The other day I talked about the importance of goal setting when measuring performance, and I approached the subject entirely from a competition shooting standpoint. Now while we’re big advocates of competition shooting here, I also accept that there are some shooters who simply aren’t interested in matches, but still want to get better. For the ccw-focused shooter, what are good ways to set goals and measure performance?
Again, we want to focus on an objective standard, and for that I like to use the FAST Test, created by my late friend Todd Green. To set this drill up, all you need is a 3×5 index card and an 8 inch circle. You can use an index card and a paper plate, or tape an index card to the head box of an IDPA target. You could also download this target and print it on an 8.5×14 sheet of paper. Anyway, back to the post – the FAST consists of six shots, all fired from concealment. Here’s the course of fire:
Start with two rounds in the gun, draw and fire two shots to the 3×5 card
slidelock reload, fire four more shots at the 8 inch circle.
Anything under 7 seconds is considered and Advanced score, and under 5 seconds is pretty awesome. The current official record is held by some guy named Sevigny, who I hear is pretty good at shooting.
Now that you’ve been thoroughly demoralized by watching Dave smoke that drill, we can talk about goal setting for it. Let’s say your goal is to get consistent times under 6.00, which is a pretty reasonable goal for an average shooter. Let’s break that down: you’ll need to draw and get both head shots under 2.50, get your reload under 2.50, and then have three 0.30 splits for the remaining shots. That would put you at 5.90 for the drill.
I don’t recommend practicing the actual FAST too often though – when talking to Todd about the drill, he pointed out that it’s better to practice the individual parts of the drill, and then at the beginning and the end of your practice sessions try and put it all together. Here’s what a good practice session would look like that for that.
Two shots to a 3×5 card, no par to set a baseline 10 reps
Repeat, trying to get your baseline every time, 10 reps
Subtract 0.25 from your baseline, 10 reps
Subtract another 0.25 from your previous time, 10 reps
Go back to your baseline/goal time for 10 more reps
After that, I’d switch to 1-reload-4 drills on the head/body. https://www.youtube.com/embed/-MQakpnb55M
For the 1r4 drills, you’ll start with the gun out of the holster, aimed in on the 3×5 card. At the beep, fire one shot to slidelock, reload and fire four to the body. This drill gives you the chance to work on your slidelock reload and trigger control with the four rounds to the body.
5 reps no par time (25 rounds)
5 reps at baseline time (25 rounds)
5 reps at 0.50 less than baseline (25 rounds)
5 reps back at baseline/goal time
The point with reduced par training is to push your speed to a point where you’re making mistakes, then slow it back down to make your baseline/goal time. Eventually, you want your baseline times to decrease to the faster times that you’re using to push yourself. So if your initial baseline for 1r4 is 3.70 seconds, you’ll want to get it down to 3.2, then down under 3, etc.
It’s how you get better. There are plenty of other excellent drills that you can use to evaluate your skills as well, I just happen to like the FAST because it’s simple to set up, and tests a fairly wide combination of relevant defensive shooting skills.
Ann Arbor, MI (June 24, 2021) – Winning the long-range game requires an outstanding optic – one that’s powerful, bright and robust. Say hello to the EOTECH Vudu 8-32×50 SFP riflescope. Its formidable 32x magnification builds confidence, providing a large, bright target image. Its competition-grade turrets with easy-to-read MOA adjustments and zero stop are perfect for rapid, repeatable adjustments. The Vudu 8-32×50 SFP riflescope delivers features F-Class, benchrest and varmint shooters love. And like all EOTECH optics, the Vudu 8-32×50 SFP will endure the rigors of everyday professional use.
High-magnification optics like the Vudu 8-32x require the best glass and a large objective lens for optimal light transmission. Vudu uses multi-coated XC™ High-Density (HD) glass delivering edge-to-edge clarity and unparalleled light transmission and color reproduction. The combination provides vivid views at any power.
The 8-32x features the HC2, MOA-based, hashmark reticle that was designed for the precision long-range shooter. The non-illuminated crosshairs allow for elevation and windage correction, while the ultra-small center aiming dot (0.15MOA at 32X) provides the utmost accuracy.
EZ-Clik™ competition height turrets, calibrated in .125 MOA (1/8” per click @ 100 yards), add exact dialing for dead-on holds; easy-to-read scales provide repeatable and surgically precise adjustments while its EZ Chek (zero stop) enables rapid turret resets. A large, 34mm main tube allows up to 100 MOA elevation and 80 MOA windage adjustment, necessary for dialing drop and wind at extreme distances. A side-mounted parallax adjustment dial fine-tunes the reticle focus while observing the target. Its one-piece eyepiece and included throw-lever offers fast and fluid transitions from low to high magnification.
Vudu Scopes feature an aircraft-grade aluminum main tube with a hard-anodized, durable finish, creating a lightweight riflescope in a tough-as-nails, waterproof package. Each riflescope passes substantial environmental testing, ensuring unsurpassed durability in all conditions.
Building confidence, this lightweight powerhouse packs match-winning long-range features into a mission-ready package. Competitors trust the Vudu 8-32×50 SFP for accuracy and consistency in matches won by thousandths of an inch.
Vudu® 8-32×50 SFP Scope Features:
32x magnification for pinpoint holds; 4x magnification range (8-32x)
Generous eye-relief
50 mm objective for increased light transmission
One-piece eyepiece for easy magnification adjustments
Competition-grade turrets with easy-to-read MOA adjustments and EZ Chek (zero-stop)
Side-mount parallax adjustment
Ultra-small aiming dot (0.15MOA @ 32X)
Includes: sunshade, throw lever, lens cloth, Allen wrench, product user and reticle manuals
With our highly articulate commander-in-…-you-know-the-thing speaking on why we need to restrict the 2nd Amendment in order to curb violence… instead of things like restore lost income from the pandemic by getting people back to work or addressing any of the other many tensions in the nation with an approach that doesn’t scream partisan bias… the problem emerges with how blatantly wrong each of the declarations is.
From “needing Nukes and F-15’s” *the Taliban and Vietcong have entered the chat* too old absurdities like “Fire two blasts into the air” I don’t know why we listen to this man.
I’d like to say, in their defense, that some of what Donald Trump said was more absurd but I don’t believe that is true any longer.
We are living in an age where blatant falsehoods like “you couldn’t just buy a cannon” are ignored. No “False Information” or “Missing Context” posts under such a claim. Despite documented and easily findable evidence that the opposite was 100% the case. That weapons in private hands won the revolution. That weapons in private hands and the government supporting that ownership are not only an expression of trust in their people, but a respectful acknowledgment that arms are the ultimate expression of independence.
Joe Biden doesn’t understand this. Not in the least. It is beyond his cognitive ability and contrary to the absurd party line of safety through rules that the elite and the criminal class will always ignore.
We must continue to fight the ATF’s rule proposals and this latest speech is proof our efforts are working. They’re shifting tactics because we gun owners of America have said, “No, we’re done ‘compromising’ for nothing.”
