and the Defending Freedom Action Summit (held by the Second Amendment Institute in Richmond). Edited for written clarity.]
DRGO is a nationwide organization of health care professionals and supporters who value honesty and human rights. Our leadership includes Drs. Arthur Przebinda (Project Director), John Edeen (Membership Director), Sean Brodale (Outreach Director), Dennis Petrocelli (Forensics) and Kevin Zhang (Online Manager). Our Second Amendment activities are all volunteer, as we are all full-time practitioners. We are the doctors who know guns.
For 27 years now, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership has been fighting the politicization of gun policy by know-it-alls in our profession. We base our positions on and educate others using the best data-driven science available, which consistently supports the benefit to public health of American citizens exercising their Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
We view our educational mission very broadly:
We have provided policy background and amicus briefs in major cases like Emerson (1999), Heller (2008), Peruta (2014) and Wollschlaeger (2011).
We publish position papers by our experts on issues such as easing access to suppressors, electronic medical records, and emergency protection orders.
We have testified before national and state legislatures across the country and share our expertise with other activists.
We advocate for your Second Amendment rights in written, broadcast and online media (Fox News, CBS News, National Review, The Washington Examiner and many others).
We host a web blog, publishing new content regularly, and maintain a vigorous social media presence on Facebook and Twitter (so far!).
We strongly object to the notion that doctors have any right to ask patients routinely about gun ownership—that’s an ethical violation, and constitutes malpractice if it leads to harm. We run a service at 2Adoc.com [spell] to connect gun owners to medical providers who support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. (Talking guns with them is usually a pleasure, though optional).
So let’s turn to DRGO’s main, driving issue:
The medical profession at large thinks it knows everything about everything, from Gender Identity to Firearm Safety and now on to Climate Change, all in the name of Public Health. Their problem is they don’t know what they don’t know. Learning how to diagnose & treat illnesses and do surgery qualifies us only in those areas.
Public health interventions have been very important in preventing infectious disease in populations. Such authentic Public Health work has led to far more healthy lives and fewer early deaths than any other human endeavor. Alongside this, developing medical treatments and preventive interventions have saved millions more lives.
So why do doctors want to veer from this ancient, honorable lane?
We don’t. Very few physicians want anything to do with the political goals of their professional organizations. That’s why the American Medical Association now represents less than 20% of American physicians, down from 80% some 50 years ago, when men were men, women were women, and doctors were doctors.
But that leadership has become progressively more . . . “progressive”, as private practice has been mostly replaced by institutionally owned medical practices & physicians having to meet insurance demands to get paid. These pressure providers to meet the agendas of those organizations, not just to do what is best for their patients.
And that, my friends, is the socialist, “progressive” approach of modern medicine.
This goes back a long way. A top official at the Centers for Disease Control in 1989 announced they were “going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.”
The head of the CDC in the 1990’s, Mark Rosenberg, said that guns need to be seen as “dirty, deadly—and banned” just like the activism against cigarettes.
He sought [Q] “a long-term campaign, similar to [those for] tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are . . . a public health menace.” Of course, firearms, like automobiles, used as intended harm no one, though cigarettes certainly do.
Leaders of other specialty groups piled on:
“Guns are a virus that must be eradicated.”
“Data on risks are not needed, because [guns] have no redeeming social value.”
“I hate guns. . . If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered and all other guns . . . banned.”
The first salvo came in 1993 from Arthur Kellerman and Frederick Rivara, both gun control proponents. Their research, underwritten by the CDC and using questionable statistical methods, claimed that a gun in the home increased residents’ chances of being murdered by 270%!
This is still widely quoted (and even exaggerated) and is a primary example of the contortions that anti-gun researchers employ to scare people. This group looked at homicides in households from only 4 urban counties nationwide then suffering high rates of violent crime. They assessed the presence of guns in the household after the fact, often based only on neighbors’ suspicions, and did not distinguish between guns that were legally owned, illegally possessed, or just left at crime scenes. Not one of the identified firearms could be proven to have been a murder weapon. This is the kind of rubbish that anti-gun studies keep producing.
