Just Say No To Number 4 Buckshot (For Home Defense)

By

-

September 14, 2021

I’m a member of numerous firearms social media groups across a wide variety of platforms. These groups vary from professionally oriented, science and fact-based groups with high levels of information to the exact opposite. Sadly a great many social media groups provide very little good information. On one of these groups, someone asked what shot size was best for home defense. Sadly, a lot of people suggested birdshot, but behind the birdshot, commenters were those suggesting number 4 buckshot.

No. 4 buckshot isn’t as wrong an answer as birdshot, but it’s still a poor choice for a fighting shotgun. For a long time, dedicated shotgunners have worked to dispel lots of fuddlore, lies, and myths about the shotgun, and today we are going to talk about why you should just say no to number 4 buckshot for home defense.

Breaking Down Number 4 Buckshot

Number 4 Buckshot is the smallest buckshot load available for 12 gauge shotguns. Each number 4 buckshot pellet is approximately .24 caliber, and each 2.75-inch shell holds around 24 pellets. It’s a great load for some tasks.

I love No. 4 for coyote removal. If I get in coyote range with a shotgun, it’s likely moving, and as such, the spread of pellets helps make it easier to hit a moving target. Lots of little pellets increase my chances of taking the animal down. Coyotes are relatively small, and those .24 caliber pellets can take them down with relative ease.

Hornady includes Number 4 buckshot in their varmint express line of cartridges for a reason. It’s really not a great choice for animals much larger than coyotes.

Why No. 4 Comes Up In the Home Defense Realm

People have this real fear of overpenetration. It’s a real concern that you should have, but it’s played up so much that people will compromise on their ammo selection. If you have a real fear of overpenetration to the point where you’ll choose a less effective round, then you should consider a AR-15. Better yet, train and don’t miss.

Number 4 buckshot gets suggested for home defense because people believe it penetrates less through drywall. They are right; it will penetrate through fewer walls than 00 buckshot, but No.4 will still tear through anywhere from 4 to 7 walls worth of drywall. Depending on it not penetrate through drywall is downright silly.

I’ve also heard some say it recoils less. Well, it can, but it doesn’t recoil less than standard reduced recoil 00 buckshot.

Why Number 4 Buckshot Sucks for Home Defense

The main reason why you shouldn’t rely on number 4 buckshot for home defense is that it fails to reach acceptable standards of penetration through fleshy targets. In-gel tests, the majority of pellets from a 2.75 inch No. 4 buck load rarely reach the 12-inch minimum standards. No. 4 will penetrate through drywall and also fail to penetrate through bad guys.

Second, there is a lack of dedicated self-defense no. 4 buckshot loads. Remington, Hornady, and Federal all produce high-quality tactical loads of 00 buckshot. These loads are specifically designed for gunfighting and manage recoil, pellet spread, and penetration.

Number 4 buckshot kicks butt in some tasks, but in those tasks, the widespread of buckshot is important. For this reason, No. 4 often spreads wide, and that’s not good for home defense. You want tight, controllable patterns that deliver consistent tight groups. This takes us back to not miss. It’s much easier to miss with a partial load of Number 4 buckshot than a tighter load of tactical 00.

Proven Performance

00 and No. 1 loads are your best bet for home defense. I would love Federal to bring back the FliteControl No.1 load, but until then, it’s all about eight pellet 00 loads specifically designed for tactical applications. Anything else is a subpar choice for home defense. Why anyone would want a subpar option for home defense is beyond me.

Wilson Combat Close Quarters Battle

By

V. Caldwell

-

September 13, 2021

Some folks in this business enjoy an excellent reputation. Bill Wilson is among them. Integrity, quality products, and a commitment to the customer have put Wilson Combat firearms at the top of the heap. They are worth every penny of the money.

Interestingly enough these guns show up from time to time at a friends shop. I know someone told you that high end guns are a good investment. Let me start off by saying yes and no. If you are looking at investment value, forget it. Purchase old Smith & Wesson revolvers in unfired condition and keep them for ten years if that is your goal. Don’t shoot them! There is a dealer markup on guns so your pistol has to appreciate a bit just to be worth what the dealer can buy a new one for, and then why should he buy your used gun at new price?

On the other hand if the investment is considered to be a lifetime gun that will not malfunction, break, jam, and which is made of the best machined parts with excellent precision guaranteed, the quality will remain after the price is forgotten. A firearm that uses first grade steel rather than MIM parts is more expensive but lasts longer- perhaps indefinitely with the occasional refresh. Serious competitors and those on select budget teams expend a lot of ammunition. The more tightly fitted the firearm the less wear because there is less slop. There is even wear, no eccentric wear.

