The Soviet light machinegun concept was a simply one, simplified even more when the moved to the RPK. The original ‘new’ soviet post-WWII infantry layout was going to be the SKS as the primary, the AK replacing the PPsh sub gun types, and the RPD as the squad light machine gun.
Simple.
All ate the new 7.62×39 M43 ammunition.
Logistical life was grand.
Then further experience indicated that the AK was the superior choice to the SKS and eventually the RPD got the magazine fed treatment too with the RPK. But the RPD still stands as a classic example of good design with an emphasis on logistical ease. The PKM was built with that same mindset and is still one of the three worldwise formats for GPMG’s worldwide.
Now, if you are wondering what differentiates a light, medium, general purpose, and heavy machine guns. Let me break those down in a simple unofficial way.
Light Machine Gun
Single troop portable.
Single troop or two troop team fireable, preferably single.
Effective range that of the infantry rifles it is supporting, usually the same caliber.
Medium Machine Gun
Single troop portable for the gun, supporting equipment (tripod) requires a team.
Two troop to three troop fireable machine gun team.
Useful as an emplaced gun.
Caliber and effective range usually greater than the infantry rifles it is supporting.
General Purpose Machine Gun
Configurable for emplacement, infantry movement, and vehicle mounts both air and ground. One core gun for many duties.
Usually a medium or heavy machine gun.
Heavy Machine Gun
Chambered in a caliber capable of anti-material, vehicle, and usually light armor defeat.
Infantry team is usually 3 minimum for both transport and employment.
Vehicle and emplacement deployment is most common.
Effective range comparable to vehicle line of sight weapons, including grenade launchers and some light cannons.
Keep in mind, these are generalities. A gun design can easily start bridging into multiple. The new NGSW submissions have a light machine gun that outperforms current generation medium machine guns and nicely set up as general purpose too. The new medium machine gun in .338 has the effective range of a heavy while being as portable as a medium.
We may see future tech merge the heavy machine gun with auto-cannons and retiring the concept of a heavy, clunky, team mandated platform line-of-sight kinetic only automatic weapon entirely. The new MG338 is offering a lot to the infantry and GPMG needing platforms while also being very easily pulled from one role into another at immediate need.
Need to pull the MG off a truck and into a building? Just grab it and go, the stock is still on and just folded or in a bag. Need to move it from a truck to a helicopter pull it, carry it, remount it. With the ammunition modernization efforts, combined with the refinements in weapon design of the last 30 years, we are reaching precision capabilities that were undreamed of when the RPD hit the fields.
Whenever the ATF tries to make a broad and sweeping change in the industry, they have to submit it for public commenting. ATF comments allow us to voice our own concerns, refute claims, and proposition our opposition to any new rule changes. I’m sure most of you know two big changes the ATF is trying to make regarding pistol braces and firearms frames and receivers.
Why So Late?
Many of you may feel this article is late. I think it’s right on time. When this all begins, tons of great articles and videos pop up on the interwebs discussing it; then it tends to peter out. For these two moves by the ATF, I decided to wait it out. The reason being is to keep the fire lit! To remind people the fight ain’t over, and if they haven’t made their ATF comments just yet, it’s time to jump on and get after it.
As many of you know, the ATF is targeting the legal use of pistol braces and working to redefine frames and receivers. Both rule changes are a terrible mess of bureaucracy. They are vague, unclear, and a massive pain to decipher. Caleb and Keith did two Gunday Brunch episodes that dive into both. Give both a watch if you want an in-depth explanation of the proposed rule changes.
Today we are going to talk all about how to form your ATF Comments and how to make them effective.
How To Construct Your ATF Comments
Ditch the Molon Labe
Seriously, comments just referencing the 2nd Amendment over and over are not going to work. If that was a factor, the ATF wouldn’t exist. I’m not saying I disagree with you or your sentiments. I’m just saying it won’t work. You can be right, or you can win. No one reading your ATF comments cares, sadly.
Focus On One Topic
The ATF might be a garbage fire of an agency with plenty of crimes that they never paid for, but these comments aren’t the time and place to come at them. Yep, they perpetuated Waco, Ruby Ridge, Fast and Furious, and so many more, but that won’t help preserve pistol braces or frames/ receivers. Keep your ATF comments on topic.
Use Facts
If you read the proposed rule changes for either the pistol brace or frame/receiver rule change, it’s easy to feel confused on the whole manner. Why? Because the rule changes are vague and seemingly sweeping. Point this out. Mention the confusing metric used in both rule changes.
Tell them that the definition of a frame or receiver will only affect law-abiding citizens and not criminals. Point out the definition of frame and receiver is much too vague to include the massive variety of firearms on the market. The proposed definition of the phrase readily is much too vague, and it’s impossible to know what’s legal or not.
With pistol braces, point out that their proposed rule is not based on law or the legal definitions of firearms. Mention that the ATF approved these devices for use and how a rule change could affect over 3 million gun owners overnight. If possible, personalize it. I’m a veteran who has had a nasty shoulder injury from my second deployment. Pistol braces are made for people like me, and I dang sure mentioned that.
Both rules are labeling themselves definitive definitions, but neither does that. It’s wise to point that out and mention how unclear the rules are and how the rules do not accomplish what they purport to do.
Don’t Copy and Paste.
Sometimes someone else’s comment says exactly what you want to say, and you think, boom, copy, paste, and now I’m done. I get it, but it turns out copy/pasted comments aren’t going to weigh as much as well-thought-out individual comments.
By all means, use a well-constructed comment, I found one on Reddit that was fantastic, and I used some of the same points in my comment. Sure it’s like cheating on your homework, but you’re just putting it in your own words.
Don’t Be a Jackass
Listen, none of us like the ATF or Fed Bois in general, but these comments are not the place to run your mouth. There are plenty of forums for that. Insulting, cursing, and acting like a jackass can and will get your comment tossed into the trash bin. It becomes a waste of time, and threatening feds will seemingly get you on a watch list.
Here’s what the ATF says – ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing profanity.
Don’t Forget the Docket Number!