In 1994, DRGO’s founder, Dr. Timothy Wheeler, testified with other experts before the House Appropriations Subcommittee responsible for funding the CDC. The result was the Dickey Amendment that forbids, not research, but the use of government funding to advocate for gun control, which the CDC was doing.
In 1995, Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz published their seminal paper showing that American gun owners used firearms in self-defense as many as 2.4 million times a year. In 2018, Kleck published a follow-up, having discovered that following his original study, the CDC had surveyed people on the same question in 1996, 1997 & 1998. Along with many other surveys since, the CDC’s confirmed Kleck & Gertz’ original findings. The 2021 National Firearms Survey found nearly 1.7 million episodes of defensive gun uses reported by nearly 1/3 of gun owners.
Oh, and by the way: the CDC never published their findings. One wonders, not too hard, why.
The same cast of characters is still at it. In 2019, Rosenberg was still calling “to appropriate funding for the CDC to restart its gun violence research program.” And Rivara is still churning out anti-gun papers.
Now, current CDC Director Rochelle Walensky wants to fund more gun-related research. She says she’s “not here about gun control. I’m here about preventing gun violence and gun death.” Allowing for her vocabulary mistakes, we certainly hope so. But while she claims she wants to work with gun owners & organizations, none of us have heard from her. Given the CDC’s history; its confusing, frequently contradictory advice about COVID management; and even claiming the power to stop evictions as a “public health” measure, expect this messaging to change capriciously.
Many of us recall the “assault weapon ban” of 1994-2004. Since then, the DoJ’s Justice Institute, the FBI, the National Academy of Sciences, the liberal Rand Institute and others have concluded there was no good evidence that it had decreased suicide, accidental shootings, mass shootings or violent crime one iota. Yet the civilian disarmament complex wants to ban them again.
In 2014 & 2015, studies from pro-control Daniel Webster & the Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg Center for Gun Policy & Research claimed that after Missouri ended universal background checks and became a shall-issue state, “gun homicides” increased. They also claimed that when Connecticut instituted universal background checks and became a may-issue state, “gun homicides” dropped.
That was all true.
But their own data also showed that “gun homicides” in Missouri had already been increasing, then did so at a slower rate following the change. Similarly, Connecticut’s “gun homicides” were already dropping, but did so more slowly than before its change.
Deceptive, manipulated, distorted—and not scientifically valid.
But several years ago, the truth came out.
In 2018, a surprising result kiboshed the notion that background checks reduce violence. From the University of California-Davis, ordinarily anti-gun Garen Wintemute’s group reviewed decades of California’s comprehensive background checks, the most rigorous in the nation, and found they had NO effect on rates of firearm homicide or suicide.
And in 2019, DRGO member Mark Hamill’s study was published showing that nationwide, state-level concealed carry laws did not correlate at all with differences in homicide or violent crime rates.
So why all the cries for “universal background checks” and the fear of citizens bearing arms? Quality research has demonstrated conclusively that gun ownership in America is good for public health.
The best work comes from criminologists (Kleck, Gary Mauser, and others) and economists—such as my colleague Dr. John Lott, Jr. whose Crime Prevention Research Center has done more to document the safety and utility of civilian gun use than anyone. We need to keep that coming.
Science is not a definitive oracle. It is a process that requires fair minds, openness to criticism, and the ability to change beliefs as research yields contrary data. These abilities seem sorely absent in most of the gun control industry.
Careers depend on getting funding from the Bloombergs, Soros’s; their allied schools, foundations and organizations; and the government—none of which value individual responsibility.
It doesn’t take a graduate degree or statistical expertise to see the faults in advocacy research. You’ll find:
Personal bias and cherry-picked data choices & interpretation
Correlations passed off as causation, using irrelevant analogies and false attributions
Inanimate firearms treated as if they cause shootings
Casting blame and vilifying those who disagree
Irrelevant questions & straw arguments used as diversionary tactics
Data requests from other investigators being refused
Statistical significance purporting to have real-world importance
Finally, don’t let disputes among so-called “experts” distract you. The truth is out there. Without any reasonable doubt, the facts are on the side of liberty and individual responsibility.
