Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Advertisement

Knuckle Dusters – Punch Harder, A Brief History

By
Travis Pike
-

Humans are interesting creatures. If we find a way to harm another person, we find a way to do it better. Not just with knives, spears, clubs, and guns, but with our own two hands. Throwing a punch is one of the most basic violent things a person can do. So naturally, we found a way to make a punch better. Through various forms of knuckle dusters, the human imagination has found a way to make a single punch as potentially deadly as a blow from a club.

Knuckle dusters have been around in some form or another since the glorious days of Rome, and likely well before. The earliest examples come from Gladiators, Indian martial artists, and Sikhs. Various gauntlets have built-in weapons that allow for close range scraping throughout armored history. Knuckle dusters have been made from wood, cast iron, lead, and of course, the famed brass knuckles. These days aluminum variants and even polymer knuckles kick around of varying qualities. 

Sikh Knuckle Duster

The idea behind the weapon is simple. The strongest person can only throw a punch so hard. The addition of a knuckle duster transfers more energy per punch, on top of protecting your hands and adding a material that can cause cuts and abrasions. A good heavy set of knuckle dusters add substantial kinetic force to your punch, and when combined with unforgiving metals like brass, they can crush bone. 

Let’s not pussyfoot around here. Knuckle dusters, or brass knuckles, are deadly weapons not different than a gun or knife. These tools are part of the lethal force area when it comes to the escalation of force.

Knuckle Dusters and War

The deadly effectiveness of knuckle dusters made them an excellent tool in warfare. Civil War soldiers carried knuckles for close-range fighting. When your gun fires at an effective rate of 2 shots per minute, the enemy can close the gap quickly. A set of knuckle dusters and a good knife were very handy in close quarters fighting. People forget a good deal of the Civil War was fought in trenches, and when men are coming over the breach, they could be well inside bayonet range before you can react. 

What Makes the Grass Grow?

Speaking of trenches, knuckle dusters were a popular item in the meat grinder known as World War 1. Again the same slow rates of fire the majority of weapons had combined with the sudden close-quarters trench fighting made a lethal punch a handy tool to have. The Americans issued the Mark 1 Trench knife, which combined a fighting knife with a set of brass knuckles as a close-range force multiplier.

British Death Head Knuckles

World War 2 proved that knuckle dusters were once again a popular choice, with private purchases by American troops being common. America reissued the Trench Knife in small batches, and the Brits had their own Death’s Head knife with a set of knuckles built into them. In a post World War 2 landscape, war moved faster, weapons fired faster, and close-range fighting was done with carbines and not bare hands. The landscape changed, and brass knuckles fell out of favor. 

Oddly enough, during your Author’s time in Afghanistan, knuckle dusters were quite common among Afghans. From weapon caches to everyday citizens and marketplaces, they seemed to be a popular weapon. Most were made from pot metal and likely originated in China. Many of us who purchased them had them confiscated at customs. 

Knuckle Dusters and Self Defense

Modern, high-quality knuckle dusters are still sold, and so are pot metal junk ones, and plenty of polymer models exist as well. Companies like Empire Tactical produce high-quality aluminum and actual brass knuckles that are precision machined and made in America. 

Gun shows and flea markets are plagued by cheap models and the key chain style polymer knuckles that often look like a dog or cat. Regardless they are still considered knuckle dusters in the eyes of the law. 

That’s where we can start our discussion on knuckle dusters and self-defense. It’s a bad idea for a few reasons. The first is the fact they are most likely illegal to carry in your state. Texas recently made them legal to carry, but that’s Texas. 

The second reason why they are a bad idea is that if you can use brass knuckles, you can use a gun. Both are deadly weapons, but a gun is much more effective and easier to use in a likely self-defense scenario. If you’re close enough for knuckles and they are legal, you probably should have grabbed your gun or knife already. They just occupy a worst of both worlds legal and practicality niche. 

That being said, they are cool as hell. My set of Empire Tactical Brass Knuckles is 16 ounces of brass and kick ass. They are a neat conversation piece, or maybe as part of a collection. While these things are deadly weapons, they are better suited as collector’s items and badass paperweights these days. 

At least until trench warfare makes a comeback. 

Pistol Braces: What You’re Not Doing About it.

By
Keith Finch
-

Why getting involved matters and why sharing memes about pro-gun fictitious characters isn’t going to stop the ATF.

UPDATE: They pulled the notice early. Apparently calling a confusing mess of rules ‘Objective’ make them popular in the public comments. Good job all who commented.

Aaron Cowan has a question and I have one too, have you gone to Regulations.gov and added your articulate, reasoned, and polite (at least civil) comment to the ATF’s rule change proposal on pistol braces?