The gun controllers built this house of cards and now that all their plans are coming to their logical conclusions, a giant implosion, they are scrambling to somehow try and scream “We told you so, we need ‘gun control’ because of X, Y, and especially for the children Z reasons.”
A minimal attempt is made to appreciate the fact that community stress and hardship might be a contributing factor… but no it’s definitely the guns.
So far the Biden administration attempts have all been wet blankets, but that is through the vigilance and refusal of contentious gun owners who are refusing to give an inch.
When coming up with a plan for how you would handle something bad happening, it’s not always useful to concentrate on “TEOTWAWKI” ( the end of the world as we know it) scenarios.
For me personally, focusing solely on the “end of civilization” is not helpful. I mention it here in certain articles because that is the prepper reference point for many people. But for my life, that focus only increases anxiety and doesn’t really help with meaningful planning.
For me personally, it’s more helpful to just think of it as planning for the unexpected.
The general public tends to look askance at people who they perceive to be “survivalists”, “preppers”, etc. The perception is that those people are cheering for Armageddon, and that they are mentally unbalanced or even dangerous. They are often dismissed as Whack-a-Doodles.
However, it’s not whack-a-doodle to be prepared for adverse weather events, extended utility outages, unexpected job loss, and the vagaries of the national economy. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, ice storms and blizzards happen every year – that’s not a fantasy scenario. The Great Depression actually happened. So did the Great Recession and the Spanish Flu. COVID-19 is STILL happening.
Being prepared for the above established events therefore does NOT indicate mental imbalance. Rather, it represents wise forethought and pre-planning. So, instead of letting fear and anxiety for the future be the driving force in my plans I have chosen to simply concentrate on those more likely events and let the rest take care of itself.
Thus, concentrating on a Great Depression-type mindset, and developing the skills needed for that can get me a lot of the planning I need without so much of the anxiety over “the end of the world”.
Growing more of my own food, preserving that food, collecting rainwater, cultivating a “waste not want not” mindset, learning some small construction and tool-type skills, keeping firearms skills sharp for food and defense, having alternate plans for an extended power outage – these are all things that would serve me well even in “normal” turbulent times.
These skills and mindset not only serve my purposes of food production and preparation, but they also help me save money for other important things – like finishing off my mortgage and med school debt. If I want to be able to retire in less than ten years those debts need to be gone.
There really is no downside- except maybe not gallivanting around the country for shooting matches anymore, or spending thousands on cruise vacations. It doesn’t mean that I will never do those things again, but my priorities have shifted, and saving money can still allow me to do those things occasionally if I want. But I have moved on to more important goals, and one of those is preparing for the unexpected.
The “I am not a hoarder” mantra helps me save money where I could otherwise fritter it away. I’ve mentioned before my methods of seed starting using toilet paper tubes and take out boxes – saving potentially thirty bucks or more not buying pre-manufactured supplies every year.
Paper towel and toilet paper tubes and take out boxes , ready for seed starting.
That’s just the supplies. Then when you see that the price of pre-started garden plants is four bucks apiece or more, it is easy to see additional cost savings for just a little bit of work. Using that math, I easily had three hundred dollars worth of garden starts in solo cups in my window this spring! Not to mention that I gave away thirty tomato starts to friends and saved them money as well.
I’ve mentioned various ways that I compost kitchen and junk mail waste to not only fertilize my existing soil but also extend its volume in containers. That means much less bagged soil and fertilizer I need to buy for my raised beds. (Not to mention less trash in local landfills.)
Granted, I have had to buy soil for the garden beds to start out, but once I reach the volume and production that I want, then those costs will amortize over time as the soil is reused and recomposted year after year. I think I am about at that point, as I don’t want the garden to become too big or overwhelming that I cannot care for it as I age.
It’s not just the garden that benefits from this “waste not, want not” mindset. I recently sewed myself a canning apron out of an old sheet using a free downloadable pattern – saving myself twenty or thirty bucks over a comparable apron bought from a store.
Not high fashion, but it does the job.
I’ve braided one backdoor rug and am working on a second – made out of plastic grocery sacks. They’re free, colorful, and abundant, so why not?
TV-watching crafts
Also in the non-garden lane, I am currently building a coffee table for my deck – made out of pallets and scrap lumber. There is a grill-side table in the planning stages also. I’m using projects like these as an excuse to learn how to use hand and power tools – also a useful skill in the event of a major economic downturn or severe weather event. And with the price of lumber currently, using pallets and scrap is another huge cost-saving measure (waste not, want not).
As you can see, I’ve encouraged this mindset to take hold in almost every area of my life, and it is slowly paying off. What I have NOT encouraged in myself is the mindset of “The world is going to end in the next five years and we are all going to die unless I do X.”
Anxiety and Fear are not helpful. What is helpful is Wisdom and Calm. We WILL all die eventually, whether SHTF or not. What matters is how we choose to live between now and then.
“I wish it need not have happened in my time,” said Frodo.
“So do I,” said Gandalf, “and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
Elite Tactical Systems, or ETS, is well known for the wide variety of transparent and multicolored magazines they produce. They started with magazines for Glocks and ARs and have expanded to the CZ Scorpion, MP5, and now SIG, HK, and S&W handguns. In a matter of just a few months, I purchased two weapons that utilize P320 magazines, so I needed mags. Specifically, I was looking for extended magazines for my Banshee Mk17, and the ETS P320 magazines seemed like a good candidate. Plus, I couldn’t find any reviews online, and I occupied a space where I could write one.
I’ve used the ETS AR, CZ Scorpion, and Glock magazines, as well as their magazine loaders. I’ve always had good experiences with ETS products. I understand their Glock magazines had some growing pains, but I’ve used the same three for years now without issue. So I hastily ordered some ETS P320 magazines and soon found they weren’t going to work for my two guns. The ETS P320 magazines would not fit into the metal magwells of the Banshee Mk17 and P320 AXG.
My ETS P320 Magazine Testing Ended Before It Began
Yep, the magwells are too tight, or the ETS P320 magazines are too fat. My test was almost over before it began. Then I got my hands on an old show demo X series polymer frame for a few bucks, and it took no time at all to move the FCU and slide from the P320 AGX to the X series grip. To be fair, I can’t be too mad at ETS. They made these for a standard P320, not a Banshee Mk17 or the fancy alloy frame P320.
The ETS P320 magazines fit, although they do somewhat reluctantly. They require a hard slap to seat them properly. Now that I chased down a means to use the ETS P320 magazines, I figured I better give them a nice, brutal torture session.
Let’s Torture’ Em
Back in the day, a lot of people warned me away from the ETS Glock magazines. People said don’t drop them! They will unload like an angry Colt SMG magazine! Yet I never experienced that particular failure with the Glock, Scorpion, and AR magazines, but figured it was a good place to started.
There isn’t much you can do to realistically torture a magazine. You can drop it, toss it, and replicate impacts, and that’s about it. So that’s what I planned to do. I’d commit to a series of different drops, short tosses, and impacts to the magazine. The magazine would be filled to capacity. I’d drop it, impact it, and toss it six times. Between tests I’ll fire ten rounds to see if it still feeds. If it does, I’ll reload the magazine and move on to the next phase.