Make sure you reference the docket number in your comments! If not, the comment doesn’t count. I can’t help but feel this is silly since the page you go to comment specifically links to the docket you’re commenting on. I’m saying it’s purposeful, but it sure seems that way. When making your ATF Comments include these two numbers.
If you’ve already commented and forgot the docket number, go back and comment once more referencing it. It might be a hassle, but it’s worth it!
The gun industry can be a lot of tough talk, but I’m constantly amazed how much tough talk turns into absolutely zero action. A comment, a letter to an elected official, etc, is the first step to fighting for your freedom and doesn’t even require you to work up a sweat. If proposing a comment is too tough for you to do, drop the tough talk and take that Molon Labe sticker off your F150.
With SHOT Show being canceled this year we have been a bit behind on information on the latest product releases from major firearm companies. The CompExpo Media Day will allow us to get caught up on that. Not only will there be major precision rifle vendors at the CompExpo talking about their latest and greatest, but there will also be hunting, archery and multi-gun vendors.
On August 5th the Expo will only be open to media allowing us to have the time and focus with the companies to report on the products for you guys. Stay tuned to see those articles popping up after the weekend.
When and Where
August 5-8, 2021
Cameo Shooting and Education Complex located in Grand Junction, Colorado
Cameo Shooting and Education Complex @CameoShootingCPW
[Ed: This is the first article I wrote for DRGO, published June 16, 2014. Remarkably, republishing it now is as relevant as it was then, as Dr. Murthy has become not only the 19th but also the 21st Surgeon General of the United States. Fortunately, he hasn’t yet joined in the left’s pogrom against guns and the Second Amendment. A few bits, italicized, are updated; two paragraphs and footnotes have been removed. Those data are dated, thought the points haven’t changed. The original text with footnotes is available in the original, here.]
President Biden’s nomination of Vivek Murthy, MD to become the nation’s next Surgeon General [confirmed March 23] raises important questions of policy and politics. The political is pretty obvious. Dr. Murthy is an accomplished physician at the age of 43 with a fascinating personal history, having been born in Britain to Indian parents. He was at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital teaching for Harvard Medical School following education at Harvard and Yale in medicine and management. He co-founded “Doctors for Obama” in 2008 to support Barack Obama’s campaign for the Presidency. With that achieved, the organization was repurposed in 2009 as “Doctors for America”, promoting the Affordable Care Act (on which he consulted as it was drafted). One is struck by similarities in this choice for Surgeon General to nominations of loyal supporters to plum European ambassadorships.
Dr. Murthy believes, as do many physicians and medical groups, that “gun violence” should be addressed by the government limiting access to guns. Doctors for America is on record supporting an “assault gun” ban. Having said earlier that he does “not intend to use the Surgeon General’s office as a bully pulpit for gun control,” he apparently wants people to believe he’ll do as he says, not as he did. Murthy famously tweeted about “politicians playing politics w/ guns, putting lives at risk b/c they’re scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue.” What’s scary about an advocacy organization representing its members’ convictions? And to what extent are guns “a health care issue”?
The main role of a presumably apolitical Surgeon General, beyond heading the U.S. Public Health Service, is to use that bully pulpit to speak to the health needs of the American public. Previous Surgeons General have been very influential on issues such as tobacco, HIV, violence, nutrition, etc. How could a man with strongly held beliefs about guns as a health risk not continue promoting those beliefs? It’s no surprise that his nominations were opposed by gun rights advocates who see violence done with firearms as criminal and educational problems, and gun-related health care issues as consequences of misuse, not of guns themselves.
So is there anything to be said for “health through gun restrictions”? Certainly, the fewer legal guns, the fewer should get misused. Would our declining violent crime rates (as gun ownership steadily rises) plummet on banning “assault” (i.e., modern sporting) rifles? Rifles are used in less than 2% of homicides overall, and “assault”-style rifles in only a fraction of those.
The Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald decisions ended the fantasy of eliminating guns from American society, particularly handguns, by far the most common. This was never realistic. There are about 400 million guns now in circulation and estimates of at least 85% rates of civil disobedience to recent confiscatory gun control laws. Depriving people of guns, the most effective tools for self-protection, would only increase victimization of the more vulnerable among us.
. . . . .
So what is desirable from a public health perspective? Good public policy (as opposed to agenda-driven policy) takes into account both the risks (harm) and benefits (harm reduction) of issues, and anticipates potential consequences of proposed policies, intended and unintended. These principles rarely seem to concern vociferous gun control partisans. The most rational basis for forming public policy about “gun violence” is to compare lives that can be saved and people uninjured against the numbers lost and disabled due to shootings. (This approach ignores the benefits of hunting and the shooting sports. These are widely enjoyed but don’t ordinarily raise questions of human risk.)
Abundant criminology research since confirmed by unpublished CDC data regarding self-reported defensive use of firearms has estimated that guns are used in self-defense from 500,000 to 3 million times a year in the United States. The most credible range of 1-2 million times per year is an awful lot of self-protection. How many lives don’t end, how many bodies are uninjured, because guns aid self-protection? Most respondents reporting use believed they were lifesaving.
Many of these events are not reported to police, so there aren’t official incidence and outcome data. But it is easy to suspect that out of around 2 million occurrences, as many as 2.2% (22-44,000 saved lives cp. 11,000-15,000 homicides) really were lifesaving and as many as 17% (170-340,000 cp. 73,000 injuries) saved someone harm. It’s more difficult to quantify absence of outcomes compared to what happens and is reported, but that has to be considered along with so-called “positive” data.
Thus, it could be quite counter-productive to limit legal gun ownership for reasons of public health and safety. And how remarkable that guns used defensively are rarely fired, and that people who defend themselves using firearms end up less harmed than those who use other methods (or just give in). Criminals certainly wish to avoid armed resistance. So having more responsible armed citizens may well reduce crime, thanks to individual defensive firearms use and by dampening general criminal motivation. These legally armed citizens are far less likely than the general population to commit crimes, violent and otherwise.