Some of you certainly have, the comments are up to 48,354 from 21,444 yesterday. But if you haven’t yet done this simple 5 minute step, a step that is a foundational civil discourse in this nation, why?

Seriously, why? Why haven’t you?

Is it because, “it won’t matter anyway?” or some variation thereof? “Your” little plebian pistol brace comment couldn’t possibly matter?

I understand that sentiment, I truly do, but that simply isn’t true. We stopped the M855 ammunition reclassification with this exact method of civil discussion, and the ATF is not quite as adversarial as the memes make them out to be… not quite. They aren’t your friend, they aren’t your enemy, they are just the government. It is much more benign neglect, trying to do their jobs with limited communication inter and intradepartmentally, and a healthy does of SSDD.

As citizens of these United States, we have the enumerated right to be a vocal part of the government, and this modern age of technology has made that easier than ever. No longer are we writing in by mail after reading about it printed in the paper and are therefore several days behind the time start when news reaches you, now you can click the link and complete the process in 5-10 minutes on your smart phone or at your desk. You can crap on the ATF’s idea while crapping on your bosses time and dime, double win, I don’t give a give a crap where and when as long as you do so before the deadline (Jan 4, 2021)

We spend all day commenting and liking on social media, put a comment where it really does count as an active part of self governance.

They’re proposing a rule that is of no value, let’s make sure they know (never assume someone knows something you do not explicitly tell them) and that the superior alternative for everyone is removing portions of the NFA that cause this clash in definitions in the first place.

Make SBRs and SBSs Title I Again.

Type your comments, don’t copy paste a form letter because those all count as the same comment. You can use the form letter as a starting point but add your own phrasing, make it personal.

Every link in this article goes to the same spot, Regulation.gov. Look, this whole paragraph is a link. How about that!

Snark aside this is very much the absolute least you can do. It is the bare minimum of civics, and it is proven to work. This won’t solve every issue between the ATF and the US Gun Owner. It certainly won’t solve every issue between the US Government and the US Citizenry. But it our civic duty to not be lazy, so lazy that some would rather court the disaster that is civil fucking war than do the equivalent of saying you like (or hate) X, Y, or Z gun gadget and here is why, on the internet.

You don’t like the rule because it is unclear, confusing, provides no benefit to preventing criminal misuse of firearms, sets a massive administrative burden, will bury FATD in work preventing them from considering truly new products because they are busy looking at every possible variation of a ‘braced firearm,’ or will result in unjust criminal prosecutions for simple possession rather than an active misdeed such as assault with a deadly weapon.

Any and all of those, in your own civil and concise words, pushes the needle in our favor. Ultimately, in the absolute worst case scenario (civil fucking war) you know that you made the effort, you chose to participate in the rule making and your governance.

You did your civic duty. You can return to your regularly scheduled meme game and commentary knowing you did.

Top 7 Survival Rifles for Beginners

By
Sponsored
-
Editor's "M4"gery AR-15

When it comes to survival situations, skills and a little bit of experience should give you an advantage. But, what if you are a beginner who lacks these things? What tools should you prepare to survive the unexpected situations that you might encounter?

A reliable survival rifle should be helpful. However, picking the best survival rifle can be tricky, especially because there are a lot of options to choose from. Luckily, this article will help you narrow down your options and discuss the top 7 survival rifles for beginners.

1. The Scoped Ruger 10/22 Takedown

For beginners in an actual survival situation, it would be best to live off land and hunt smaller animals such as rabbits, possums, squirrels, and other varmints. Thus, you will need an excellent rifle that can fire a respectable caliber. An ideal rifle for hunting small game is the Scoped Ruger 10/22 Takedown.

The Scoped Ruger 10/22 Takedown has a durable and lightweight design, which makes it worth the investment. This type of rifle has been in production for decades but that did not stop it from producing newer more innovative versions. The Takedown versions can be easily disassembled, allowing you to conveniently store it in your survival backpack and reassemble again when you need it.

Moreover, the Scoped Ruger 10/22 Takedown was designed to be a rugged, easy to clean, and maintain rifle. This is one of the primary reasons why it is ideal for hunting small animals that hide in trees or thick underbrush. Small, light, and durable the 10/22 will last the workload.

2. Remington 700

If you are a beginner who wants to survive in the wild by hunting large animals like deer, then choosing carlibers suited for the task is a necessity. Look for a rifle that can shoot accurately over long distances. When we talk about on-point long distance accuracy, there are few options than the Remington 700?

The Remington 700 is an iconic, center-fire rifle that has been a consistent weapon hunters have relied upon for decades. The Remington 700 is chambered in a variety of calibers in varying power factors, certain calibers giving it an effective range of beyond 1,000 yards.

3. AR-15

Personal defense is an essential survival task. Having a rifle that can do both is also essential.