The 1911 handgun was already a great handgun. The good points include a low bore axis that limits muzzle flip, a straight to the rear trigger compression, a combination of a slide lock safety and grip safety, and excellent human engineering. The 1911 is faster to an accurate first shot hit than any other big bore self loading pistol.

Bill Wilson – and his excellent well trained gunsmith who build the pistol- took the 1911 and improved the pistol using superior steel and manufacturing processes. Clearance and tolerance is superb. The polished feed ramps have the correct gap between them and the hammer hooks have plenty of steel to prevent slippage. The pistol is still a 1911 but in many ways the tolerances and modifications make the Close Quarters Battle a new pistol.

The CQB is a government model 1911. This is a five inch barrel pistol with conventional barrel bushing, a steel frame and slide, and Armor Tuff finish. The parts are not farmed out. They are manufactured in house in Berryville, Arkansas as far as the barrel, slide, and critical internal parts. The barrels are as good as it gets in the 1911 custom barrel world. The locking lugs slide into their mortises smoothly and tightly. The barrel link is properly set. The grip safety properly releases its grip on the trigger half way into the beavertail safety’s compression. The slide lock safety is well designed and locks in place with a positive snap. This is a personal defense pistol not a match gun so the slide lock and magazine release are not extended types. The pistol features a slight undercut beneath the trigger guard. Some say this helps the desirable high hold, others feel it lowers the bore axis. I think it does both.

The front strap checkering is custom grain. Every diamond is sharp and perfect, the border is well defined and exact. The sunburst grips offer a good match of abrasion and adhesion. The rear sight offers a U notch that makes for real speed. The ‘old man’s sight’ as it is sometimes called is an excellent battle sight. The fiber optic front sight is well designed and offers a good aiming point. The magazines are Wilson Combat of course, an aluminum magazine with a plastic base pad. These magazines have set the standard for 1911 magazines. They feed the cartridge nose more directly into the chamber. This prevents as much bumping across the feed ramp and helps accuracy potential.

I have fired the pistol with a wide range of ammunition. For this report it was a pleasure to break out the pistol and head to the range. The magazines were loaded with Winchester USA 230 grain FMJ. This is a clean burning, accurate, reliable and affordable loading. Winchester won a US Army contract in 1916 for military ammunition that specified a primer failure rate of 1 in 100,000 unheard of in the day. The standard is much better today.

The CQB clears leather quickly and gets on target. Line the sights up, press the trigger, and you get a hit. Regain the sights after recoil and repeat. The pistol is controllable, accurate, and in the hands of those that practice among the most formidable of 1911 handguns. The pistol comes with a one inch group at 25 yards guarantee. I am certain it will achieve this standard in a machine rest. The fiber optic is ideal for combat use to 50 yards but subtends some of the red aiming point on the targets I use to test absolute accuracy. Firing at 25 yards for accuracy from the MTM K zone firing rest I registered the following results.

Winchester USA 230 grain FMJ 5 shot group 1.8 in.

Winchester Silvertip 185 grain JHP 5 shot group 1.7 in.

Handload 200 gr. SWC/890 fps 5 shot group 1.5 in.

Handload 185 gr. SWC/1050 fps 5 shot group 1.25 in.

Browning 230 gr. JHP 5 shot group 1.5 in.

This is a pistol well worth its price. It is a lifetime gun that will compliment a trained shooter. It isn’t something to leave in the safe but a pistol to be used and carried. During the evaluation I used the Wilson Combat Range-Tac holster. This is an excellent range holster with some application in concealed carry, given a garment with a long drape. The balance of speed and retention with the Range-Tac is excellent.

Wilson Combat

CALIBER: .45 ACP
CAPACITY: 8+1
BARREL: 5 in.
Overall Length 8.7 in.

Height 5.6 in.

Width 1.2 in.
WEIGHT: 40 oz.
GRIPS: Wilson Starburst
SIGHTS: U Notch Rear Optic Front
Sight Radius 6.6 in.

TRIGGER: 3.65 lbs
PRICE: $2,965

Wilsoncombat.com

The Fishiest Rifle – ARX-160

By

Keith Finch

-

September 13, 2021

One of the forgotten modern rifles that never did well here in the United States, the ARX-160 (ARX-100, semi-auto) was an interesting entrant that competed against the likes of the FN SCAR and Bushmaster/Remington ACR for space in the modern service rifle field.

It is a modular and configurable platform, like its competition, and it’s operation is a well designed short stroke piston system with a very solid take on the ambidextrous and configurable concepts. Where it failed in the US market was two major points.