How are other problems addressed that are similar to firearms misuse, but hold much greater human cost? 400,000 or moreAmerican lives may be lost yearly due to iatrogenic causes (treatment mistakes), with vastly more non-fatal complications. These are largely infections but also include errors made in procedures, medications, and other care. This is tragic in the extreme, that the very places and people trying to save lives actually kill patients.
Why do we let this go on? Because we recognize that the millions of lives saved thanks to hospitals matter, and we exert ourselves to reduce their damage by improving, not banning, medical care.
Believing that public health demands gun control requires denying guns’ positive uses while lumping all gun users together in one bad-apple barrel. Of course, this also requires denying the natural right of self-defense and Americans’ Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Developing good public health policy requires considering all aspects of an issue, including the harm that misbegotten policy can cause. That’s a lot more complicated than tweeting sarcastic one-liners.
.
.
— 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.
Here we are in August already. I don’t know how this much of the summer has slipped past me already, but I’m ready to start fall hunting prep. THIS year will be the year. At least that’s what I tell myself.
Last year with COVID, deer season was almost a lost cause. Travel was “out” as far as I was concerned, and I was too distracted with the medical practice and pandemic gardening to do anything to get ready in the pre-season. I was unprepared when rifle season arrived.
But THIS year…
This year I’ve got my licenses for two states lined up and my doe tag applications in the mail. I’ve visited the family property and scoped out a spot for my blind based on what the camera has been telling me for the past year. I’m planning to visit a couple local in-state WMA’s to do the same. I’m also ready to try some new things to increase my chances of filling the freezer with local venison this year.
New Crossbow
I wedged a crowbar into my wallet and bought myself a new crossbow last week. Technology has zoomed ahead in the six years since I bought my first one, and I wanted to take advantage of that. I sprang for the Ten Point Havoc RS440. It is shorter and less front-heavy than my existing crossbow, has a nearly silent cocking mechanism, and being a reverse draw design it fits through a smaller blind window than my old one.
My new baby.
I rationalized the money spent because another trip to Texas would have cost me nearly as much, what with hunt registration, airfare, car rental, meat shipping, etc. This way I could spend the same money, get many more hunt days out of it over the course of archery season and use a local meat processor if I have success. I can rationalize almost any purchase if I’m motivated enough!
Bait
Although hunting over bait is illegal in the state where the property is, you can feed early in the year as long as all residue is removed 30 days before the start of the season. I’ve got almost a month before the cutoff, so I’m going to throw out some corn and apples next weekend in the cam area to encourage more activity.
Food Plots
There are a couple sunny open-ish areas on the property where I might be able to scatter some no-till food plot seed. What I’m reading indicates that seeding in late summer can provide some tasty fall edibles to draw in more deer where I want them. Unlike tossing out corn and apples, food plots are legal “bait” throughout the year.
I don’t have an ATV or tilling equipment, so it’ll have to be something I can hand rake and scatter, but I’ve been gardening at home for a couple years now, so why not try “gardening” in the open areas on the property? My seed order is in and should arrive this week.
Scent Lures
This is another avenue that is foreign to me. My family never used scent, so I have never gone farther than using “de-stink” spray on myself and filling my pockets with apples. I haven’t been eager to use urine lures. Honestly, walking down the scent aisle in the sportsman’s store, I can smell the urine odor leaking through the packaging. Not very appetizing. Things we do to take a deer.
But watching stuff on the interwebs leads me to think that I may try making a mock scrape or two and may try something called a “licking stick”. It doesn’t hurt to try. Never stop learning.
Game Camera
I’ve had the cam up for several years, and I’ve finally got it in a spot where there is regular deer activity all year long, in a location that I think I can stick a blind that is in archery range, that is not close to an access road where trespassers may wander. My camera was vandalized by trespassers – broken open and the card stolen – a few years ago at a different location. “Rage” does not begin to describe my reaction. I think the only reason they didn’t steal the whole camera was because it was cable locked to the tree. Needless to say I moved it deeper into the property after that.
Last weekend I moved the camera within the same area slightly closer to where I want to put the blind. But alas the first pics showed me that I’ve got it too high to look down toward the creek/wash. *sigh*
At least I can see if there’s antlers or not :-)
It’s good I need to go back up to install the blind and throw seed around. I’d hate to make the five hour round trip just to adjust the camera by a few inches. I know it’s a “first world problem”, but it’s not exactly like walking out my back door. In future I need to pay more attention to details like that “while” I’m there.
Blinds
I bought a new ground blind two years ago, but never set it up. It’s supposed to be a “two man”, but I want it to be a “one woman” with room to move around. I get the wiggles after a few hours sitting still, and this way I hope to minimize disruption while still being able to get up to pee in a coffee can filled with shredded paper (TMI?), get myself a drink or a [quiet] snack etc. This would lengthen the time I can stand to be in the blind at one stretch.
I even toyed with the idea of getting a larger blind to use as a tent of sorts. My crazy idea was to go into the blind for late afternoon to evening hunting, then after dark I would sleep there and wake up in time for dawn hunting. This would eliminate the need to go crashing through the woods by headlamp trying to find the blind in the dark at 4:30 AM. I’m not sure I would actually do it, but I’m at least thinking about it.
Also for public lands where I can’t put up a bigger blind to leave there for the season, I am going to try a blind-chair that I saw advertised. This is kind of the opposite of the tent blind in size. It’s basically a camp chair with the built-in canopy cover for concealment. It might be a bit of a pain to lug in, but it would be better than hiding under a camo tarp or something for when I want to hunt locally on public lands.
Can you see me now?
Exercise
The last thing I need to do to prep for deer season is the most underrated … exercise. I’ve been working outside in the garden for the past year – hauling bags of soil and manure, bending, lifting and hauling water buckets, etc. But I’ve not specifically been working to increase my muscle strength and cardiovascular capacity for dragging a dead deer uphill to my vehicle. Having a mild autoimmune condition has also made my feet, ankles, knees, and wrists hurt more than they did five years ago. All of which means I need to keep moving in order to keep using them.