Dropping The ETS P320 Magazines
I loaded it to full capacity and dropped it over and over again. I started by loading the ETS P320 magazines into my P320 and held them in a standard firing position. This height represents a realistic situation. Throwing it off a ladder would be fun, but that’s not super realistic. I hit the magazine release, and nothing happened.
I sat puzzled because the empty ETS P320 magazines ejected and dropped free without issue. However, when loaded, they created significant friction in the gun. Hitting the magazine release button did nothing on a full magazine. In fact, shaking it up and down and trying to free it did nothing. I had to grip and rip the magazine out of the gun to remove it. The mag was jammed in there rather tightly.
I ditched the P320 and just made a fist around the magazine and just dropped it from shoulder height. The surface below was hard limestone, and I figured it was a fair surface to test the magazine. I dropped it six times, and each time the magazine ejected one round. I test-fired ten rounds from the gun and had no issues.
Impact Testing
Next, I did six impact tests against a cinder block. I simply dropped it twice on the front, twice on the sides, and twice on the bottom. Predictably it ejected around at each drop but never unloaded itself. After six drops, I went back to the range.
Sadly, it fired one round without a problem, and then the follower failed. It would not rise far enough to feed the rounds to the top of the magazine. I struck the bottom of the magazine hard, and it rose slightly. It was then beat against a tire, and the follower would rise, feed a round or two, and then get stuck again. I slowly unloaded the magazine and attempted to reload the ETS P320 magazine. I couldn’t load more than one round, and I think it’s safe to say the magazine is dead.
Good thing I ordered two, right? I attempted to load the second ETS P320 magazine, and it would not load more than 21 rounds. Keep in mind this magazine is brand new and has not been fired or even loaded yet. With 21 rounds loaded, I went back to impact testing. I did the six impact drops, and not surprisingly, I got a very similar result. The ETS P320 magazine follower stuck in the down position, but I could free it with a sharp hit to the bottom of the magazine.
At this point, I called the test.
Not So Good To Go
The ETS P320 magazines have not lived up to the reputation I expected from previous experiences. I think the problem comes from ETS trying to replace metal magazines with polymer magazines. Glock, CZ, and AR magazines have long proven capable of being made from mostly polymer, but the P320 utilizes a metal magazine.
That might explain the tight fit, friction, and failure to drop free. Sadly I cannot recommend the ETS P320 magazines at this point, but I do hope ETS will sort out some of these issues, and I can get some cheap extendos for my Banshee Mk17. Until then, I’d stick to SIG factory magazines.
“I want to get better at shooting,” said the student to the teacher. That’s awesome, because everyone who carries a gun should want to get better at shooting. But it’s also really broad, and is the sort of thing that can lead to frustration on the part of the shooter when they don’t feel like they’re progressing towards their goal.
This is why I believe it’s incredibly important to set clear, defined goals. I’ve talked about goal setting and training a lot, and I’m going to continue to beat this drum as long as my fingers still work the keyboard. It’s the only way to make true progress, and the best way to measure progress as well. Let’s take that goal of “I want to get better at shooting” and break down into an actual achievable training program.
Right now, I’m an A-class USPSA shooter. I want to get better at shooting. Okay, what’s better? Being a Master class shooter is better. Immediately I change my goal from “I want to get better” to “I want to be a Master class USPSA shooter.” Now that I know where I’m going with this goal, I can look at what performance I need to enhance in order to get there. Because my goal is focused around classification, the best thing I can do is focus on the skills that are tested by classifiers – fundamental marksmanship and gun handling skills, primarily. Draws, transitions, and reloads. Most classifiers don’t have a lot of movement, so I can omit positional drills from my practice for the time being.
Next I want to break that larger goal down into smaller goals. If I want to make Master, I can identify critical performance areas that I can improve in order to meet that goal. For example, something like this:
I want to be able to draw and fire two shots to an A-zone in less than a second from my USPSA holster.
I want to be able to do a shot-to-shot speed reload to an A-zone hit in less than 1.5 seconds from my USPSA magazine pouches.
I want to be able to transition on close targets in less than 0.30 seconds shot-to-shot
Those are all goals that will help achieve my overarching goal of making Master in USPSA. Now that they’re established, I can then look at what training I should implement in order to get there. For all of these goals, the training would be a mix of dry fire and live fire. Working on draws I’d want to practice dry fire draws both with no par time and with a par time. The idea is to use dry fire to eliminate wasted movement on the draw and build a solid, consistent index where the gun arrives in my eyeline on target. Then I’d take that skill to the range and test it in live fire, again off the clock and using a par time.
The same is true for transitions and reloads. Dry fire is used to eliminate wasted movement and build the speed necessary to accomplish my goal; then live fire is used to refine those dry fire skills in a training environment. Performance tracking is key here, because if I’m not keeping track of what I’m doing on each drill, I won’t be able to measure my improvement and progress towards the goal. I can’t just go to the range, whip out my timer and go on the clock hoping for the best, I need to have a progressive, sustainable training plan.
When I eventually reach those training goals, I need to be able to pressure test my skills, which is where matches come into play. Shooting classifiers and matches allow me to see if the training is producing the expected and desired increases in performance on match day. If it’s not, I need to evaluate both my training plan and mental state to see where I’m going wrong. It could be that my plan itself is good, but I’m struggling with mental focus; or my training plan could be totally wrong for the goal I’m trying to accomplish.
The bottom line is that without goals and performance tracking, training is little more than self-gratification. Pick your goals intelligently, and plan your training accordingly.
If one searches the Biden nominee for ATF, the headlines are dominated by Susan Collins and her no vote.
Good for you Susan.
Chipman, as you know, is one of the most hacky of political hacks to ever be nominated for a position they assuredly should not have.
Waco.
Fast & Furious supervisor.
Senior Policy Advisor for Giffords… One of the most obfuscatory and ‘rhetoric over rationale’ gun control organizations on the planet. But no, why would that cause anyone any concern whatsoever? Having a clear political bias one way, especially the way of restriction instead of freedom, is no way to run an organization whose job is to regulate and objectively conduct the business of firearms. If you hate private ownership of firearms, if you have a strong and provably irrational opinion toward firearms, you cannot be a reliable regulator.
We shouldn’t put an anti-vaxxer, a militant vegan, or someone into ‘alternative healing’ only as head of the FDA either. But it is 2021, so anything is possible for those inclusivity points.
As we have said before, Vortex is listening to their customers and putting its focus on their tripods. From a Vortex rep, “Carbon fiber and Arca compatibility were two large priorities for us and this is very visible throughout the line now. Competing with other brands currently available was not the direct intent. For the most part, we just needed to refresh our tripods, increase the quality, and still offer them at a great price relative to the quality level.”
Next in the line up, the beefier and stronger Radian Carbon Fiber Tripod. Offering a stable shooting platform, smooth leg adjustments, and options for attachments.