The foundation of our great American right to Keep and Bear Arms is not science anyway, but principle. We have the inherent responsibility to defend ourselves and our loved ones, and are entitled to arm ourselves with the tools that enable us to do so, wherever & whenever.
.
.
— DRGO Editor Robert B. Young, MD is a psychiatrist practicing in Pittsford, NY, an associate clinical professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, and a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.
Except for when they do, as you can see in the header image. That’s the front sight, or more accurately where the front sight should be, on a Gen 5 Glock 17. And yet you will hear people repeat “iron sights don’t fail” as a reason to avoid small red dot sights as primary sighting solutions on pistols.
What’s interesting about this particular failure is that if I have the front sight yeet itself off my gun and into space or wherever front sights go to die, the only aiming method left to me is the gross index, where I slap the slide plate of the gun over the target and hope for the best. Gross index works well, especially at short ranges, but at longer ranges can be dicey. However, if I was firing and my red dot of choice, the excellent Aimpoint ACRO failed, I would actually have a lot more options to aim the gun. If my ACRO went down and I didn’t have back up iron sights, I could still use the gross slide plate index, I could also index off the top of the optic, or I could center the target in the optic window. All three of those methods work reasonably well at short ranges, and centering the target in the optic window works well at intermediate ranges.
The point of this post isn’t to start another “red dot vs iron sights” war or anything like that, but rather to help create the mindset that your gun is a machine, and like any machine it can fail. In 10+ years in the firearms industry and shooting competitively, if there is a failure mode for a gun, I have probably seen it. I’ve seen front sights fly off, rear sights come out of dovetails, red dots fail, lasers magically come un-zeroed, scopes that aren’t tightened properly, you name it I’ve seen it. And that’s just talking about sighting systems.
If we accept that our gun is a machine and like a machine has a chance of failing, how do we manage that potential? The first step is to choose quality equipment from reputable manufacturers. Sure, in the header photo that’s a Glock, but out of tens of thousands of rounds through Glocks, their rate of failure is pretty low. If we get quality equipment, we reduce the odds of our gear failing. The second step is to have a plan for likely failure modes and train it. If you’re worried about your dot dying, occasionally practice shooting with your dot turned off. It doesn’t need to dominate your practice, unless your dot dies a lot, in which case go back to step one. The third step is to develop really solid fundamentals, what we like to call “unconscious competence.” When you have this, if something goes down with your weapon, your brain will be free to actually solve the gun problem, because all the other stuff like manipulations you can do in your sleep.
The moral of the story is simple: all machines fail. Your irons can break. Your red dot can die. An unbreakable revolver can out of time after 1300 rounds. The question is how prepared are you to manage that situation?
The SKS rifle was once a very good buy. While imported in all types of condition from unfired to deplorable, they were cheap and so was the ammunition. If you are on a budget but need an all around pest, deer, hog and defense rifle it was difficult to beat the SKS.
The inexpensive guns are gone from the shelf but certainly haven’t disappeared. They are in the lockers, safes and closets of those that appreciate them. They were purchased and kept rather than traded and that means something. While the day of dirt cheap ammunition is also gone, 7.62x39mm ammunition remains affordable and better loads are available than ever before.
Here is a military grade rifle that is reliable, handy, and which fires a sufficient cartridge. The magazine holds ten rounds. Ten accurate and rapidly fired rounds will handle most problems I am aware of and will make a running coyote turn on the coals!
Unlike low cost commercial guns in which corners are cut the SKS really is all it claims, a reliable military rifle made of good material. The Siminov rifle is less troublesome than many rifles that may be ‘more powerful’ and more accurate but are also much more expensive.
Most of the SKS rifles feature chrome plated bores. This adds up to a rifle well suited to riding in the truck, boat or airboat. The furniture is simple wood with a one piece stock. The top receiver cover is readily removed for routine maintenance. The rifle needs an occasional detail strip for cleaning with special attention to the firing pin channel. The gas tube rides above the barrel. As long as non corrosive ammunition is used the SKS rifle will remain reliable and resists corrosion well. I would never add one of the aftermarket extended magazines. They are problematical in function and detract from the rifle’s handling in my opinion.