While the Remington 700 and 10/22 offer excellence in basic hunter setups they both have their limitations

In this case, what you need is the AR-15, which is an accurate and lightweight semi-automatic rifle that can protect you from any nearly any type of likely threat. AR-15’s are widely made, largely affordable, highly controllable, and well supported firearm in the US. It works well as a beginners rifle too.

Aside from being a lightweight rifle, the AR-15 has low recoil, ergonomic controls, and adjustable length of pull on the stock to fit a variety of body profiles. So, whether you are wearing body armor or backpack strap, you can size the rifle without struggling. Besides, the rifle’s manual of arms can be easily learned and is widely available for review online.

4. AK-47

An alternative to the AR-15, the AK-47 (AKM Pattern rifles) are another excellent option.

In the past, they have offered an even more affordable option when compared to AR’s for both the rifle and the ammunition. That has leveled out somewhat today but still holds some merit.

The downside, which has also leveled out in recent years, was the accessory market was generally more limited and of more dubious quality. In 2020 though, AK prices have come up, but so have the quality offerings in available AKs.

5. Mossberg 500 (Yes, this one isn’t a rifle)

For close in and limited space situations, sometimes there is nothing quiet like the shoulder claymore, more commonly known as the shotgun. It can hunt, it can fight, and in it’s pump action variations it is simple, inexpensive, and dependable.

For beginners, one of the popular ones you can choose is the Mossberg 500. With a reputation like unto the Remington 700 (and 870) the Mossberg 500 has barrel options, light options, optical options, and more all for a very affordable total and in 12 and 20 gauge.

With a midlength rifled barrel the Mossberg 500 will have a range better than 150 yards shooting a slug and those barrels usually accommodate scopes quiet nicely.

6. Ruger Mini 14

While the AR and AK are the star of the modern survival mythos, they aren’t doing much that a rifle in their caliber and with their magazine capacity cannot also do. The Ruger Mini 14 (and 30) is a venerable rifle with a reputation as simple ranch hand type work horse. They even have ‘Ranch’ models.

You can still put an optic on it and run larger capacity magazines while not worrying about grips, PEQs, MAWLs, DBALS, Binary, Trinary, thermals and the like if you don’t want to. It’s a simple solution that you can make work well.

7. Browning BLR Lightweight ’81

The Browning BLR Lightweight ‘81 rifle is simple lever action with an additional feature. This rifle can accommodate a variety of hard hitting calibers that is perfect for big game hunting survival type situations. The added feature that we don’t find on most lever guns is a detachable magazine.

The detachable box magazine is the marvel of reloading technology and allows a much quicker replacement of expended ammunition compared to tubular or other internal magazines. It also avoids any pesky semi-auto restrictions in locales where that might be a problem.

Conclusion

It is evident that different types of rifles cater to different purposes and situations. Each survival rifle (and shotgun) mentioned above performs best for specific tasks, so choosing one is certainly tricky since it could be your lifesaver. But, when making a selection, remember to pick a rifle that is durable and reliable.

Additionally, picking a night vision rifle scope might also come in handy. At the end of the day, choosing a survival rifle that is packed with many features for hunting and self-defense is a huge factor that can help guarantee your survival.

(geekprepper.com)

IWI TS12: Space Aged Shotgun

By
BullShooters
-

The world is witnessing a golden age of tactical shotguns right now, and IWI’s Tavor TS12 represents the cutting edge of new-shotgun design in a market dominated since 1887 by single-magazine-tube guns. Some such designs are even gaining favor. Why?

High-capacity, bullpup-style shotguns offer some obvious advantages over traditional models, including a shorter overall length for greater maneuverability and the ability to put more rounds downrange before reloading. IWI’s TS12 offers these traits in spades, and it also has something else civilian consumers want: Badass looks. 

But, the TS12’s uniqueness and devotion to correcting traditional scatterguns’ downsides did not come without a few downsides of its own. Here we’ll take an in-depth look at all facets of this fascinating new shotgun.

47,000 First Time Gun Buyers in California

By
Keith Finch
-
Gerbrand Defense, Waterford MI

And oh does that have some jimmies thoroughly rustled.

Opinion: With Surging Gun Sales Comes Increased Risks

California, we have a problem. Gun sales are surging and a good number of these gun purchases are in direct response to the fear of the pandemic and social unrest, according to a recent UC Davis study.

Approximately 110,000 Californians have purchased a gun since March including an astonishing 47,000 first-time buyers. The nationwide gun-buying surges are fueling increases in fatal and non-fatal firearm-related injuries. Two public health crises have collided – gun violence and a global pandemic. This is cause for massive concern and action.