The thing looks like a tuna with a goofy looking stock and chonky main body.
Zero aftermarket reconfigurability. Can’t even change the pistol grip out (and they kept the A2!)

It also had some accuracy issues in the US market with the way the top rail was mounted, optics had quite a bit flex that they should not have. This is the type of thing that happens when a military rifle, which has a specific set of accesories it is going to be working with, gets let loose on the open market where the interfaces and options are nearly incalculable.

It also lacked the ability to take or be converted to the longer handguard styles preferred by US markets on 16″ and 14.5″ guns. The ARX-160, like the SCAR and HK416, were natively designed to be able to run shorter barrels in more compact configurations.

It wasn’t just ‘one thing’ that sank the Beretta on the US market, it was a small series of things that made an otherwise excellent running rifle into a non-starter. The awesome features of the Beretta action and the ability to pop and swap a barrel as easily as you can take apart a glock were excellent, and the control scheme was well done from an integration standpoint as they were merging some ergonomics and training.

There is a lot to like on the ARX… but it had just enough to dislike that it could not play on the US market. European companies run into that. A lot. They lack an understanding of the US market’s love of modularity and the ability to change things up and then are curious why there $2,200 rifle only started moving when they were offered for $900 while $900 AR’s started becoming quality enough to smoke most competitive options in the practical range.

In short, the ARX-160 is a good rifle and a piece of small arms history with an earned position, but it is (in its current iteration) never going to be something that threatens the AR-15’s supremacy as the everyman’s long gun of choice.

Gunday Brunch 19: Is the Tavor going away and are you prepping right?

By

David R

-

September 12, 2021

Today on Gunday Brunch Keith and Caleb tackle two topics: is the Israeli military getting rid of the Tavor rifle, and are you being smart about your apocalypse prep? Listen as we discuss the nuances of military procurement and why being nice to your neighbors is more important than having 10,000 rounds of 556 in your basement.

20 Years Later…

By

Keith Finch

-

September 11, 2021

September 11th, 2001… This is a day that shaped our modern world. Our outlooks on the world were altered drastically as the world looked on in abject horror realizing the quiet promise of a largely peaceful 21st Century was not to be realized.

We, the United States and many of our partner nations, have spent every moment since at war. The wars scaled up, scaled down, they flared, they changed, new enemies rose to replace the crushed ones of before, and old adversaries returned to power vacuums that they waited out while nursing their wounds.

Watching the Fall

I cannot account for every moment of 9/11, but I distinctly remember my father crying as I walked in the door from school. I didn’t know why, until I watched on the TV with him as the first tower went down… I cried too, I had never seen my dad that upset and it scared me in that moment.

5 years later…

I joined the war.

5 years and 8 days later I swore into service with the United States Marine Corps. I expected to join one of two ongoing and vicious fights that had been raging for years, and were far from over.

An inconsistent message… a changing set of goals… a vague mission with no end that needed to have one…

For six years I waited for my mission, for my turn. Everyone around me was a Iraq veteran, fresh out of Fallujah. So, I learned everything I could retain and felt like a kid among combat veterans. Then it became my team’s turn as I got put in charge of younger Marines. I felt inadequate to the task, but it was my task to complete and oversee, so I did and I awaited our turn.

Finally, Afghanistan loomed large before our company. We were to overtake a mission around Delaram. We worked up, filled billets, brought on a CO and XO slated for their slots with an infantry company, and began settling into our roles as we awaited more details of the mission.

The details came…

We weren’t going. Mission was “done” and everything was pulling back. The company wouldn’t end up deploying, to Afghanistan where the mission was, again, “done” until several years after I had left. One of my most junior Marines was leading a squad at that point, he was where I had been when Afghanistan had first been mentioned. Unlike the mission that we ramped up for those years earlier, theirs was simply to sit and be there.

Benghazi

Benghazi Libya, 2012.

This is where it feels like we started losing the war we had already won. The mission creep of GWOT, especially after the so called ‘Arab Spring’ and us not realizing we had screwed up nation building in a colossal way and we were paying for it. The reason Iraq is semi-functional now is because they were a functional nation state under Hussein.

Hussein was a bad guy, a lot of his top people were bad guys, but we wrecked the infrastructure of law and order under the asinine premiss that everyone with ‘Bath Party’ next to their Iraq.Gov ID was a problem. We made way more work for ourselves then we ever needed to there. We contributed to the civil unrest and outright faction wars that happened after by making that mistake.

Afghanistan was even worse because it can only be called a nation state in name. It is heavily regional and tribal, heavily divided, and the line drawn around it as a border makes no sense. Then we put inept folk in power that we had to prop up and a defense force that could never stand alone without US direct support.