I suppose since my neighborhood is hilly I need to just start walking the neighborhood again to shed a few pounds and build up my heart and lungs again. Motivation is hard, but maybe if I keep envisioning dragging a deer in my present condition, it will get me off my butt.
So those are my plans for pre-season prep. I hope I can get it all accomplished in the middle of the school physical season at work this month. But if I can do it, I will feel so much better prepared to get myself a local deer this fall. No guarantees ever. Life doesn’t work that way. But if I don’t put in the work, I can hardly expect to reap the rewards, can I?
[Editor’s Note: 1911 for 2011, Zombie edition everything was all the rage. Thanks CDC, you were fun back then.]
There are two thoughts on special edition firearms.
First, the commemorative firearms designed by the factory just don’t appreciate that much. A true rarity such as one of the few surviving WW1 Colt Black Army guns, now, that is a valuable firearm. I am not a collector but an accumulator. The firearms I own are fired and carried.
This brings us to the SIG 1911. The SIG 1911 handgun is probably the most underrated of modern 1911 handguns. They always work as the shooter says. The design is subtly changed with an external rather than an internal extractor as found on the original.
P series shooters- when has your P220 or P226 extractor crapped out? Never? The pistol was originally produced with a slide that greatly resembles the P series but then SIG- as a result of popular demand- introduced the Classic 1911. This is a pistol that conforms more closely to the original lines. It fits every 1911 holster as well. The SIG magazine is great but Wilson Combat, MecGar, and junk 1911 magazines also lock in and function.
This brings us to the current SIG 1911. It was in a shop, and my friend Jeremy told me it was about ten years old and unfired. The magazines were in plastic and it appeared unfired. It was about the same price as a new SIG 1911. However- it had a couple of features I liked very much. First, the rear sights are fully adjustable. Second, they are bar dot types. The front tritium dot is just that, a round dot while the rear tritium sight is a horizontal bar.
I really like this set up. The rest of the pistol is unique. The grips are aluminum finished in green with splashes of red. The slide is marked with a green Z. The top of the slide doesn’t have a Legion marking, but rather a hazardous material warning. This is the ultimate Zombie .45.
Two thoughts on this gun
– SIG ruined a good gun and it is a monstrosity.
– Cool. Has everything. You have to have it.
I took it home.
The pistol was field stripped and lubricated along the long bearing surfaces. The pistol exhibits the usual SIG workmanship. The fit of the barrel, barrel hood, and bushing are excellent. The solid trigger is a good choice for a hard use pistol. The trigger action breaks at a clean 5.4 pounds.
I broke out a few rounds to evaluate the pistol. I really didn’t think I would add it to my carry rotation, but I like to know that everything in the gun safe functions or it doesn’t. The SIG 1911 ran and ran very well. I used a number the Remington UMC 230 grain FMJ loads during the evaluation. There are clean burning loads, accurate, and pack a punch.
When hiking or spelunking around Appalachia this is as good a load as you could desire. I found I needed to adjust the sights. Funny- every fixed sight 1911 seems to come out of the box zeroed. The adjustable sight pistols are always off!
The pistol required two clicks in windage to get dead on target. SIG’s recoil spring system works well. Recoil was modest as this is a five inch barreled, steel framed pistol. One fluke, one of the supplied magazines did not lock the slide back on the last shot. I dropped this SIG magazine in the trash and continued to use the other SIG magazine, along with MecGar and Wilson Combat magazines.
The pistol is quite pleasant to fire. As for absolute accuracy- this was a fun outing but just the same I put the SIG on the MTM Caseguard K zone rest and fired for a group at 15 yards. Five shots went into 1.2 inches. That is very good. This is a well fitted five inch barrel Government Model pistol with a good trigger and excellent sights. It should shoot that well.
I find the SIG Zombie gun an excellent addition to the battery. It is a fun gun, a conversation starter, and if need be as effective as any 1911 .45.
Universal Background Checks occupy that same utopian magic panacea dream of most gun controllers, where if you give people just one more law to ignore if they are already inclined to do so you will solve gun violence. Or, at the least, help solve it. That seems to be the cop out of choice for when such measures inevitably fail to produce a meaningful result on curbing violence. That and blaming the surrounding states, who usually have lower murder rates.
“In an America, where gun violence has become a scourge to so many neighborhoods, Illinois is taking a commonsense approach to reform and we’re doing so with votes from both sides of the aisle,” Pritzker said. “I pray, and I really do pray, that not a day too soon the nation will follow Illinois’ lead.”
Of implementing ‘solutions’ that only inconvenience those who obey laws, certainly. I’m certain the nation is eager to get right on another window dressed safety measure. They tried to placate gun owners by assuring them that in this process, all the arduous bureaucratic processes would become faster if they file fingerprints for their FOID. That ‘concession’ is supposed to be the common sense compromise. A function of government that should be mandatorily both timely and efficient if it is required is instead offered as an incentive for compliance.
Charming strategy.
My surprised face will be really really surprised, I’m talking full blown shocked, when this does little to improve Chicago violent crime stats.
By the way, Illinois residents were already required to verify a buyer had a valid FOID card. In theory, this should mean they are fine to purchase any firearm they wish. That was already a form of Universal Background Check, but apparently it wasn’t universal enough. We must make it more universal to miss all the universal the FOID didn’t cover, even though it is supposed to.
You’ve heard Caleb and Keith talk about gun movies they love, well they’re back to talking about pop culture and today it’s gun movies that…well they were disappointing to say the least. Do the guys take a loose definition of what is or isn’t a “gun movie?” Yes. Does that matter? Only if you’re lame!
A long time ago, a friend asked me why I carried a gun every day. Being young and intemperate, I offered up a glib answer about how I wanted to be ready or die in a pile of brass; something typical of what you’d expect a self-identified “sheepdog” to say. I’m older now, and hopefully a little wiser, but it’s still a question worth visiting. Why do I carry a gun every day?
Some people would suggest that I carry a gun because I’m a dangerous radical spoiling for a fight. That’s nonsense, as those of us who embrace the responsibility of self-defense would be perfectly happy to go our entire lives without ever pulling a gun in self-defense. So I don’t carry a gun because I’m looking for trouble.