Some of what Mr. Malte, the author, states here in his opinion is factual, I assume the numbers are, however much of it, to include his opening sentence, is subjective. The title is even subjective, but it does grab clicks.

Mr. Malte is pointing out that of the over 110,000 purchasers of guns in California (yes, CA) 47,000, or nearly 43%, are new first time owners. He correctly ascribes a great many of these purchases as fueled by the pandemic and civil unrest, much of which happened very publicly just north of them.

But his presumption that risk is increased, instead of altered, is subjective. It relies on massaging numbers, bracketing statistics, and generally making data say what you want it to say by not mentioning certain aspects in detail. Like avoiding other risks of accidental death for comparative measure.

Brian Malte is making the argument that the 47,000 new firearms owners and the new 110,000 firearms purchasers are the direct cause of the increase in both fatal injuries, non-fatal injuries, suicides, and violent crime in California. This quite disingenuously removes all the complexity and nuance of violent crime, suicidal ideations, and blends the myriad motivations and accident rates into one quagmire in order to present a negative image of these gun owners. Or at the least, places a tangential blame that on these purchasers that all these same events in the future are their fault.

Anti-gunners flip and flop on whether gun owners are evil, or just naïve and irresponsible, about as often as Michigan changes its weather outlook (give it 5 minutes). The underlay is always guns bad and makes no mention of or allowance for positive instances of use. If you pretend they aren’t there they cannot hurt your argument, right?

The default opinion from Brian Malte is there is no positivity in owning personal arms, only risk. Highlighting this facet of his opinion by only pointing out selected are carefully framed risks to gun ownership, marginalizing the motives for lawful purchase, and directly attributing these new purchases to an increase in crime rates and suicides during a year of incredible financial, medical, and emotional stress. Obfuscating method with motive and not accounting availability or other nuance.

The implication is that the 47,000 new owners will be the ones to kill someone accidentally, allow their kids to kill or injure someone accidentally, kill themselves purposefully, or become a criminal. And it is all because they didn’t know the risks.

Mr. Malte uses the literary arts to set up the natural, and incorrect, default in that there were no risks or marginal risks in any given one of those 47,000 peoples lives before they bought that gun. It subtly implies that none of them are intelligent enough to rationalize and understand these risks. Nothing against these poor dumb plebeians who watched violent riots on live TV this year, even against the allies of the movements by those ostensibly with the movements, but they just don’t know any better. To say nothing of any one of those new owners having been previously victimized.

Mr. Malte, the risks are altered, not increased.

Life is risk, take all the proper precautions in the world and you or someone else can still end up dead. The pandemic has been a live and boisterous demonstration of the competing risks of daily activity, it woke people up to risks they had not considered before. Like that the police are in no position to save you, they rarely are. They are a deterrent presence of consequence far more than an active pre-emptive opposing force.

Cops respond to crime, the crime has to happen. Their response is going to be tempered by a number of factors to include the response time. Police chiefs and sheriff offices openly admitting they aren’t coming out, due to the risk to their personnel, for anything they don’t have to was a shock. A wake up call to a fact many of us have known since the ‘No Duty to Protect’ court rulings.

Nobody is coming to save you, it is up to you.

But Brian Malte considers violence against your person, against you as a new lawful background checked firearm owner, the nominal threat and borderline “gunnut” fantasy. He also ascribes to you, a functioning adult who has no felonies or serious misdemeanors and manages to deal with the other inherent risks of daily life, the inability to properly assess the risk of adding a firearm to your life.

Do people fail at this? Of course. The fact that we have a few hundred accidental deaths and injuries indicates mistakes are made and we can and should educate to do better. But we also know that mandates and demands from the government can backfire spectacularly and actually cause more harm than good when taken objectively, it happens constantly (Cash for Clunkers). Balance of risks.

Data shows that guns are much more likely to be used against oneself or a family member than an intruder.

Only if you use the definition of ‘used against’ to mean fired upon causing an injury or death. By the CDC’s own estimate there are at minimum 60,000 defensive gun uses in a given year, and upwards of 3,000,000.

A gun in the home substantially elevates the risk of intimate partner lethality involving women by 500% and suicide by 300%.  Furthermore, a new study shows that 70% of those who bought a firearm during the COVID-19 pandemic reported having suicidal thoughts throughout their lives, compared to 37% of current gun owners.

And I am certain none of these percentages have been massaged from comparatively small numbers of occurrences and framed to make the risks appear quite disproportionate, nor would they obfuscate by not delineating along the lines of legal and illegal possession in said home. Is a woman at an elevated risk from intimate partner violence from a partner with no history, convicted or otherwise, of intimate partner violence just because he or she purchases a firearm? To say nothing of a conviction making them a prohibited possessor, which those 110,000 people and 47,000 new owners, are not. Can we also stop belittling the complexity of suicide by making it seem like our suicide rate is out of control all because of American gun ownership. Way to marginalize an intensely personal struggle.