The Radian Carbon Tripod
Previously we talked about the Vortex Ridgeview Carbon Fiber Tripod. A tripod weighing in at 3.0 lbs and allowing 73.8″ of height, it is a must for a lightweight glassing tripod that still allows a shooting position. The Radian Carbon Tripod offers a stronger platform with a little more weight and options for head attachments.
“I would always push someone to go with the Radian series if they wish to have a tripod to shoot off.”-Vortex rep
A shooter in a NRL Hunter match. Using the Vortex Radian tripod to glass and shoot off of while kneeling.
The Radian Carbon is a light 6.1lbs. It allows for both standing and prone shooting positions due to reaching a max height of 64.3″ and a minimum height of 7.8″. The tripod has four adjustable leg sections and three different leg angle adjustment options. It features an internal bubble level on the tripod and an eyelet for hanging things off of such as a wind flag or data card.
Inside the box is everything you need to start shooting or glassing, including a tripod carrying case with over the shoulder strap for hikes, multi-tool and case, and an arca swiss plate.
Options
Head
The Radian Carbon Tripod allows two head options. The first being the robust Radian Carbon ball head that allows for independent panning and tension control and can support heavy rifles or optics. This is an option that you would want if you are going to lock the gun into your tripod and want to take high angle vs low angle shots without having to adjust your tripod legs and just adjust the ball head. It also allows for a 55lb max weight.
The Ball Head option showing all three angle adjustments
The other head option, the leveling head, allows less adjustment, a +/-15 degree adjustment knob easily accessible from below the head, but due to this is a more solid shooting platform. This is the option you may want if you are comfortable adjusting your tripod legs more or are shooting off of a tac table that is locked into the tripod. Allowing 44 lb max weight.
Both head options include a removable counterweight hook and an arca swiss quick release plate.
Feet
The Radian Carbon comes with rubber feet installed. Also included in the box are three stainless steel spike feet if the shooter feels the need to switch them out.
Shooter Feedback
When talking to a precision rifle shooter about the tripods that they have experience these are their thoughts on the Radian Carbon over other tripods..
Q. “What have you liked about the the Radian Carbon over other tripods?” A. “It’s a lot smoother operation than any others I’ve had. Even just extending the legs is smoother than my others and it’s very reasonably priced in comparison to others in the same category.“
Q. Have you liked it for glassing more than shooting off of? Do you lock in or just bag with table top? A. “I’ve shot off of it both ways and with both heads. I more so use the leveling head with a table top and bag. I also keep the rubber feet installed.”
MSRP: $1,199.99 Weight 7.3 pounds Max Load 55 pounds Min Height 8.3 inches Max Height 67.3 inches Folded Dimensions (HxW) 28.0 x 6.0 Leg Material Carbon Fiber Leg Sections 4 Leg Angles 3 Leg Locks Twist Head Mount Arca-Swiss
MSRP: $1,099.99 Weight 6.1 pounds Max Load 44 pounds Min Height 7.8 inches Max Height 64.3 inches Folded Dimensions (HxW) 25.5 x 6.0 inches Leg Material Carbon Fiber Leg Sections 4 Leg Angles 3 Leg Locks Twist Head Mount Arca-Swiss
Finding a good light for your shotgun is a real pain, especially if it’s a pump gun. It’s a tricky proposition to combine a light with a manually operated firearm whose whole forend moves. Well, Surefire figured out the solution to that problem long ago. The latest incarnation of their pump integrated light is the Surefire DSF series of weapon lights. I got my hands on a Surefire DSF 870 light and tossed it on my beat-up old 870. Does it live up to Surefire’s reputation for outstanding weapon lights?
I guess we’ll find out.
Breaking Down the Surefire DSF 870
The Surefire DSF series of weapon lights are available for the Remington 870 and Mossberg 500/590 series shotguns. The DSF series integrates a weapon light and all its controls into the pump of a pump-action shotgun. This eliminates more of the problems associated with pump-action shotguns and weapon lights. There are no cords disconnecting, no hard-to-reach weapon lights, and the ergonomics improve tenfold.
The Surefire DSF packs both a high and low mode for a variable 600 or 200-lumen count. These lumens are backed by 13,000 candela and thrown by the Surefire Parabolic reflector. The light will last 1.5 hours on high mode and 3 hours on low. The mix of modes delivers a light that can be used for various situations that can also help you save some battery life.
When you integrate a light into a forend, you have to deal with some extra weight. That extra weight adds up to 17.8 ounces. It’s powered by two 123A lithium batteries. As you’d imagine, the Surefire DSF is made to last.
It can be fully submerged in water up to a meter with its IPX7 waterproof rating. The pump is made from high-impact polymer, but the light itself uses a mil-spec hard-anodized aluminum body. It can take a beating and is made to take an ass-kicking.
The Surefire DSF – Buttons, Switches, and Ergonomics
The Surefire DSF comes with a total of six controls. Four matter for tactical use, and two are more for admin purposes. The four main buttons serve two functions, but you get four buttons because you have ambidextrous controls. On each side, you have two massive buttons. Big enough to easily use with shooting gloves. The forward button utilizes the momentary mode, and the large rear button activates the constant mode. Should you choose to, you can reverse what the buttons do and put the momentary rearward and constant forward.
On the left side of the Surefire DSF is a very small button that changes the output from high to low and vice versa. The light provides a programmable source of light that memorizes your last setting and activates the momentary or constant mode based on that setting. It’s rather handy and allows the user to set the mode before the fecal matter hits the fan.
On the bottom, you have a universal kill switch. This switch allows you to shut off the light and disable the buttons. This is for storage and transport purposes and prevents NDs with the light, which can drain the battery.
Friday Night (Shotgun) Lights!
The Surefire DSF 870’s beam casts a wide, peripheral vision filling beam. Surefire calls it the Ref beam. It’s the Goldilocks of beams and casts light both forward and to the sides. This beam design is perfect for a shotgun.
Shotguns are long guns, but they are designed for relatively short ranges. They rule at CQB, and in CQB, you want good peripheral vision, but you also want a beam that reaches out far enough to be useful on a long gun. The Ref beam grants you a good compromise, and it’s well suited for a fighting shotgun.
The Surefire DSF casts a beam far enough to make it easy to identify and engage threats at 75 yards. Inside of 100 yards, you can see your target, but it might be tough to tell if they are armed or to make out the finer details of the target. At 50 yards, you’re gonna blind the poor guy and before he gets a dose of buckshot. At home defense ranges, it’s certainly enough light to see your potential bad guy or potential disruptive cat.
It’s a good little light that does push a fair amount of power forward. It’s tough not to compare it to the modlite or Cloud Defensive options. You won’t get the same photonic barrier penetration, but you can overcome most common light sources inside of shotgun ranges. Streetlights, most handheld lights, and overhead lights will be defeated by the Surefire DSF.
The warm beam helps with photonic barriers and also makes it easier to see the colors and details of a target. In my experience, warm beams also seem to be brutal on the eyes of a potential attacker. More so than a cooler beam of comparable power.