Contrast this with the two nations we did successfully rebuild. Japan and Germany got rolled up in wars far more brutal and costly than the two we launched after 9/11. But those two were successful and united nations prior, and we elected to keep them intact afterward. We didn’t do that with Iraq and Afghanistan, we gutted them and tried to remake them.

It failed, especially in Afghanistan… the graveyard of empires.

Biden’s Blunders

We withdrew from Afghanistan, something that we desperately needed to do, in a manner so poorly that it highlights the inept and misguided leadership currently at our helm.

Gone are the days of General Mattis’ attitude, sole primary concerns were the cohesive lethality of our armed forces and their well being while in service. Now we have a force fractured over a flu shot. In times past the armed forces would have quietly said, ‘yes, to prepare for the combat and the other missions of the military we will be putting COVID vaccines into our medical panel. This is necessary for our mission.’ at that would be the end of the discussion. It would be the overblown deal it is currently, disagreements with vaccination would be handled quietly and professionally. COVID would never have been announced as the military’s ‘biggest problem’, nor would have ‘extremism’ in the ranks, or ‘inclusion’.

Those have been problems, they would be addressed, they may even have made mention external to the military, but the military would never have admitted anything other than the external threats to the United States were their primary focus. It would never have presented a image to the world of anything other than a ready fighting force able to descend upon an enemy like the Hammer of God.

Every other problem, no matter how much it needed addressing or was being addressed with the resources of the Department of Defense would be a much quieter note in their to-do list.

Today we have an image of weakness like we haven’t project since prior to the Spanish-American war. Certainly since victory in WWI.

We lost… We were not defeated.

That’s the strangest thing about this longest war. We weren’t defeated. We won the fights. We’re damn good at fighting. We lost because ‘winning’ never had a defined end state. It wasn’t ‘When we get Bin Laden’ or ‘The Total Annihilation of the current Al-Qaeda structure no matter where they hide.’

This would have been a very different war if we had told certain states to shove it, we are going hunting anyway. It wouldn’t have been diplomatic, but with the righteous rage of the United States at that moment who could have lodged more than token protests?

We lost because we just said, okay we’re done and went home in a way that looked shaky weak and deceptive… we didn’t even have the fortitude to stand up and declare, Afghanistan you are on your own guys because we’re out. Biden boldly promised that he didn’t believe and we had no indication that the Taliban would roll up the country… which was utter bullshit of course. They were our escort out. An ass-backwards neobarbarian culture that we kicked out was back in the seat of power.

It makes it feel like we were never there to many.

Final Thoughts

We’ve had young people die in this war who weren’t even born when it started. I joined when it was still the war of righteous anger and seeking retribution. Bin Laden died, Hussein died, the Arab Spring died too… and we should have been done. But we let political quagmire replace military pragmatism…

I don’t know where we go from here…

Will 5.56 AK Be The Way?

By

Keith Finch

-

September 9, 2021

With the ammunition import license freeze that the Biden administration put in place to punish Putin for being Putin (a KGB Op going to KGB), the strain to get the traditional Russian calibers like 5.45×39 and 7.62×39 and x54r are looking real.

Granted there are ways and opportunities for those not to vanish completely, but Russia is 22% of US ammunition imports so if it goes on long enough past current licenses it is going to hurt.

Me, not so much, and 9-Hole does a good job of explaining some of the why. Hit Play. Enjoy.

I have an RD NATO, a Rifle Dynamics done up convert of a Bulgarian SLR-106F 5.56 NATO AK. The long and short of it is that it runs an ammunition that is plentiful natively and the rifle runs great.

The problem, is that 5.56 AKs are not overly abundant. That might change since demand might change and we could see Radom, or Arsenal Bulgaria, or somebody else even get into the game and increase the 5.56 AK market share. It is unlikely to ever surpass the 7.62 AKs, but it could potentially edge 5.45. 5.45 is already the scarecest of the ‘Russian’ calibers and there isn’t really an alternative spun up source for it outside Russia the way there is for the 7.62 loads. Again, that could change, but that will be a slow and costly process for someone to undertake.

So, is the answer get a 5.56 AK?

Honestly, probably not ‘the’ answer. It will be a watching of the market and a shifting of demand. It will also not be an overnight process beyond the shifting prices of various ammos since those are on a whim almost as volatile as gasoline. But the ammunition itself will be slower to evaporate in the various stocks, even of the Russian inventory, so we will see.

But it wouldn’t hurt anyone to grab a nice 5.56 AK. 106F, Beryl, or RD NATO recommend most highly.