What about the seat belt argument? Do I carry the gun for the same reason that I wear a seat belt? While there’s a certain appealing logic to that argument, I don’t find it applicable any more. I wear a seat belt because the odds of me getting into a car crash are relatively good, especially when compared to the odds of getting into a self-defense shooting. Additionally, a gun requires skill to use effectively, whereas a seat belt requires no effort beyond “click.” A seat belt is a passive safety device – same with airbags, it’s there to protect me and requires no effort for me to use. A gun requires effort and skill.
Is it because I’m afraid of terror attacks? While that is a real danger, I also recognize that 21 rounds of 9mm aren’t really going to stop a bomb attack. I am CPR certified, and I know how to use a tourniquet, which to me are far more useful skills in that situation than being able to shoot. I don’t carry a gun because I have some fantasy of popping a suicide bomber with a head shot before he can push the button.
So why then? Why go to the trouble of strapping on two pounds of steel every day? Why educate myself on the laws of where I live and where I travel to make sure I’m in compliance? Why train to be able to employ my gun quickly and effectively?
The answer on its face seems simple, but is in fact a deeply personal and complicated process. However, it can be summed up in two words: what if. I understand that the world is a wild and unpredictable place. What if…what if today is the day that I need my gun? What if someone decides tonight, when I’m home and relaxing on my couch that they need my stuff more than I do? What if today is the day I’m walking the dog and some decides that they need to score, and they’re going to stick in a knife in someone to get that score. Most of all, I’m worried about what if something happened and someone gets hurt because I wasn’t able to act. My gun is a lot like a tourniquet, or CPR skills. If I don’t have those things, there are situations I can encounter where I’d have the training to help, but lack the correct tools.
What if today is the day I don’t need my gun at all; and I simply go about the day carrying a gun, a tourniquet, and never having to use them? Then that would be a good day. But the reason I carry a gun is because I don’t have the magical power to guarantee that every day is going to be a good day. I’m not jocking up and pretending I’m some sort of hyper-prepared sheepdog warrior, and I’m not constantly looking over my shoulder looking for badguys. Quite simply, I worried about “what if this happens, and I could have helped. If only I’d been carrying.”
That was absolutely a joke about the Emissary’s trigger guard.
However, if you take advantage of the rail to put a light under the gun, it makes more sense. This Emissary is light bearing in design and for holster selection. Think PHLster Floodlight if you are thinking holsters.
From Springfield Armory,
Tasked with a special mission, the Emissary bridges defensive and custom pistols delivering a bold and capable addition to the Springfield Armory family of 1911’s.
Built on a durable foundation of forged steel in its barrel, slide and frame, the Emissary offers a defensive pistol with an air of custom refinement. The pistol has a beautiful two-tone finish, with a blued carbon steel slide and a stainless-steel frame with squared trigger guard. A “Tri-Top” cut to the slide gives the pistol custom-grade styling, while a heavy-profile bull barrel delivers maximum accuracy and reduces felt recoil.
The Emissary blends form and function seamlessly in a defensive-minded firearm loaded with custom-grade features.
Wicked Ridge is the noted Ten Point company’s value brand, but basically Wicked Ridge crossbows are Ten Point models–using Ten Point’s technology– that are a couple years old and rebranded. In other words, Wicked Ridge crossbows are made by the Ten Point company in its Ohio facility to the standards that have made Ten Point the best all-around crossbow company in the business.
JJ has tested most all crossbows on the market, and believes Wicked Ridge’s upper-end crossbows (in the $800- $1200 range) are likely the best going for the money. Specifically, the NXT 400 is fast at a tested 400 fps for silly kinetic energy around 145 ft.-lbs., very narrow at 6 inches axle-to-axle so it’s easy to carry and hunt with, it’s safe, accurate, easy to cock and has all the features that make Ten Point’s xbows great. But don’t take the company’s word for it from its spec sheet. Unlike plenty of others out there, JJ’s actually been testing crossbows for 20 years; he tests them in a scientific fashion and calls a spade a spade when he finds negatives or disparities.
If you are in the market for a new crossbow for the upcoming hunting season, don’t buy until you watch this video. And if you don’t want to pay over 2K, the Wicked Ridge NXT 400 is likely the way to go.
Some bullets expand more, some have greater penetration- just put them in the right place!
There was a time when only practical experience and word of mouth from experienced shooters was counted on.
[Editor’s snide remark: What constituted both practical experience and ‘experienced shooters’ was sometimes… broadly defined. Fuddlore is word of mouth and it is counted on… not by professionals but certainly by some.]
Imagine that! The basis for experimentation must be scientific and testing must be repeatable and verifiable. [This is where it differs from Fuddlore, where the only basis for acceptance was it kind of sounding like a good idea]
In the end the single most important predictor of survival is prior training.
I like to give the reader an opportunity to get a handle on things. Quite often the things that the critic points out harshly are the things that majority of the readers find valuable. I have found that the subject of handgun wound potential or ‘stopping power’ isn’t a puzzle at all, but remains a puzzle to those that make it so.
Before the Civil War, there are many pistols called horse pistols. They were used to drop an enemy’s horse at arm’s length. A .58 to .72 caliber lead ball did the business. More horses than men were killed during those battles from 1830 to about 1900. The .36 Navy was among the first purely anti-personnel handguns. After all, sailors did not fight on horseback. At close range the soft lead ball expanded and proved effective. The .44 Army was even more effective. Adopted in 1860, the Army revolver addressed shortcomings of the .36 Navy. The Navy revolver lost much of its effect past fifty yards. With the pointed Minie ball, the start of modern conventional ball projectile design, neither caliber was particularly effective.
A .44 caliber black powder revolver and a Seecamp conversion in .45 ACP. Wound ballistics are pretty similar- some things work well and that doesn’t change!