Shuck Shuck
The Surefire DSF grants you positive identify power with your favorite pump-action shotgun. The power of the light seems well balanced with its size and for its purpose on a short-range weapon. Beyond that, the extra heft helps you fight muzzle rise. It turns out a 17 ounces pump keeps your gun from bucking too much.
If you use a modern shotgun shooting style like push/pull, then the big hump of the light gives a great base to push. The downside is the slight bang you’re gonna get to your hand after you fire every shot. Well worth the extra control, in my opinion.
Overall, the Surefire DSF is a duty of home defense ready shotgun light that performs. Shotgun lights are ticky, but Surefire most certainly figured it out with the DSF series. Now, if only they’d make one for the Benelli M4 or Beretta 1301.
In Young v Hawaii a 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals concluded:
“[E]ven though [the Ninth Circuit] has read these cases to exclude concealed carry from the Second Amendment’s protections, see Peruta II, . . . the same cases command that the Second Amendment must encompass a right to open carry. “[emphases in original]
When reconsidered en banc, the Ninth Circuit decided that there really was no right to carry whatsoever. Young has appealed to the Supreme Court. It seems likely that the Court will grant certiorari. This prediction is founded on the observation that Young’s prayer for relief is modest: he wants only to be issued a permit to openly carry. Moreover, there is ample precedent from 19th Century cases that open carry – i.e. ‘in full open view’ which places men upon an equality – “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States . . . “It would be a small step for the Supremes to go so little a way to begin to discover “the Right” to “bear” “arms”.
Young comes in the shadow of NYSRPA v Corlett which SCOTUS has already agreed to hear in its 2021/22 term. There, the Court will decide: “Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.” Substitute “concealed“ with “open“ and you have Young.
The title of this was going to be “Where is Joan Rivers Now That We Really Need Her?” Before her untimely demise, Ms. Rivers presided over her court of “Fashion Police” propounding the fashion faux pas of the day, dictating de rigueur in accessorizing. Should the Supremes dig diligently into the history of concealed carry they might be puzzled and begin to wonder whether the distinction between concealed and open carry is more of a fashion statement than a legitimate distinction of law.
The Constitutional method of “original meaning” compels a court to find the meaning of a right to be what was held by the public ratifiers at the time of adoption, i.e., 1789-1791. What was the “original meaning” of the phrase “bear arms” in that era? In the absence of recovered documents specifically speaking to the distinction between concealed and open carry, students of history are left to draw inferences from other evidence.
It’s difficult to say with any confidence much about 18th century public sentiment toward concealed carry. That era’s handguns were characterized as: horse pistols, belt pistols and pocket pistols. The literature on handgun gunsmithing is replete with mentions of the latter class, albeit clearly a minority of production. The “coat pocket pistol” was a subtype somewhat more popular than the diminutive “pocket pistol” but still more concealable than the belt pistol.
We should wonder why there was a public market for a class of readily concealed pistols if there were no recognized right in the public mind to bear such arms. It is likely that anyone who could afford a brace of pocket pistols would have been a gentleman – and, as such, would be considered at liberty to accessorize as he saw fit. That would imply the right to carry openly, concealed, or not at all.
The first states to ban concealed carry were Kentucky and Louisiana, in 1813, 22 years after the founding generation ratified the Second Amendment. Things get muddier when the 1833 case Barron v Baltimore established the Federalism principle that the Bill of Rights did not constrain state legislatures. That rule was substantially reversed by the 14th Amendment and the doctrine of “incorporation” culminating in the 2010 Second Amendment case of McDonald v Chicago. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, there was no Second Amendment right to arms that Federal courts would enforce upon the states. But since 2010, there is evidently some right to bear arms that the Supremes should now be duty bound to discover, declare and enforce upon the states.
Wrenn v District of Columbia stands for the proposition that there is a right for the “average” citizen to be issued a concealed carry permit. The three judge panel in Young v Hawaii endorsed the right to be issued an open carry permit. The Ninth Circuit en banc then found in Young no right to carry whatsoever. That Circuit ducked the open-carry issue in its decision in Peruta II, for which the Supreme Court denied cert. Having denied Peruta’s claim to a right to a concealed carry permit, the Ninth Circuit was cornered. Sitting en banc, it found against Young’s right to an open carry permit, ruling out any practical claim to a Second Amendment right to bear arms within its jurisdiction. This places it (with the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits) in conflict with the Seventh and District of Columbia Circuits, which have found a right to a concealed-carry permit.
Generally speaking, sentiment concerning the practice of open vs concealed carry has essentially reversed over time from the 19th to 20th century. By the close of the 19th century, some states permitted both open and concealed carry, others only one or the other. Where carry was common but concealed carry prohibited (or regulated), open carry was an accepted practice. Where carry was common and concealed carry permitted (or lightly regulated), concealed-carry superseded open-carry in popularity. In the 20th and now the 21st centuries, open carry has been generally (but not universally) legal, but not commonly practiced. Concealed carry became the predominantly preferred mode of carry.
What happened? Did “the law” of the Second Amendment’s “right” to “bear arms” change from the 18th and 19th to the 20th and 21st centuries? How did this occur? There were no Supreme Court cases on mode of carry adjudicated at any time throughout this period. Cases adjudicated in several state supreme courts concerning state constitutional rights may be persuasive, but they are not nationally binding. The U.S. Supreme Court will not be searching for the meaning of the right to bear arms found in Hawaii’s constitution; it will be called upon to define “the right” defined by the Federal Constitution.
Arguably, the 19th Century laws of Kentucky, Louisiana and so many others which followed, may be characterized as “longstanding”. But does “longstanding” mean “since the founding era”; “since the antebellum era”; “since the turn of the 20th Century”; or some other prominent milestone of constitutional history? State laws banning or regulating concealed carry were not all adopted and upheld in the first quarter of the 19th Century. Generally, this development played out between 1813 and the middle of the 19th Century; again, under respective state constitutions rather than the Federal Second Amendment. Do any of these laws illuminate the understanding of “the right” circa 1790?
The easiest step forward for the Supremes would seem to be to discover a right to open-carry that may not be denied by a state. That would open the way for state legislatures to be compelled to adopt a Shall Issue Open Carry permit law, affecting Hawaii, California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Florida. But this impact would be very limited. And this scenario won’t unfold unless SCOTUS grants cert to Young and joins it with Corlett. A more likely scenario is that Young is held until Corlett is decided, with the Corlett decision apt to render the en bancYoung decision moot.
A likely response would be that state legislatures would adopt carry permit laws that do not differentiate between open vs. concealed carry. The legislators might hope that their residents would opt for concealed-carry over open-carry, so that their constituents would not suddenly see openly armed civilians all over public places.
Another possible scenario is that SCOTUS would declare that the states may ban open-carry or concealed-carry, but not both. Such a move would bring Hawaii, California, Maryland and New Jersey into conformance with Illinois and Florida. The “Gunshine” state is peculiar in forbidding open carry except while camping, hunting or fishing. Presumably, gators are preying on Floridians engaging in such activities who must therefore have more ready access to their handguns. Should the Supreme Court take this route, they will enshrine in Federal Constitutional law a “checkerboard” treatment of the right to bear arms. As the interstate traveler crosses state lines s/he will be obliged to take care to conceal or display her handgun to conform to local law.