I personally love the quip that a study (I’m sure immaculately conducted) showed that 70% of those who bought a firearm have had ‘suicidal thoughts’ throughout there lives. Like that isn’t one of the pretty little white lies we still tell ourselves that we, all of us collectively, have never thought about the act of suicide ever. We may not have suicidally ideated, as in the act of seriously contemplating taking our own lives due to our current life circumstances (and even then that definition is personally subjective to what we would consider seriously). Everyone has thought about suicides, asking the question in a vague enough manner similar to gun control polls asking ‘should violent criminal’s access to firearms be made harder?’ will always produce the desired ‘correct’ answer.

That has a number of causes and one of the most egregious isn’t the fault of pro or anti-gunners (or poll designers even), it is the attention span of the average person toward something that is not part of their direct productive involvement in their own day. Going into the nuance of their mental health is personally invasive and not a part of whatever they a currently looking to accomplish, so instead a much less invasive general question is used that can generate a quick stat. You are much more likely to get responses and can easily gauge what those responses are from anyone not involved at a professionally informed level.

Bringing a gun into a home also affects children; a majority (89%) of unintentional shooting deaths occur in the home and an estimated 3 million children witness a shooting each year. First-time gun buyers aren’t required to learn how to safely handle a gun or know where and how to store it. The lack of required safety training and education for gun buyers puts families at risk.

So does adding a pool or improperly installing a child safety seat. Most accidents in vehicles take place close to home too. This is another leading statistic that basically amounts to, accidents happen most with the item where the item is the majority of the time.

Organizations like the NSSF are constantly funding safety initiatives in ways that will increase participation, because mandates (especially inaccessible and/or inconvenient ones) get ignored.

It is not just about the risks of having more guns in more homes. Since the start of the pandemic, inequities, racial injustice, hate crimes and gun violence have exponentially increased. Gun violence is driven by many factors and conditions, many of which have been exacerbated by the pandemic – poverty, unemployment, isolation, hopelessness and loss. The combination of the surge of firearm purchases combined with the exacerbation of underlying health and social conditions in many communities is starting to prove deadly.

Starting to? It never stopped being deadly in all of human history.

You mean to tell me that all the wider societal indicators of a time of greater turmoil and upheaval, which leads to an increase in violence, are there and people made a choice to give themselves a personal option to do something about that violence because the government has repeatedly proven themselves insufficient?

Color me shocked.

Given the pandemic and social unrest, it’s even more critical to invest in effective and proven gun violence intervention strategies, and keep the work of those on the frontlines of preventing gun violence in the spotlight. Their jobs have become even more challenging. These workers, including the dedicated hospital-based interventionists and the community-based organizations that employ them, need resources to keep the peace on the streets and to stop shootings.

But not police officers, right? Nope, that would be divisive and controversial. How about keeping violent offenders locked up for their proper terms? Nope, cannot do that, there is a pandemic and they might get sick in a place where they’re monitored 24/7 and their health and welfare are the responsibility of the state while imprisoned.

Oh? Didn’t think that getting convicts out of prison was an attempt to reduce incurred medical expense and logistics? Ha!

While crime has decreased throughout the country during the pandemic, homicides and shootings continue to increase, including California cities such as Los Angeles, San Jose and Oakland.

So overall, things are actually still fairly good but in urban areas where policies have effectively been enabling the criminal class in many ways the criminal class is conducting business as usual and the currency of violence is still alive and well, noted.

It’s critical to support community-based, public health strategies that support gun violence prevention including the important work of the UC Firearm Violence Research Center to educate medical professionals, clinicians and doctors to talk to their clients and patients about the risk of guns in the home.

In part, I agree, especially if the medical professionals are dealing with child development, mental health, or physical limitations. But that isn’t what Brian Malte means, he doesn’t mean to have a balanced discussion on proper storage and getting training like a ‘diet and exercise’ routine, he means actively discourage firearm ownership through the appeal to authority of the medical profession. Something our friends in DRGO actively campaign to properly contextualize in the medical field, to not turn medicine into virtue signaling advocacy.

When more Californians are buying guns, they are doing this out of real or perceived fear for themselves or their families.

Oh, it is real fear. It may be an out of proportion risk/fear, but it is real.

While this is understandable, most people don’t comprehend the risks associated with bringing a gun in the home.

I think you belittle the average consumer, they deal with proportionate and greater risks daily.

Our society is in a very volatile moment where more guns are now in more hands, in more homes and more accessible than ever.

Yes, and in a greater balanced and diverse segment of the population than we have seen with access to more educational material than they have ever had. It really has never been a better time to become a gun owner… except for availability.