When the soft lead ball expanded wounds were severe. The .44 Army was a devastating load against men and horses. The various centerfire .38 and .44 caliber loads developed after the 1870s were unimpressive. The hard bullets did not expand. The .44 American, as an example, with a 200 grain flat nose bullet at 750 fps was no powerhouse. The development of the .45 Colt met an Army specification that the cartridge could ‘drop an Indian War Pony at 100 yards’. A 255 grain .454 inch bullet at over 800 fps is a formidable loading.
The debacle in the Philippines and the failure of the .38 Colt highlighted a misunderstanding of handgun wound potential. The .45 ACP was developed to provide soldiers with a cartridge effective against men, horses, and Jaguar. This paid off during the many deployments in choice regions after 1911.
This is old history but valid.
The problem is, how is handgun wound potential measured without resorting to a war or shooting a herd of wild animals? The standard was once pine boards to test handgun cartridges, penetration being the only criteria. Penetration is still the most important criteria. Duct Seal and clay were once widely used to test hollow points, both unrealistic media. Yet you still see those that do not get it using this material. We have plenty of poorly designed hollow points today that will not upset unless they hit a brick wall.
This is an expanded Winchester USA Ready 9mm. This is a great defense load.
The best means of testing is carefully formulated ballistic gelatin, developed by trauma surgeons to replicate human tissue, as well as some highly significant scientific studies by Federal agencies. When I was a young peace officer we knew the .357 Magnum revolver and .45 ACP pistol were excellent choices, often solving the problem with a shot or two. The Magnum was preferred for use against light cover. This was before the terrible Miami Massacre when FBI agents were slaughtered by a felon armed with a rifle.
You are always outgunned when facing a rifle no matter what the handgun. Each felon was hit a dozen times or so. One took a .38 Special 158 grain LSWCHP at the base of his jaw and other body hits, another took a 9mm that stopped just short of his heart. The FBI undertook a series of tests that stand today as the best criteria for choosing handgun ammunition. The FBI is concerned with vehicle, glass, and light cover penetration.
Modern expanded bullets are predictably efficient but don’t count on them to work unless you put them in the right place.
Perhaps we need not be so much concerned. But some of the most important parts of the test are often ignored. This includes reliability, accuracy, and a full powder burn. The ability to shrug off water, oil, and solvent as well as multiple chamberings cannot be overlooked. Accuracy is important. A clean powder burn means less muzzle flash and more consistent accuracy. An FBI contract load has proven itself as a reliable, accurate, and consistent loading.
About the same time the FBI was conducting these tests, several members of the popular press (for whatever reason) published a so called stopping power study. The results were terribly flawed if the test was conducted at all, which is up to debate.
Unrepeatable and unverifiable results are not valid. Secret sources are not valid. There is a huge difference between a federal agency conducting a scientific study to narrow the choice to a good all around service cartridge and a study intended either to sell ammunition or sell magazines. A bit later, a preposterous tale of secret goat shooting in which the participants supposedly shot drugged goats was widely circulated. My opinion was that it was a fairytale. Just the same, it sold some books until the credibility of the popular press was severely questioned, but then professionals had no use for such garbage in the first place.
As civilians we carry a firearm that is a compromise based on weight and size. The .38 Special and 9mm Luger are considered standard.
Load selection is more important with small calibers such as the .38 Special.
The popular press tells us all calibers are the same, shot placement is what matters. This is a half truth, an oversimplified explanation. There are significant differences in wound potential between calibers. As an example many of you have more hunting experience than I. Consider that a man and a deer are about the same size. A large deer or a man takes about as much to put down. Men, in my experience, are tougher than deer. We are a predator class animal. The only means of dropping either is blood loss or CNS (Central Nervous System) destruction. The bullet must penetrate to the blood bearing organs and create a sufficient wound to cause blood loss, or destroy the connective nerve tissues of the brain and spine. Simple enough.
Wound ballistics must be a science. Detractors of laboratory tests feel these tests cannot duplicate differences in point of impact, clothing, attitude, muscle structure and intoxication. But a ballistic scientist does not ask us to believe anything. He simply presents the results of his tests. The results are not only verifiable, they are repeatable, the real test of science. I don’t believe trick loads significantly alter the ability of a smallbore cartridge to inflict damage. I don’t accept anecdotal and hearsay. Even if the shootings actually occurred — which is reasonable to ask. There are conclusions made that are so irrelevant to the reality of interpersonal combat that they are not even worth publishing. If I have learned anything at all it is that a long gun is far superior to any handgun. If the .38 is weak and the .45 strong, scaling up they are identical compared to a 12 gauge shotgun or .223 rifle!
What Works
There are a lot of cheap brands and loads useful only for practice. The bullet doesn’t expand even if it looks like our highly developed domestic ammunition. Then there are trick loads with fragmenting bullets and catchy names. A bullet must penetrate to reach the blood bearing organs. If the bullet breaks up on a belt buckle or heavy leather jacket you have trouble, not enough blood loss (Miami). The attacker may be a member of our protein fed ex con criminal class who has worked out everyday for years and had a mix of hard muscle and heavy bones. A balance of penetration and expansion is needed. The .38 Special with +P loads is a minimal caliber. The 9mm +P is better. It takes considerable effort to master the .357 Magnum and a short barrel Magnum isn’t any better than a 9mm +P. I’ve found the four inch barrel Magnum is another matter. The .45 ACP is controllable with practice, low pressure, and offers a good balance of expansion and penetration. It can be effective even if the projectile fails to expand, offering a larger wound channel. The .40 and 10mm are certainly viable.
The load should exhibit a balance of expansion and penetration favoring penetration. Twelve inches of gelatin isn’t twelve inches of clothing, bone, and intervening material. Sixteen inches is a good realistic minimum. This will get the bullet to the vital organs. Some irrationally fear overpenetration. The best means of avoiding over penetration is not to fire unless you have a shot and place the shot in the center of the target. A bullet in the air is a danger to the innocent. A bullet in an attacker expands and helps stop the fight. A respected medical examiner that performed thousands of autopsies in a busy city wrote than perhaps half of all expanding pistol bullets actually expand properly. Shoot straight, choose a loading that is reliable and features a good balance of expansion and penetration, and hope for the best.