In that case, state legislatures will sit – perhaps under the heavenly supervision of Ms. Rivers – to declare whether open carry or concealed carry is the fashion faux pas of their respective jurisdictions. Hawaiians may wear grass skirts, but they must bear arms openly? Californians must conceal their weapons? Floridians may bear their arms bare only while fishing or wearing bikinis? In Texas, Arizona and New Mexico, anything goes!
The hoplophobes would be appeased in concealed carry only states, whereas in open carry only states those horrified by the practice of secreting arms will be comforted by the knowledge that those openly carrying are properly vetted. Excepting for those states which have adopted Constitutional Carry. The only uniform aspect of open arms bearing throughout the nation will be the fact that Black Lives Matter sympathizers will still have to endure the sight of police carrying guns on their belts. What will the children think?
To answer this last question, I offer the following. When I lived in New Jersey, I patronized a Dunkin Donuts not far from the Catholic girls’ high school from which my daughter graduated. I was routinely surrounded by a gaggle of giggling girls dressed in their uniform kilts, and occasionally observed a middled-aged lady in street clothes accessorized by a revolver on her hip.
No one paid the least bit of attention to her except the counter clerk when taking her order. Eventually, I asked her if she were a cop; she replied in the affirmative. As captain of the obvious I remarked that she was not in uniform, to which she replied that she was a detective. Apparently, the nuns had failed to inculcate a proper sense of hoplophobia in their students, who just didn’t care.
What’s at stake here in Young? And in Corlett? And the two together? We ought to be thinking about this now as briefs are being written for Corlett; especially amicus briefs. The litigants are constrained to speak narrowly to the question certified, which is concealed carry. Amici might have greater latitude to slip in something about open carry and the bigger picture. Three points:
First, experience tells us that states which disparage carry will use concealed-carry only statues to harass gun owners who might inadvertently and briefly “flash” a bit of butt. We must avoid this vulnerability. A right to open carry is a bright-line solution. An allowance for “inadvertence” and “brief” leaves the cop, prosecutor and court ample opportunity to harass. No allowance would be ruinous. The conscientious concealed carrier must produce sufficient evidence to refute the charge of consciousness and long duration of exposure. He might beat the rap but not the ride.
Second, the “longstanding” dicta in District of Columbia v Heller is at stake. What is longstanding? 1813, antebellum or Reconstruction, 1911’s Sullivan Law? Is the original meaning doctrine based on the date of ratification? Corlett and Young represent the best opportunity for SCOTUS to discount the precedential weight of any state gun control laws adjudicated after the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
Third, nailing down McDonald’s incorporation of the Second Amendment upon the states. What is the right to arms contemplated by the Second Amendment for the nation, never mind any state constitution or laws, for what arms? Corlett and Young represent our best opportunities for the Court to make clear that state laws regarding the keeping and bearing of arms are superseded by the rights guaranteed in the Federal Constitution. Before ratification of the 14th Amendment there may have been no recourse to Federal Courts for a state infringement of a Constitutional right. That right was finally corrected for the Second Amendment by McDonald.
This discussion about the Constitutional distinction between open and concealed carry is a rare opportunity to ridicule gun control on a plane with fashion control. Should SCOTUS choose to allow states to distinguish open from concealed carry then it should expect to raise Joan Rivers from her grave to adjudicate many approaches to carry:
– purse vs. belt vs. shoulder;
– inside vs. outside the waistband;
– appendix vs. 3:00 o’clock vs. 6:00 o’clock; and, ultimately,
– a FlashBang holster clipped to a citizen’s bra?
We suggest that it would be prudent to subject such fashion statement laws to strict scrutiny.
.
.
—‘MarkPA’ is trained in economics, a life-long gun owner, NRA Instructor and Massad Ayoob graduate. He is inspired by our inalienable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and holds that having the means to defend oneself and one’s community is vital to securing them.
Bushmaster’s early 2000’s attempt at a turn of the century assault rifle, developed from Magpul’s Masada, didn’t go as planned…
The rifle did finally work but there is an emphasis on finally… Bushmaster/Remington had a serious QC issue as their previous iteration of existence slowly crumbled into oblivion.
My iteration, a late one, worked fine. Although it still held all the flaws and cut corners that made the ACR fall short.
In my experience, the ACR had about 80-85% of what it needed. It suffered from similar drawbacks to the SCAR with the short handguard, but then the SCAR pulled through with the core of the rifle working. Then the little things like the safety detent not working, the handguard being wobbly, being a 1:9 barrel out the gate, none of the caliber options being advertised were available except 5.56, and being nearly $1,000 over the $1,500-$1,800 price point that was originally targeted… There is a dramatic difference between a rifle being valued above MSRP, selling higher, and the actual MSRP being over 50% over the projected number.
We never received a good explanation why either. Just a ‘well it cost a little more than we anticipated…’ which would fly if the ACR was projected $1,500-$1,800 and ended up at $2,000.. A 10% shift is usually within reason for development, a doubling of the expected price when other firearms grant more for less… not good.
Add onto that the myriad teething issues, poor fitment, and various other quirks, and the ACR ended up as a wet cold waffle of a rifle product. Despite eventually getting it working the rifle never regained the lost ground the way others like the MCX did with the VIRTUS variant.
But, Bushmaster is coming back and they have teased the ACR’s return. We will see what Franklin does with the brand.
Some of you will probably read the title of this and think “what the hell is a kit gun?” Which is a fair question, because kit guns were popular in a day where the idea of throwing a revolver in your tackle box or camping gear was completely normal. These days everyone is carrying a Glock 19 with an RMR and a WML, so that got me wondering if the idea of a modern-day kit gun was even valid?
What the hell is a kit gun? This is probably the first question to answer, because understanding the idea of a kit gun is important to creating a modernized version. In days of yore, the kit gun was a revolver, frequently a 22 LR that was tossed into hunting, backpacking, camping, or fishing “kit” and used for everything from small game gun, casual plinking, dispatching wounded animals, and even last-ditch self-defense. The idea was simple: a smallish, lightweight gun that was a jack of all trades but master of none. One might even question whether or not we need to modernize the idea of the kit gun at all, because Smith & Wesson still makes the Model 317 Kit Gun, and Ruger makes the 3 inch LCRx in 22 LR. Both of those guns are lightweight 22 LR revolvers that perfectly fit into the ideal of what a kit gun should be. And as a diehard revolver enthusiast, I should probably call this article done and say that we did it, we modernized the kit gun because one is an Airweight and the other is polymer, mission accomplished. But what if…we took it a little further?
What if we made it semi-auto?