Educate yourself and your family about the risks associated with gun ownership.

Agreed, and weigh them against the benefits as a tool for preparedness and an enjoyable discipline with deep and lasting positive aspects.

Think twice about bringing a gun into your home, and if you do, learn how to store and handle the gun safely.

Agreed, although the ‘think twice’ phrase as always been a backhanded way to say ‘don’t do it’ more than it has been to say ‘consider this action with careful deliberation’ but… I am sure that second one is what Mr. Malte meant, right?

It is incumbent on philanthropy, government and community-based organizations to work together to educate communities on the risks associated with gun ownership and double-down on effective and proven community violence intervention strategies.

And it remains incumbent on you, the gun owner or potential gun owner, to remember that

  • Nobody is coming to save you…
  • Everything is you responsibility…

If you know of and remember the rest of that list, good. If not, look it up.

Mr. Malte can talk about the community efforts, philanthropic causes, and government all he would like, and I agree that the people of the world could always do with being nicer to each other. His opinion is as valid now as it was when I read it and started this commentary this morning. But in my opinion, he lacks the nuance of context by either ignorance or omission.

Remember while you “think twice,” none of those organizations are going to be at your side at 2am when your door is kicked in, your car jacked , when someone tries to pull you into a vehicle, the meth-head thinks you’re a walking sandwich, or any other immediately hostile action against your person.

They won’t be there, you will. Prepare accordingly.

5 Firearms instructor red flags

By
Caleb Giddings
-

With many people this year getting firearms as gifts and over 7 million gun owners entering the sport, a lot of people are going to be seeking out training in 2021. If you are, here are 5 Firearms Instructor Red Flags. These aren’t presented in order of severity, just the order they were written in.

5. Doesn’t own a blue/inert training gun
If your instructor doesn’t have a blue gun (or other inert gun) they’re not really taking this seriously. The point of blue guns is they allow the instructor to show techniques while orienting the muzzle in a direction that wouldn’t be safe if it was a live gun. Blue guns exist entirely to allow us to train realistically without having to worry about muzzling people. They’re also cheap, seeing as I bought a trainer this morning on Amazon for like 15 bucks.

4. Doesn’t have a medical/comms plan
This might not seem like a big deal at first, but the reason why it’s one of the 5 Firearms Instructor Red Flags is because training with guns is an inherently dangerous activity. If your instructor doesn’t have a plan for how to deal with an accident on the range, that’s a pretty big red flag. In a lot of classes I’ve been to, the lead instructor will designate a primary and secondary medical responder, and a primary and secondary communication responder. These four people can’t intermix either; so your primary medical guy can’t be your secondary communications responder.

3. Isn’t clear about their resume
This is important because it informs what the instructor is qualified to teach. For example, when I start my classes I’m very clear that I’m an Air Force firearms instructor, a Master class IDPA shooter, and that I’ve taken professional training from multiple reputable instructors, as an example. I also reinforce what I’m not: a face-shooting ninja running around killing dudes while wearing NODs. This is important because it helps me stay in my lane and also creates the right expectation with students. If I say “I’m here to teach you how to get a revolver out of the holster quickly” my background supports that. It doesn’t support “I’m here to teach you how to do a solo clear of an occupied structure.”

2. Doesn’t use objective standards
This drives me nuts. Objective standards are how we measure improvement, and if you’re not measuring improvement you’re just turning money into smoke and noise, and there are cheaper ways to do that than taking shooting classes. Objective standards can be something as simple as using a scored B8 target at the start of class and doing it again at the end of class. It can be as complex and difficult as the FAST Test or the MSP Black Belt standards, but regardless of what the objective standard is, an instructor that doesn’t use them is definitely committing one of the 5 Firearms Instructor Red Flags.

1. Doesn’t demo
This one is my biggest pet peeve, although of the 5 Firearms Instructor Red Flags it’s not the most dangerous. The most dangerous is #4 – lack of a medical plan, but this one is the most likely to get me annoyed. A good instructor must be able to demonstrate the skill he or she is attempting to teach. This is essential to the adult learning process. You tell someone what you want them to do, then you show them how to do it, then you have them perform it. That’s adult learning 101 for physical/athletic tasks. This again doesn’t mean your instructor needs to be a super ninja, but if they want you to draw from concealment, they need to be able to demonstrate how.

If your instructor commits one of the 5 Firearms Instructor Red Flags, I would be concerned, especially if it’s the medical one. If they break 2 of them, I wouldn’t take another class from that person and wouldn’t recommend them to a friend. Three or more? There’s a 50% chance I’d leave the class period. Life’s too short to waste on bad training.