Specific choices- Loads using the Hornady XTP offer reliable feed and a good balance of expansion and penetration. The bullet doesn’t fragment but stays together and penetrates. Black Hills Ammunition offers loads using the XTP, and so does Fiocchi USA in the Extrema line. Winchester has the Defender and Remington the Golden Saber. The Speed Gold Dot is a credible and proven choice. Use one of these loads, concentrate on marksmanship, and keep practicing. That is the key to wound potential.
[Editor’s Final Remark: A good friend of mine once said, “Inside that gun is the bullet that is going to do the job and stop the threat, it is up to you to find it. You find it a lot faster if you’re hitting your target.”]
Introducing the Burris Thermal Rifle Scope (BTS) from @BurrisOptics
Take night hunting to a new level with the Burris Thermal Rifle Scope (BTS). The feature rich, 4x Thermal Scope offers unmatched performance and value as a dedicated night hunting optic with your choice of 10 reticles and 7 color palettes to fine tune your night hunting experience. With options for stadiametric ranging, picture-in-picture, hot tracking, and brightness and contrast controls you won’t find a more feature rich thermal scope on the market at this price. The BTS comes in two sizes (35mm and 50mm) for choices in field of view and zoom range. Level up with thermal optics from Burris – Find What Matters!
To learn more about the entire line of Burris Optics please visit:
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.
Experts have squandered their credibility in recent public failures. The repeated misjudgments by public health experts over the past year have demonstrated that they didn’t know how to deal with the pandemic.
Claiming their decisions were “backed by science,” public health experts recommended a bewildering maze of contradictory rules about masks, and closures of schools and small businesses that may have reassured a frightened public but created more problems than they solved.
Out of the public eye, Canadian public health experts are behind another policy failure: a mandatory confiscation of lawfully owned and used firearms. The Canadian government relies upon public health experts to justify irrational gun laws that waste billions of dollars yet fail to protect public safety. In both cases, radical decisions are defended by claims that they’re “backed by science.” Such pseudo-scientific claims are intended to squelch disagreement. Anyone who rejects the experts’ claims are vilified as ignorant, a “science denier,” or being part of a tin-foil hat conspiracy.
Pandemic rules were numerous and confusing, even as they were authoritarian. Some people were required to wear masks, while others in near identical situations were allowed to go unmasked. Nationwide lockdowns were justified during the pandemic by public health experts, but, evidence for their effectiveness was scanty. Their statistical models relied upon to predict cases or deaths were wildly wrong. Due to the ill-advised shutdowns, the economy was devastated, costing many people their livelihoods, and a wide range of other serious medical issues were ignored. We will be digging out from under the economic and social consequences for years, perhaps decades. Experts claimed the science was settled, but it wasn’t.
Behind the scenes, public health experts (pdf) are similarly relied upon to justify radical changes in Canada’s gun laws. Based on public health claims, and ignoring other sources of expertise, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau introduced radical changes to Canada’s firearm legislation, confiscating hundreds of thousands of lawfully owned and used firearms and reducing penalties for serious violent gun crimes.
Experts are not gods to conjure with. Even the best, most objective and knowledgeable experts may be wrong. This should be particularly obvious when experts expound outside their supposed area of expertise. Why trust a medical doctor when he or she pontificates about gun control? Why trust a public health expert on the economic impact of a lockdown? Even in their field of expertise, experts shouldn’t be considered infallible. Unsurprisingly, experts disagree with each other all the time. Scientific knowledge is not dogmatic truth; science is a continual battle of ideas. Scientific debate rages over the cause of climate change as well as the true source of the Wuhan flu. Was it a lab-leak or a wet market? Experts may even make fundamental mistakes.
Public Health Experts and Firearms Legislation
Public health experts play a privileged role in debates over firearms legislation. Why not other experts? Newspapers, such as the New York Times or Globe & Mail, cite experts to support restrictive firearms policies, such as banning “military assault-style weapons.” What readers are not told is that editors hand-pick which experts to cite. Researchers who disagree are ignored or minimized.
Public health experts—not criminologists—dominate web-searches for studies on gun control. When querying “gun control research,” most of the hits (eight out of ten) are either public health studies or reports based on public health studies. (In response to my query, Google generated “about 158,000,000 results (0.59 seconds).” I didn’t check them all.) Very few studies by criminologists were shown, and none by economists, even though economics and criminology have higher methodological standards. Unsurprisingly, the research findings by economists and criminologists contrast with those observed in public health studies.
The differences matter. Given the importance of public policy on firearms ownership, a wide variety of researchers study gun control laws, including criminologists, economists, and public health academics. Unsurprisingly, given the differences in their disciplines and their research methodologies, their attitudes toward firearms diverge dramatically.
A Comparative Study
Arthur Berg, John Lott, and I conducted a large comparative survey (pdf) of researchers in criminology, economics, and public health who had conducted empirical research on firearms legislation. We asked our three samples of experts to evaluate the effectiveness of 33 gun-related policies in reducing both murder and mass-public shootings, including 20 policies evaluated in the 2017 New York Times survey.
Public-health researchers tended to believe policies that restricted civilian access to firearms (e.g., banning assault weapons and “buying back” firearms) would be effective at reducing murder rates, while both criminologists and economists were more likely to skeptical about these policies.
We also asked about eight policies that would relax or eliminate governmental restrictions on firearms usage, such as expansion of personal carry. In contrast with public health academics, criminologists and economists both rated highly policies such as allowing K-12 teachers to carry concealed handguns and encouraging the elimination of gun-free zones. These were judged the least effective by public health experts. The explanation for these differences is that methodologically solid research tends to undercut the effectiveness of restrictive firearms policies that are favored by public safety activists.
Samples of researchers were chosen who had published at least one English-language empirical study on firearms or firearms and violence in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Our survey obtained responses from 120 experts. Among our respondents were 50 public health researchers, 38 criminologists, and 32 economists. The sample included a small number of non-Americans, whose responses didn’t differ importantly from the American sample.