Alright, so the idea of a semi-auto kit gun is appealing. More ammo and easier to shoot are always good things, even if semi-automatic 22 LR pistols tend to be slightly less reliable than rimfire revolvers. Of course, that’s usually because people feed their guns the cheapest ammo they can find, but that’s a different post (buy CCI and you’ll be fine). Let’s grab 5 options to make our list. Remember, they need to be 1) light, 2) small enough to fit in a box, and 3) reliable.
Ruger 22/45 Lite
The gold standard of 22 LR pistols, in a lightweight package with a 4-inch barrel. Put a red dot on it, modify it endlessly, it’s the king of the hill.
Glock 44
The entry on this list tha wins the “Who’s on First” award (google it, kids) is the confusingly named Glock 44 which is actually a 22. It really ticks the boxes on this list, starting with its 10-round capacity. But the real advantage of the Glock 44 is that it’s a Glock, and at this point basically everyone has shot a Glock, so it’s nearly universally familiar to everyone.
Taurus TX22 Competition
I shot this relatively new Taurus a bunch and let me tell you: it runs great. Not only does it run great, it can hold up to 16(!) rounds depending on the model, and even accepts certain red dot sights. Oh and it has a threaded barrel so you can suppress it, and I’m sorry if you don’t think all of that is cool, you’re reading the wrong website.
Beretta 21A Bobcat
Oh yes, first on our list is possible the greatest 22 LR kit gun option there is. The Bobcat is light enough to carry in a pocket, extremely reliable thanks to its open slide design, easy to load and unload, and is even easily suppressed thanks to the recent introduction of threaded barrel models. The only drawback to the Bobcat is that it holds 7+1 rounds, the same capacity as one of the revolvers.
Smith & Wesson M&P 22 Compact
This gun doesn’t get the love it deserves, I think partly because S&W hasn’t done a great job marketing it. Regardless, I remember when it was launched, and using it to snap-shot prairie dogs from the passenger seat of a UTV driving around Wyoming. It’s a great little gun with a good trigger, reliable action, and the ability to be suppressed.
The final word
You can’t really go wrong with any of the five modern kit guns on our list, however it’s also important to note that for true modernity, only 2 of them can readily accept an optic from the factory. Since it is 2021 (or whenever you’re reading this), optics are on everything, so if that’s an important criterion it narrows your list to the TX22 Competition and the 22/45 Lite. Now, if it were me, what would I pick? The 2 inch Ruger LCRx in 22 LR, of course. But I’m a degenerate revolver enthusiast.
America has this weird idea about arming insurgency forces with disposable weaponry. Granted we didn’t invent the concept, but we sure did make it our own. Well, we did before it became cheaper to buy Kalashnikovs and issue them en masse. Most of us know about the Original Liberator from World War 2, but few know about its successor from 1962, the Winchester Liberator. While it shared the Liberator namesake and the idea of arming an insurgency with a cheap weapon, the similarities end there.
The Idea Behind the Winchester Liberator
A man named Robert Hillberg dreamed up the Winchester Liberator. He named it the Hillberg Insurgency Weapon. What do you do when you have a new gun design? Well, you approach a big company to try and get it made.
Hillberg approached Winchester with his idea. The suits at Winchester liked his idea and saw clear profit potential. Communism spread like a plague and America backed guerilla forces to them off. So what kind of firearm would the new Liberator be?
Pistols are tough to use without training, and the same could be said for SMGs. Plus, making either cheaply rarely lead to making them reliable. One thing you can make cheaply is a shotgun. Shotguns are easier to get hits even when you factor in minimal training. A spread of buckshot offers higher hit potential, and four loads of it quadrupled your ability to kill.
The Insurgency Weapon
Ambushes were the realm of the Liberator, not gunfights. Imagine being a guerilla hiding in the bush. America armed you with a Winchester Liberator. You’re not poorly trained, you’re not trained at all. You and your team ambush a squad on patrol and each empty four rounds of buckshot at the target.
Courtesy Forgotten Weapons
Every one of you flinches as you pull the trigger because this is the first or second time you’ve ever fired a gun. Shot placement matters and you can’t shoot, but it’s okay you’re throwing dozens of pellets at them. You might not kill everyone, but you’ve made hits. You’ve taken men out of the fight.
Best-case scenarios you can snag better weapons. Worst case, you wounded and killed some and now you flee into the jungle to do it again tomorrow.
Here Comes The Winchester Liberator
A shotgun could be deadly, reliable, cheaply made, and could be very compact. The reason for four barrels gave the gun a significant advantage. A four-barreled shotgun with a rotating firing pin was more compact than a pump-action and offered more firepower. The gun fired as fast as a semi-auto without the need for a complicated semi-auto system.
Winchester told DARPA, and DARPA encouraged the production.
The Winchester Liberator In Living Color
Robert Hillberg and Winchester charged forward, producing a few different models of the Winchester Liberator.
The Mk1
Hillberg built a fully wooden variant designed as a proof of concept. It featured a forward and rearward grip and no stock. The massive trigger allowed for the long firing pin rotation between tubes. Originally the Mk1 used a speed loader-like packet of ammunition that was proprietary. However, this proved to be problematic, and Winchester ditched the idea.
Courtesy Forgotten Weapons
The Mk2
The Mk2 Winchester Liberator provided a firing model of the gun. This model integrated a trigger guard into the system that could be removed if needed. The Mk2 integrated a removable stock. Pistols and SMGs are tough to use without training, but a pistol grip only shotgun is much more difficult to wield. The stock was a wire type and likely provided a sharp punch to the shooter due to recoil. The gun opened like a break open derringer and exposed all four barrels for loading and unloading.
Courtesy Forgotten Weapons
The Mk2 Winchester Liberator was made from castings but incorporated steel for the barrels and other critical components. Using magnesium casting turned out to be an issue. Often the cast magnesium would cause the barrels to have issues aligning when fitted into the molten magnesium—making them successfully also made them more expensive to produce. Mk2 guns came in 16 gauge only.
The Mk3
The Mk3 changed things slightly. Building the Mk3 was supposedly simpler, with casting for the back half of the gun only. Winchester ditched magnesium for the front portion of the gun. Instead, a steel plate held the barrels together. The lockup mechanism was also simplified, and two different models were made—one with a side opening locking device and the other with a top tab.
The Mk3 came in both 12 and 16 gauge. It utilized a more conventional trigger assembly and came with and without a stock. An exposed hammer appears to have allowed shooters to manually cock the weapon as needed. Heck, the Mk3 Winchester Liberator even came with sling points. It was the most refined variant and proved reliable.
The Fate of the Winchester Liberator
The Winchester Liberator never took off in terms of its intended purpose as an insurgency weapon. The war in Vietnam had escalated significantly and now we armed guerillas with M16s and sent troops to fight beside them. There was no need for a cheap shotgun.
Winchester instead tried to market the weapon to police and correctional agencies, as well as military forces. However, it was never purchased in any great numbers, or possibly any number at all.
Hillberg took the gun to Colt, who adopted it as the Colt Defender and made it an 8 barrel gun in 20 gauge. However, this gun also failed to attract any interest, and only a few production models were made.