The SKS rifle was designed and developed in the old Soviet Union. It was introduced in 1945 and replaced shortly after by the AK 47 rifle. Although the SKS used an intermediate cartridge in common with the new breed of assault rifle the design was really traditional. This confluence of design worked well.
While outclassed by later developments the rifle is sturdy, inexpensive to manufacture, and effective. The SKS was kept in series production just in case the AK did not prove viable. The SKS was manufactured in many Soviet satellite nations. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the former communist nations sent the rifles to America for hard cash. The Chinese followed suit with a Norinco produced version. While many of the Soviet arms have become recreational shooters and even curiosities the SKS has seen a great deal of use as a sporting rifle.
The overall length of the SKS rifle is about forty inches, handy enough, and it weighs eight pounds. It may be heavy for the cartridge but this weight helps soak up recoil. The rifle is a pleasure to use and fire, inviting both practice and recreational shooting. The safety lever is located on the rear right hand ledge of the trigger guard. Down is on and up is safe. To load the rifle, lock the bolt to the rear. It is easy to load the rifle with stripper clips but just as easy to load the 10 round magazine one cartridge at a time. You may load the magazine and carefully press the top cartridge down and leave the rifle chamber empty if desired.
No matter what the long gun I keep the chamber empty when the firearm is at ready in the home or truck. Simply rack the bolt to make the rifle ready to fire. Each press of the trigger fires the rifle. The rifle is cycled by the gas system. Some of the firing gas is bled off by a small tappet and this cycles the action, similar to the M1. The rifle cycles, the trigger resets, and another press of the trigger fires the rifle again.
The SKS features an old style ladder type rear sight, adjustable for elevation, and a hooded post front sight. The SKS rifle is often used by those in a tight economic situation and the rifle must be a do it all type of firearm. Quite a few have pressed the cartridge into service as a hunting cartridge and found that it will fill the bill within the limitations of the cartridge. The nominal velocity of the 123 gr. FMJ loading is 2300 fps.
When you canvas the possibilities of a cartridge you have to look past the original loading. As an example the 35 grain case capacity of the 7.62 x 39mm cartridge almost rates it as an under bore cartridge. By the same token the .30-30 Winchester, a cartridge the 7.62 x 39mm is often compared to, may be termed over bore because the .30-30 cannot take advantage of its case capacity. The .30-30 was designed for the earliest smokeless powders. They were not terribly efficient. By careful handloading you may safely increase the velocity of the 7.62 x 39mm 123 grain bullet by 50 fps or more. Using the Hornady A Max bullet you have created a respectable hunting load. But there is more. you may also handload a 150 grain bullet to about 2200 fps. This is .30-30 territory, but with a shorter barrel. The Cor Bon 150 grain Hunter load pushes a 150 grain JSP to 2300 fps from my Norinco SKS.
The general run of 150 grain .30-30 WCF loads break about 2250 fps or a little less. The 7.62×39 mm cartridge is actually hotter than the .30-30 and in the end a more efficient cartridge, at least with bullets of less than 150 grains. However, if you wish, you may load a particularly effective heavyweight load using a 180 grain JSP at about 900 fps. The action will not function but the load is accurate and about as quiet as a .22. There is no supersonic crack. This is a great load for pests and short range varmints. My favorite handload revolves around IMR 4198 powder and the Hornady 123 grain bullet loaded to an overall length of 2.930 for 2250 fps. In factory ammunition there are good choices. Among the most accurate is the Fiocchi 123 grain FMJ loading.
This doesn’t mean you must reload the cartridge to get the most out of it, far from it. Handloading simply makes for a more versatile rifle. If you do not wish to roll your own ammunition you may fire the inexpensive Wolf loads for 99% of your shooting and hunt with the Remington 123 grain JSP. This information simply illustrates the potential of the cartridge. The comparison is often made to the .30-30 WCF and lets just state that the SKS gives up nothing to the lever gun in ballistics. The Winchester 94 rifle is usually more accurate than the SKS however.