The ATF Brace Comment Period is Open

By
Keith Finch
-
Photo and comment by Caleb Giddings
UPDATE: They pulled the notice early. Apparently calling a confusing mess of rules ‘Objective’ make them popular in the public comments. Good job all who commented.

Now is the time. Click http://www.regulations.gov/ and leave note for the ATF on how you feel their ‘objective standards’ are and how they could improve them.

Be sure to reference ATF 2020R-10 to properly attribute the comment to the Braced Firearm proposed rule change.

It is sad, really. The ATF appear to be trying. They are trying to be fair about this, but fair is not the same as objective. The public needs objective, and objective means that I can hand these standards to anyone of moderate literacy and they could figure out whether their device is Title I or Title II and be shown clearly why their device is I or II and how to correct it to make it the other if that was their goal.

The ATF, in their attempt, continue to carefully not state the open secret that they cannot possibly test millions of potential configurations in a timely manner. They equally eagerly point to the trees in a very “oh, would you look at how trees those trees are today.” to deflect from the obvious conclusion that the NFA is effectively null and void by today’s tech. The response of, “We just enforce the rules,” becomes a hollow comfort when the ATF is also in the business of making the rules. They have been saddled with this nebulous duty by AG after AG, but that doesn’t make it any better from our perspective as gun owners.

ATF “Opinions” have effectively carried the weight of law and have been subjective. They may be reasoned subjectivity and concluded by more than one person, but subjective they remain.

Here is the kicker line for me personally in this whole debacle.

“No single factor or combination of factors is dispositive, and FATD examines each weapon holistically on a case-by-case basis.”

Which is the polar opposite of objective. If it was objective, than a single factor would absolutely be dispositive. A part would be too long, have too much surface area and be used as a stock, use an optical device with eye relief distance indicating shoulder firing, something that could be measured and stated ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on the feature.

This case-by-case “holistic” approach exists because if the ATF were to admit they cannot do this objectively (they can’t, they just won’t admit it) then the NFA crumbles. They openly admit there is no practical functional difference between Title I rifles and shotguns, and II SBRs and SBSs. Combining that admission of fact with the intent of the NFA “to regulate certain weapons likely to be used for criminal purposes,” (which itself is subjective) and the mountain of data showing these are unlikely to be chosen for criminal purposes on the large scale, the NFA crumbles further.

The NFA holds many parallels with Prohibition, and chief among those parallels is legal means based on objective criteria to get a similar result. Braces were in many ways just a convenient and cosmetic work around, they made AR-type pistols look better and more like an SBR without the aggravation of the NFA.

We know that availability, cost, and concealability are the highest influencing factors in criminal misuse of firearms selection. Can the criminal or criminal-to-be afford to acquire it, not just financially but risk wise as well. Does it make sense, especially from an organized crime standpoint (another reason for the NFA), to acquire these or more sense to acquire more less expensive easily concealed firearms? Presence at a crime, an objective fact, does not equate to ‘likely to be used for criminal purposes,’ a subjective observation based on perception.

So please, respectfully and firmly add your voice to the ATF’s comments.

http://www.regulations.gov/

ATF 2020R-10

Limit profanity or it will not be published.

From Pee to Powder – How the Chamberpot Supported the War Effort

By
Dr LateBloomer
-
https://peabody.andover.edu/2016/02/23/a-westerwald-chamber-pot/#jp-carousel-605.

The surge in female gun ownership over the past several years has many people (especially the Demanding Mommies) all agog. How could the “gentle sex” be so interested in “implements of destruction” they wonder?

Yet the notion of women being interested in the production of firearms and related supplies is not all that new. In centuries past, patriotic women “contributed to the cause” in ways that you probably never imagined.

A recent casual remark on social media sent me down the research rabbit hole, and I found some interesting stuff! Be sure to follow the links if you too want to be amazed (or disgusted).

Going back to the American Revolution, tales exist of American colonial women – Mary Draper is one example and Abigail Adams another – melting down their household pewter ware for bullets. There is some dispute about how widespread this practice was, but the stories are out there, apocryphal or not. 

But did you also know that homefront ladies in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars also contributed to the production of gunpowder (black powder)?

Yes back in the glory days of the chamber pot, when this lowly receptacle sat neatly under every bed in the land, patriotic ladies saved and contributed their own urine (sometimes politely called “chamber lye”) for the production of saltpeter. Saltpeter (potassium nitrate) was a major component in the production of gunpowder (the other components being sulphur and charcoal).

A chamber pot in its customary location.
https://sovereignhilleducation.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/chamber-pot.jpg

Granted, in those days urine was saved for many other uses as well – including laundry – but this is a gun piece, so let’s concentrate on gunpowder.