Blue Sky and Dark Clouds: On “Gun Violence” Researchers

By

DRGO

-

September 9, 2021

(from clipground.com)

In a current Journal of the American Medical Association article with an accompanying editorial, various researchers express their happiness with the resumption of federal funding for the Center for Disease control to look at violence, including “gun violence” (because “guns kill people”?!).

They feel good about the lessening “chill” of the Dickey Amendment’s prohibition against research “to advocate for or promote gun control.” Many readers will recall that in 1996 the Dickey Amendment was passed in order to stand in the way of Americans’ tax dollars being used to attack their civil rights, and specifically the right to keep and bear arms. One JAMA commentator, Mark Rosenberg, was CDC Director in the 1990’s, who wanted guns to be seen as “dirty, deadly—and [to be] banned.”

Looking for a moment at the blue sky, at least one of the commentators quoted, who has also published research on reducing violence, notes the desirability of seeking approaches to changing interpersonal behavior in a way that will result in less interpersonal violence.

People who harbor different views, including the idea that the right to keep and bear arms is a protected civil right, can all be supportive of behavioral change that results in a more civil and less belligerent society. DRGO has referenced studies suggesting that there are psychological or psychosocial interventions that do indeed cut down on interpersonal violence—such research showing positive findings is likely to spur more of the same sort.

Glancing again at the blue sky, several sources quoted in the JAMA article refer to newly proposed funding to support harm reduction, violence prevention, reducing suicides and minimizing unintentional injuries from firearms, goals that DRGO and gun owners can also support. Described favorably are efforts to have firearms dealers, gun ranges and others temporarily (and voluntarily) hold the weapons of individuals who are suicidal, although not mentioned are laws in many places that do not allow family and friends to play this role.

Turning from the blue sky to the threatening dark clouds, the name “Wintemute” appears. This physician has a long history of churning out writings that attack and attempt to belittle the Second Amendment. At one point in the JAMA piece he notes his support for garnering information on risk factors for becoming involved in violence, which seems commendable, but then the mask is dropped and he’s on to restrictions on the purchase of guns. Referenced in a favorable way in the JAMA article is the Gun Violence Archive. [This organization is not a friend of the right to keep and bear arms, and structures its data keeping to support restrictions on firearm ownership.

Also referenced as a resource is Giffords. This organization comprises activist, legal and PAC entities, inspired by former federal Representative Gabby Giffords near-assassination. It was formerly known as the Legal Community Against Violence and as the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The actual focus of the group is not reflected in either its past or current formal names. They’re seeking the benefit of camouflage, one presumes, as they push to restrict Second Amendment rights. It is known to many Second Amendment supporters as the “Giffords Gang.”

The front page of the August 31 Wall Street Journal includes an article describing a plan hatched by the Department of Health and Human Services to “treat climate change as a public health issue”. This may well indicate the Administration’s intent to label its political goals as public health matters, including gun restrictions. There is also a possibility that this tactic could elicit more support for Second Amendment rights by manifesting how it intends to manipulate policy justifications in this way.

In the JAMA piece, one commentator deplores the tendency of voters to make decisions based on values rather than science. A moment’s thought reveals the shortcomings of such a pure science-focused view. We favor parents’ caring for their children, freedoms based on the Bill of Rights, and all manner of things we deem worthwhile and dear—not because of science, but rather based on values. Let’s hope voters will see how this science-trumps-everything tactic is either a rhetorical trick or a profoundly perverted perspective—the perspective of those who would create Frankensteinian monsters.

.

—Thomas E. Gift, MD is a child and adolescent psychiatrist practicing in Rochester, New York, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Rochester Medical School, and a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

All DRGO articles by Thomas E. Gift, MD

White House to withdraw David Chipman nomination for head of ATF

By

Caleb Giddings

-

September 9, 2021

Breaking news this morning: the White House will withdraw its nomination of David Chipman for the Director of the ATF, per the Washington Post.

A White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity confirmed that the nomination was being withdrawn this morning. Mr. Chipman had faced strong bipartisan opposition from the Senate, due to his connections with the anti-gun political group headed by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. The Biden Administration declined a formal comment.

This represents a major blow to the President’s gun control agenda, as appointing the notoriously anti-gun Mr. Chipman to the Directorship of the ATF was seen by many as the start of his overt push for more gun control. However, the nomination faced tremendous, immediate backlash from the gun owning public, who identified Mr. Chipman’s lack of qualifications for the job, his obvious anti-gun bias, and possible connections with both Waco and Fast and Furious scandals as disqualifying factors. His nomination was also opposite by all Republican Senators, as well as many Democrats. Recently, a group of former ATF agents who worked with Mr. Chipman wrote an open letter opposing his nomination and explaining why he was unqualified for the position.