In modern ammunition there are several loads that are reliable, use a quality expanding bullet, and which exhibit the best accuracy possible from the SKS platform. The Hornady steel cased A Max is one. The Remington 123 grain JSP is another. Each is as accurate as possible in the system. And that is the bottom line and the limiting factor of the SKS rifle, accuracy. With a good tight rifle with the stock properly fitted and the hardware tight, a quality SKS rifle should demonstrate 3.0 MOA with these loads. I have fired rougher examples that did well to make an eight inch group but they were functional. And although I have heard of such rifles I have yet to meet and shoot the SKS rifle that will deliver a group better than three inches at 100 yards. Yet with deer sized game offering an eight inch kill zone the SKS should do the business. A great addition is to add the Techsights.com aperture sight. While intrinsic accuracy may not be affected practical shooting is much improved with these sights. Optics are also a good bet. Sight the rifle in properly, practice, and the rifle is good enough for most chores.
For today’s article I’m going to vent on a pet peeve of mine – ATV riders and lack of respect for private property.
For those who are unfamiliar with the story, there is a piece of family property that was willed to my father at least 20 years ago from a distant branch of the family. (This is not the same property that the hunting cabin was on).
For several years after dad died we (adult) kids were not even sure where the property was, but about six years ago I took it upon myself to find, post, and establish a presence there as a hunting and general enjoyment property. The problem is that for several decades, unbeknownst to us, the place had become grand central station for local ATV riders – both adult and adolescent.
The road is clearly gated (and requires gas company access to well heads) but over the years people have gleefully made their own trespass entrances and completely disregarded “No Trespass” signs.
Despite signage (and now purple paint) virtually every time I have been there over the past 5 or 6 years I have turned away various numbers of ATV riders advising them that it was private property and I didn’t want them there. Every time there were (apparently insincere) apologies and professions of “not knowing” (you drove past several signs, and didn’t you think that gate was there for a reason?)
I have given a handful of local guys permission to hunt and was hopeful that they would help me keep an eye on the place and deter trespassers, in addition to spreading the word that the property was not a public racetrack. But to apparently no avail. ATVers continue to trespass and some even right in front of my game cams (and thus near my blind). A couple of years ago one of my cams was vandalized to boot.
Last weekend my game cam caught an ATV rider actually flipping the bird to my camera. The clear challenge and lack of respect has me now starting to feel unsafe on my own family property. And I’m PI$$ED.
I go to the woods to relax, to enjoy the quiet, to watch wildlife, to hunt, to pick berries, and just enjoy nature. My daughter has even done part of her grad school studies on various tree plots there. But those roaring machines and their disrespectful riders destroy any peace that I try to gain from being on the property. The lack of respect for private property – which apparently comes with the purchase receipt for these damnable infernal machines – is completely maddening.
I’m not saying that ATV’s don’t have their legitimate uses – as farm tools, as transport to get a deer stand to and from a property, for deer carcass transport, etc. But it seems to me that the majority of ATV owners just joyride, tear up the landscape, and make incredibly annoying noise. There seems to be a sense of entitlement to whoever’s land they lay their eyes on – which is galling in the extreme.
It’s not that I want to completely wall the place off from the world – there are over 100 beautiful acres. As I’ve said I have given hunt permission to several local guys who respectfully asked and who keep up contact with me. I will be especially pleased if they take the opportunity to introduce grandchildren to respectful and responsible hunting while using our property.
I wouldn’t even really mind if people enjoy the place “on foot” for birdwatching and other conservation-minded activities – IF they ask me. I’m trying to become a good steward of the land. My daughter has stated that the trees (including sugar maples) are especially healthy and vigorous. That makes me happy. “I” can enjoy the place on foot, so that’s what I’m asking of others – as long as they ASK PERMISSION first.
Besides giving the photos to the local police, I’m not sure what else to do about the damned ATV trespassers short of paying thousands of dollars to fence everything in. I can’t just drop a tree over the road because the gas company still needs access. A guy from a neighboring property has offered to help block off the “extra” entrances so that may help for awhile. But how long before the jerks just make new entrances? It’s become a constant source of stress for me. Not good for a property that I was half-thinking of building and retiring on.
I’m sure there are other property owners that are feeling my pain. And I “hope” that there are responsible and respectful ATV owners out there who are angry that the jerks spoil it for everyone. But right now I’m NOT feeling terribly charitable. *insert grumpy old lady face*.