The Creator
Robert Hillberg started young and produced several prototype firearms before he was ever hired by a firearms company. This reportedly includes a 357 Magnum SMG. Imagine that beast of a gun. Colt offered him a job after a successful display of the gun. He worked at numerous companies designing everything from firearms to aircraft parts.
Robert Hillberg loved multiple barrel weapons. He invented the Winchester Liberator, the COP 357 derringer, and the Colt Defender. Hillberg served as the head of research and firearms development at High Standard back in classic High Standard days.
Robert Hillberg designed the Whitney Wolverine, helped with the Browning BPS shotgun and the M60 machine gun. Prolific describes him best and he contributed to a number of projects. Most of his designs were more successful than the Winchester Liberator.
An American Arms Designer
Hillberg deserves appreciation for being able to think inside and outside the box. He designed guns like the Winchester Liberator, the Whitney Wolverine, and the Wildey magnum. He made fascinating firearms and seemingly pushed the status quo forward. Sadly he doesn’t get the attention he deserves. Hopefully you can walk away from this article with respect for Mr. Hillberg.
Winchester’s XPR Stealth SR (suppressor ready) is a perfect do-all rifle from truck to treestand. It’s a handy 6 lb., 8 oz., 36.5-inch composite-stocked rifle owning a 16.5-inch barrel that’s threaded (5/8×24) for a can. Other features that make it perfect for pig hunting at night include its compact stock, Permacote-anodized matte finish that resists rust and glare; a trigger that’s as crisp as burned bacon, and its simple, right-side receiver-mounted safety that’s my favorite in all the rifle world. A lengthy rail accommodates any optic you see fit. But perhaps most exciting is the caliber in which I’d choose it in. Sure, you can opt for anything from 223, 6.5 Creed, 7mm-08 Rem. (has a more perfect round ever been created for hogs and deer?) .308 Win. (tested here) on up to .300 WSM, but I’d choose Winchester’s new .350 Legend cartridge that fires a 150-grain PowerPoint bullet at 2325 fps for 1800 ft.-lbs. ME. What’s better? This versatile, close-range pork chop procurer is priced right at around $550. BOOM!
Soldier of Fortune is one of the most controversial magazines ever to exist. First published in 1975, the magazine was founded by Robert K. Brown, a Green Beret officer with Vietnam experience. It billed itself as the Journal of Professional Adventurers and lived up to the name. Famously, the magazine is a bit nutty. I browsed through a few decades worth of issues and have put together the five craziest things you can find in Soldier of Fortune magazine.
The Soldier of Fortune Articles Underwater Knife Fighting
Soldier of Fortune precluded a lot of the rather silly ‘operator’ skills we see taught today. Don’t get me wrong, there are lots of good people out there teaching good stuff, but there is crap too. Soldier of Fortune had good articles by people like Ken Hackathorn, but alongside that, we have articles on subjects like “Underwater Knife Fighting.”
Yep, we get several pages on Underwater Knife Fighting, including pictures of two divers duking it out. The divers are both Special Forces bubbas. Reportedly the rumor is the Green Berets humored the writer and came up with ‘several’ techniques. Apparently, they had a good laugh about it after the writer departed.
That’s not the only article that presents a fascinating set of skills for the average reader. Remember, this is the Journal of Professional Adventurers, and surely this is who the magazine was aimed at. Not just kids like me fascinated by the magazine.
We also had “Sentry Removal,” in which a man in Ninja Pajamas shows us in detailed photos how to take a sentry down. The article goes as far as showing how to kill the Sentry with a lying-down ninja kick.
The Guns
Soldier of Fortune wasn’t a dedicated gun magazine, but they had the occasional article on new firearms. They wrote expansively on the Galil back in 1975, and we can’t forget guns like the 44 Magnum Sniper system being covered.
My personal favorite firearm featured in Soldier of Fortune was the Sidewinder SMG. This bicep braced SMG utilizes a magazine well that can be rotated 360 degrees. It can be used with one hand, and as such, they most certainly dual-wielded full auto SMGs in the issue.
Also, in 1979 they got their hands on a C.Z. 75 and led into the article with the comment:
“Sooner or later, someone had to be the one to do it. My only regret is that someone had to be a communist. I mean, frankly, it is somewhat embarrassing to me to admit that the best conventionally designed pistol was designed and is being marketed by the Czechs.”
Along the way, there are plenty of mentions of 45 ACP and stopping power and inherent weakness of the 9mm round. It’s fuddlore at its finest.
The Classifieds – For Mercenaries
In 1989 the free trade-hating Governments of the United Nations made it illegal to be a mercenary. Before that, as long as you didn’t betray your own country, being a real mercenary overseas wasn’t hard. If you wanted to find work or offer your talents, you went to the back pages of Soldier of Fortune. Looking at these now, it’s fascinating to see the demand for fighting men.
Soldier of Fortune famously listed jobs for those looking for all sorts of work. Heck, they got sued over a few times when hitmen were hired from the Soldier of Fortune classifieds. Beyond the hitmen and mercenaries, we have guns for sale, recipes for explosives, and P.I.s looking for work.
It’s a free for all with everything from typesetting offers to catalogs.
The Ads
Ever want Ninja Training Gear? If so, then Soldier of Fortune had you covered back in the day. The ad promises ninja uniforms that include a black jacket with a hidden shuriken pocket, black pants, two arm guards, and a headband!
Soldier of Fortune ads are as entertaining as the magazine itself. Seriously flip through the magazine and just pay attention to what you see.
You can see multiple ads for nunchakus, “Hardcore” Action t-shirts, and even what appears to be a lie detector for your everyday operations. For 30 bucks, you can get an eavesdropper stopper to figure out if your line is tapped.
Man, the late 70s and early 80s were a heckuva fun time! I’m a little bummed I missed out on all this fun. You could buy knives, early Tasers, blowguns, and of course, books on the Hitler-UFO connection.
Actual Fascinating Journalism
The Soldier of Fortune crew has sets of brass balls. These guys went where other correspondents were afraid to go. They went to Cambodia, Zimbabwe, and even Afghanistan during the Afghan-Russian war. They were the first to get their hands on the new Russian 5.45 round as well as the AK-74.
From Afghanistan, they connected with Freedom Fighters, Arms Dealers, and more to get their hands on an AK 74 and fire it.
Reading the story is fascinating, and the fact they were able to go to a war-torn country, find a sample of the AK74 before anyone else had seen it, and then shoot it speaks of their ability to be journalists.
When your crew is made up of hard-ass Vietnam vets with special ops experience, your curiosity tends to turn into reality in the worst places in the world. There is some insane stuff in Soldier of Fortune that’s worth grinning over, but there is some serious journalism worth reading. Certainly, no modern outlet does the same amount of reporting as Soldier of Fortune.
Professional Adventurers
As a kid, I loved SoF magazine. My generation’s version was all about the Global War on Terror, and it undoubtedly propelled me to the Marine Corps. I read about Fallujah and Kabul, about firefights and ambushes, about snipers and SEALs. The magazine holds a special place in my heart, and it certainly holds a special place in history.