Defeating Mr. Chipman’s nomination should serve as a reminder to all the disillusioned gun owners out there that this fight is far from over, and also demonstrate that there is power in contacting your elected representatives, even about issues that you may not think you can change. There is no doubt that the tidal wave of emails, phone calls, and tweets that were sent over this nomination influenced the minds of many, and for now at least it seems that gun rights activists have defeated at least one dangerous threat to their Second Amendment rights.

Did you hear someone FRT?

By

Keith Finch

-

September 8, 2021

The FRT-15 vs ATF stand-off brings be great joy. Because the fine folk at Rare Breed just essentially said, “yeah, no.” when the ATF field office in Florida said “No guys, that’s totally a machine gun.”

It isn’t, by the mechanical definitions and the laws of physics it isn’t. It produces a similar result, and it flagrantly ruffles ATF and administration feathers, and its name is the fart fifteen, all of which is glorious, but the mechanics are semi-auto. It has a mechanically assisted reset but each trigger pull is distinct. It is artificially Jerry Miculek’s trigger finger, not an auto sear and disconnector setup that will safely cycle the gun as long as the trigger is held.

Words mean things. Physics are laws more exacting than anything man has made. Just because an engineer found a way to produce a similar result but technically different doesn’t mean one thing is suddenly another. It just means, perhaps your rule is silly.

Caleb and I talk about it, because we love these shenanigans and people putting the ATF’s vague rulebooking into check.

That said, not everyone at the ATF is a raging anti-gun tyrant (but Chipman, keep opposing that asshat), and most of them are just as frustrated with the amount of ‘interpretation’ they are required to exercise. That alone means that someone else can instantly undo an investigation or a decision they have made with one that they made later. It is tragic to hear the absolute frustration at the other end of the line as all they can offer is a vague suggestion.

NSW (Naval Surface Warfare) Rattler Clone

By

Keith Finch

-

September 8, 2021

One of the most popular PDW weapons in the rifle caliber revolution has been Sig Sauer’s Rattler. The small 5.5″ barreled carbines fit in equally unobtrusive bags and deliver far greater control, kinetic energy, or both to the user than weapons like the Uzi or MP5K.

The 300 Blackout round, delivering a more efficient and accurate approximation of .45 ACP energy in subsonic, has been a popular addition to the AR world for a couple of specific circumstances. This is one of them.

The NSW Rattler receiver is an M4A1 mod, meaning it doesn’t come with a serialized lower and fire control, it instead drops onto an in inventory M4A1. The upper itself is still the self contained firing unit it has always been and even with a can attached at the muzzle it offers a discreet and maneuverable weapon for the user that far surpasses what something like a Mk. 23 could efficiently do.

Inferior Rifles is a newer and smaller channel, however they do clones and do clones well. They break down the NSW Receiver, a discreet PDW/PSD type take of the CQBR concept, here in the video.

The Austrian (and Australian) Service Pup

By

Keith Finch

-

September 7, 2021

While the X95, which made a little controversy recently as it has been circulated that IDF was retiring (or semi-retiring) the gun and then announced by the IDF that it was buying more and that it wasn’t retiring the gun, is arguably the successful modern bullpup, the most iconic of the genre continues to be the AUG.

Steyr’s 1977 futuristic looking wonder carbine, sporting an optical sight instead of irons, a polymer body, quick change barrel, and a neat trigger system that did semi and full auto by the depth of your trigger pull.

Bullpups are a minority in service rifles worldwide, but several militaries still use them and are continuing to support them. The longest serving has been the Austrian AUG (often pronounced “Aww-gug” like auger or A-U-G letter by letter) but joined by the FAMAS, L85, and at the end of the millenium the Tavor.

The AUG was truly as transitional weapon, going from conventions of the older Post WWII battle rifle types into the newer more ergonomic 5.56 realm. It has received constant updates since, with Australia even dropping quick change barrels as it proved a much more academically cool feature than anything practical. They saved a pound on the rifle by doing so too.

The distinct piston bullpup has endured, only 8 years behind the M16A1 in service longevity.

Gunday Brunch 18: Rare Breed Triggers tells the ATF to get rekt

By

David R

-

September 5, 2021

My favorite piece of gun related news recently was Rare Breed Triggers telling the ATF to come get some. Back story: the ATF issued a cease and desist to Rare Breed to force them to stop selling their FRT-15 trigger, and Rare Breed said “nah fam”

Sootch00 Review – Ideal Conceal IC380 Double Barreled .380 Pistol

By

248 Shooter

-

September 3, 2021

Is it time to upgrade?