All participants were told that they were selected because of their expertise in firearms research and they were asked not to participate if they didn’t consider themselves to be experts in this area.
Response rates were acceptable. We had an overall response rate of 43.3 percent (120 responses out of 277 valid emails). The response rate for criminologists was 63 percent, and 74 percent for economists. The response rate for public health researchers was lower, just 30 percent, even after multiple attempts to gain a response. This may be due in part to the higher number of co-authors on public health publications.
To Sum Up
The repeated misjudgments by public health experts during the pandemic exposed the impracticality of their Draconian rules, supposedly based on science. Unfortunately, these authoritarian policies didn’t keep the public safe. Public health experts recommend similarly authoritarian policies with respect to firearms policies. What’s surprising is that despite the privileged role public health experts have in public policy, respected researchers in other fields reject their recommended policies. Research conducted by criminologists and economists demolishes claims made by public health researchers. When will governments wake up and stop relying upon public health advisers?
.
.
— Gary Mauser, PhD is professor emeritus in the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies and the Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia. He specializes in criminology and economics, has published extensively on firearms legislation, firearms and violence, and has provided expert testimony on criminal justice issues to the Canadian government.
Brandon takes us further on the AK-50 development journey. Where the failure points are. Where improvements has been made. Where they are noticing the rough prototype giving them data they didn’t even think about.
Even knowing numbers, evening having projection models and CAD, nothing beats live fire testing (ask the British on the SA80) and working out the various human factors that are largely unaccountable in a prototype computer model.
There isn’t something that is going to account well for a cold soldier sitting in the snow with a rifle like a soldier doing just that.
Now with the AK-50, probably not an issue they need to consider specifically (but not one they should dismiss).
Fight the Good Fight – Constructing ATF Comments
Whenever the ATF tries to make a broad and sweeping change in the industry, they have to submit it for public commenting. ATF comments allow us to voice our own concerns, refute claims, and proposition our opposition to any new rule changes. I’m sure most of you know two big changes the ATF is trying to make regarding pistol braces and firearms frames and receivers.
Why So Late?
Many of you may feel this article is late. I think it’s right on time. When this all begins, tons of great articles and videos pop up on the interwebs discussing it; then it tends to peter out. For these two moves by the ATF, I decided to wait it out. The reason being is to keep the fire lit! To remind people the fight ain’t over, and if they haven’t made their ATF comments just yet, it’s time to jump on and get after it.
As many of you know, the ATF is targeting the legal use of pistol braces and working to redefine frames and receivers. Both rule changes are a terrible mess of bureaucracy. They are vague, unclear, and a massive pain to decipher. Caleb and Keith did two Gunday Brunch episodes that dive into both. Give both a watch if you want an in-depth explanation of the proposed rule changes.
Today we are going to talk all about how to form your ATF Comments and how to make them effective.
How To Construct Your ATF Comments
Ditch the Molon Labe
Seriously, comments just referencing the 2nd Amendment over and over are not going to work. If that was a factor, the ATF wouldn’t exist. I’m not saying I disagree with you or your sentiments. I’m just saying it won’t work. You can be right, or you can win. No one reading your ATF comments cares, sadly.
Focus On One Topic
The ATF might be a garbage fire of an agency with plenty of crimes that they never paid for, but these comments aren’t the time and place to come at them. Yep, they perpetuated Waco, Ruby Ridge, Fast and Furious, and so many more, but that won’t help preserve pistol braces or frames/ receivers. Keep your ATF comments on topic.
Use Facts
If you read the proposed rule changes for either the pistol brace or frame/receiver rule change, it’s easy to feel confused on the whole manner. Why? Because the rule changes are vague and seemingly sweeping. Point this out. Mention the confusing metric used in both rule changes.
Tell them that the definition of a frame or receiver will only affect law-abiding citizens and not criminals. Point out the definition of frame and receiver is much too vague to include the massive variety of firearms on the market. The proposed definition of the phrase readily is much too vague, and it’s impossible to know what’s legal or not.
With pistol braces, point out that their proposed rule is not based on law or the legal definitions of firearms. Mention that the ATF approved these devices for use and how a rule change could affect over 3 million gun owners overnight. If possible, personalize it. I’m a veteran who has had a nasty shoulder injury from my second deployment. Pistol braces are made for people like me, and I dang sure mentioned that.
Both rules are labeling themselves definitive definitions, but neither does that. It’s wise to point that out and mention how unclear the rules are and how the rules do not accomplish what they purport to do.
Don’t Copy and Paste.
Sometimes someone else’s comment says exactly what you want to say, and you think, boom, copy, paste, and now I’m done. I get it, but it turns out copy/pasted comments aren’t going to weigh as much as well-thought-out individual comments.
By all means, use a well-constructed comment, I found one on Reddit that was fantastic, and I used some of the same points in my comment. Sure it’s like cheating on your homework, but you’re just putting it in your own words.
Don’t Be a Jackass
Listen, none of us like the ATF or Fed Bois in general, but these comments are not the place to run your mouth. There are plenty of forums for that. Insulting, cursing, and acting like a jackass can and will get your comment tossed into the trash bin. It becomes a waste of time, and threatening feds will seemingly get you on a watch list.
Here’s what the ATF says – ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing profanity.
Don’t Forget the Docket Number!
Make sure you reference the docket number in your comments! If not, the comment doesn’t count. I can’t help but feel this is silly since the page you go to comment specifically links to the docket you’re commenting on. I’m saying it’s purposeful, but it sure seems that way. When making your ATF Comments include these two numbers.
Pistol braces – ATF 2021R-08
Frames/Receivers – ATF 2021R-05
If you’ve already commented and forgot the docket number, go back and comment once more referencing it. It might be a hassle, but it’s worth it!
The gun industry can be a lot of tough talk, but I’m constantly amazed how much tough talk turns into absolutely zero action. A comment, a letter to an elected official, etc, is the first step to fighting for your freedom and doesn’t even require you to work up a sweat. If proposing a comment is too tough for you to do, drop the tough talk and take that Molon Labe sticker off your F150.