By

Keith Finch

-

September 3, 2021

Technology in the firearm world has adapted at a pace that very nearly rivals digital innovations.

With one crucial difference, firearms are durable goods.

With routine maintenance and care they will last decades, even centuries, especially those in our modern age of coatings and material sciences. Most digital tech is on a 3-5 year expiration cycle with updates eating up the capabilities of the older devices and taxing their limits.

We had a laptop fail at the office recently and it would have been several hundred dollars and at least two weeks of downtime to repair it. For only about 20% more we had a brand new laptop delivered, all the latest and greatest hardware and software, in 2 hours, not 2 weeks.

Digital tech in the communications sphere is a rapid expiring technology. Computers, Phones, Smart TV’s, when they are done they are done and it is about half a decade until you are reaching that line in the sand where you’re angled into an upgrade.

Now with firearms, we’ve seen a lot of rapid advancements, but the base items are not expiring. The older and maintained firearms work fine. A 1986 built Beretta 92 with no cracked frame, good magazines, a serviceable barrel and recoil spring will be up to snuff with a modern M9A3 or 92X fairly well. In no way could that be said of a computer from 1986.

Bottom: The author’s “M4’gery” a near peer, component wise, to the M4 (BCM M4 upper receiver group) with some personal preference items control wise. It is running a KAC RAS, Surefire M600DF, and an SU-237/Trijicon ECOS ACOG on the Carbine Gas System. It is a fairly typical late 2000’s into the 20-teens setup, minus laser aiming module.

Top: The author’s “Yurgee” a URG-I (Upper Receiver Group – Improved) near peer. Featuring the MK16 Handguard around FN CFH CL Freefloating Barrel, Ambi controls with Geissele, Radian, and Forward Controls Design parts filling it out. Topped with the SOCOM S-VPS Tango6T LPVO and illuminated with a Modlite/Reptilia PLHv2 TORCH, it approximates the latest/near future M4A1 variant nicely with a bunch of .Gov contract items for extra authentic awesomeness.

Both can run a suppressor.

So, with that established, how does one judge when it is time to upgrade a firearm?

First, establish the perspective. We are looking at selecting the criteria you want to determine for when it becomes more than just a ‘want’ to upgrade a weapon, it becomes practical. This is most easily established in a uniformed environment where you are maintaining a selection of similar weapons for similar purposes, military and LEO.

It does also apply to personally owned and maintained firearms in a professional setting. Professional setting can include personal protection. You are looking at that type of firearm with the same critical eye that an armorer will be looking for a selection of issued/mandatory to maintain weapons and supporting ancillary equipment. It is more than just I want the cool new thing because I like it.

The Best Time to Upgrade – End of Part Life Cycle

The single best time to implement a component or system upgrade is when the older system is wearing out. Whether its old optics that are showing their age or rifle barrels that are a few years of qualifications, training courses, and duty used through. The best time to spend extra money is when you are already going to spend some to maintain.

This may have the additional benefit of saving you labor. Changing a barrel on an AR isn’t rocket surgery, but it does involve labor and a bit of precision. Maybe you get new uppers or whole new rifles instead, a little more money but with increased capabilities and flexibility?

Especially when looking at component upgrades, this is the time to make those calls and push an in place upgrade of your capabilities. Old CompM3’s are finally wearing out, time to push to an LPVO. Buffers and springs are tired, time for a better buffer/spring combination. Slides are worn and starting to crack, time for slides that can mount dots.

The Reason to Upgrade

There is really only one: Improved capability to accomplish the desired task.

The two rifles above are about 10 years apart roughly. The older components like the ACOG and basic M4 design are older than that and the things we’ve learned about fine tuning these rifles, and have helped us make them truly spectacular machines, keep them closer together than that. But to put a number on it the ACOG’d M4 is 10 years behind the URG-I.

Look at the task you need the weapon to perform, then match each of the components you are using with the weapon to their tasks. Is there a whole system, or part of the system, that can improve your chances of successfully taking the shot you need? If yes, by how much? Can you afford the change? Can you afford the liability of not making the change?

I point this out for optics especially. They are the item that will likely offer any given group the most benefit, but they also do so at greatest expensive. Putting an LPVO, or a even a dot, on a bare iron sighted carbine can drastically increase hit percentages. Add onto that, especially with the LPVO, the ability of the user to track, observe, and differentiate the target from other objects and people and you have a great deal of benefit for the additional cost.

Now, when considering switching systems the equation gets harder (which is why end of component life is the best time to upgrade). It is much harder to justify sidelining serviceable running equipment, even if the component or system you are switching to has a meaningful advantage.

A rifle running a 4x ACOG is much closer in capability to a rifle running a 1-6x LPVO. A rifle running a 600 or 1,000 lumen older light is much closer in capability to the rifle running the 1,500 lumen light. Any rifle running a version a component looking at being upgraded is going to have a higher bar to justify the change than a rifle that doesn’t have that capability currently at all, optics and lights being the most visible examples.

You are going to have to clearly articulate (yes, even to yourself) why this component or this rifle and components are worth discarding the currently serving and running system. On paper it might be objectively better, but by how much in a practical sense?

These same considerations that have us still using the M4/M4A1 in the US Military. How much better is the new system, does it justify the expense?

Which Rifle is ‘Better’?

I would 10:10 times grab the URG-I for capabilities and performance. If you are starting from no functional weapon in service and building out a rifle, I would advocate building out that one and not the older M4. Lighter weight, more accurate and durable barrel, more flexible options for the handguard accessory configurations, a more powerful and capable light, a more powerful and capable optic, even more flexible sling mounting options.

But…

I am comfortable, in many ways more comfortable, grabbing or being handed that old M4 to get into any fight that I would take the URG-I into. I carried that style for seven years. If I were to look at an armory stocked with those, in good working order, and asked what you would change?

Nothing. Not until stuff starts breaking and wearing. Not until you find a need that rifle can’t fill.

But if you want to…

Because you want to…

It’s your money, have fun with it.

CZ Expands Striker Pistol Line with New P-10 F Competition-Ready

By

Keith Finch

-

September 3, 2021

CZ-USA with their second drop today,

Kansas City, KS – The new P-10 F Competition-Ready offers all of the popular striker-fired pistol line’s features in an enhanced, competition-ready package.

While many of CZ’s tactical handguns were born of competition guns, the new CZ P-10 F Competition-Ready pistol followed the opposite trajectory. The CZ P-10 C, released in 2017, was the gunmaker’s first striker-fired pistol. It was designed as a compact polymer-framed gun for self-defense and military use and was followed by the subcompact P-10 S and the full-size P-10 F.

The new P-10 F Competition-Ready has a barrel and slide that are a half-inch longer than the full-size model, providing a longer sight radius for the included fiber optic front sight and fixed serrated rear sight, resulting in increased accuracy. Additionally, like other P-10 models, the slide is milled to accept mounting plates for the most popular micro red-dot optics on the market—a must for any competition gun.

The pistol is outfitted with an Apex Tactical extended magazine catch, Apex Tactical extended slide stop, HB Industries trigger and Apex Tactical back-slide cover for increased performance. The half-inch longer barrel also has improved ramp geometry and a match 9mm chamber; both features were designed to improve the reliability and accuracy of the P-10F Competition-Ready. Since every competition gun needs a little flash, gold accents on the barrel slide cover and on the trigger and Henning Group magazine bases make this handgun stand out in the P-10 line and on the firing line.

Like the original, the new P-10 has a polymer frame with three interchangeable backstraps and ergonomics similar to the hammer-fired CZ 75, and a cold hammer-forged 5-inch barrel with a black nitride finish for unparalleled accuracy and durability.

The new P-10 F Competition-Ready ships with standard 19-round magazines, and a 10-round version is available for purchase in restricted states. The pistol carries an MSRP of $999.

CZ P-10 F Competition-Ready Specs:

● SKU: 95180, 05180

● Caliber: 9mm

● Magazine Capacity: 19-round, 10-round

● Frame: Polymer

● Trigger Mechanism: Striker fired

● Sights: Serrated rear with fiber-optic front, Optics-Ready

● Barrel: Cold hammer forged

● Barrel Length: 5”

● Height: 5.34”

● Width: 1.25”

● Weight: 30.1 oz.

● Overall Length: 8.5”

● Safety: Trigger safety

● MSRP: $999

About CZ-USA

Since 1997, CZ-USA has offered American shooters and hunters the best firearms the Czech Republic has to offer. In 2019, CZ-USA completed yet another milestone by producing CZ firearms here in the United States at CZ-USA’s Kansas City, Kansas, facility. With the aid of this new production capability, CZ-USA will continue to improve, innovate, and add to the CZ-USA line-up of high-quality, affordable handguns, rifles, shotguns and suppressors, plus custom-quality handguns from Dan Wesson. See how CZ-USA can make your shooting better, easier and a lot more fun at cz-usa.com/.