The roots of gunpowder production go all the way back to ancient China. Saltpeter (sometimes called Niter) was often mined from the bat guano in caves or extracted from animal manure. But during wartime extreme measures were sometimes called for. Human urine was called to the cause – often from women behind the lines.

During the English Civil War (1642-1651) there are accounts of “saltpetermen” digging up the floors of churches – because sermons were so long that ladies reportedly urinated in their pews. Yes – they peed on the floor. In church. What did the men do? It doesn’t say. (Figures)

Sacrilegious or not,  this feminine nitrogenous waste ended up soaking the floor beneath the pews with the chemical resources needed to make the king’s gunpowder. So up came the floor for processing in the war effort. That’s quite a visual. I’m not sure how reliable that information is, but it was an entertaining read nonetheless. I’m not sure if it was more an indictment of the bladder capacity of the female parishioners or of the long windedness of the vicar.

During the American Revolution the Second Continental Congress printed a pamphlet on saltpeter production, which involved piles of vegetable and animal refuse – leached thru with human and animal urine. If the men were away at war, we know whose urine that had to be. The ladies whizz their way to the rescue again!

During the American Civil War a fellow named LeConte wrote up a detailed but simple method of producing saltpeter in 1862 with the hope of encouraging production within the resource-strapped Confederacy.

Then a southern chemist named John Harrelson also came up with a way to extract saltpeter directly from urine, rather that going through the more traditional processes.

As a result, in Selma, Alabama there were wagons with barrels that went around asking for urinary “contributions” from the household ladies – leading to the circulation of some bawdy verse amongst the soldiers on both sides.

Here’s one example:

John Harrelson, John Harrelson, do pray invent a neater

And somewhat less immodest mode of making your saltpeter,

For ‘tis an awful idea, John, gunpowdery and cranky,

That when a lady lifts her skirt, she’s killing off a Yankee.

There’s another entertaining visual for you. And you thought the Victorian era was full of prudes.

I’m not going to get into the chemistry involved, because it brings me unpleasant flashbacks from the high school Chem Nun (shudder), but all of the information is out there if you decide you want to learn more about the transition from pee to powder.

LeConte’s paper talks about the “Prussian method”, the “Swedish method”, and the “Swiss method”. There are also undoubtedly prepper sites and black powder enthusiast sites which can provide detailed instructions on black powder production, but that is another rabbit hole that I really didn’t have the time to get lost in. I’ll let you research that on your own. I’m just here for the cheap giggles.

So ladies and gentlemen, I’m not sure how hardcore you may be about making your own black powder in the event of the Zombie Apocalypse, but the information is there for those who seek it. As long as you have access to charcoal and sulphur, you’ve got your own hardworking kidneys as a source for the last ingredient. Who knew?

In fact the Apocalypse may even necessitate the resurgence of the chamber pot due to breakdown of public services.

But apocalypse or not, no matter the righteousness of your efforts, I’m not sure I’d recommend asking your local church ladies for “contributions”. That’s not the kind of collection plate they’re used to. Just sayin’.

We need honest debate and rigorous research on gun control

By
DRGO
-
(from thehill.com ©GettyImages)

[Ed: The manufactured “controversy” over John Lott’s recent move to the federal Department of Justice as a research advisor is easily understood as anti-gun academics fearing that his advice will reduce federal funding of their typically poorly designed and interpreted studies. They needn’t worry–Michael Bloomberg has their backs, viz. Northwell Health’s 2nd annual “Gun Violence Prevention Forum” on December 10. Pollack just became president of the Crime Prevention Research Center upon Lott’s (temporary?) departure, and puts the matter fairly, though too gently. Republished here unedited recognizing The Hill‘s copyright.]

The Hill recently published an opinion by Griffin Dix allegedly exposing a “time bomb under President-elect Biden’s doormat.” The time-bomb wasn’t a bogus dossier, FBI agents lying in order to spy on Biden’s campaign, or a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden. It was, rather, the appointment of renowned but controversial researcher John R. Lott Jr. as a senior advisor for research and statistics at the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice.

Lott has had a long career as a researcher at some of America’s most respected universities: from Yale to UCLA to Wharton to the University of Chicago and until recently, he was the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, which I now lead. But he is best known for his controversial thesis on a hot button issue, encapsulated well in his University of Chicago Press book: “More Guns, Less Crime.”

Dix wrote that the news of Lott’s appointment made his “blood run cold” because Lott’s thesis had been “found to be false” by Stanford Law Professor John Donohue and his colleagues. But whether or not he realized it, Dix’s citation actually showcases the need for much more credible and robust research into the effect of gun control policies.

Dix noted that Donahue and his colleagues concluded that Lott’s thesis was “without credible statistical support,” and that — contrary to Lott — right-to-carry gun laws were actually associated with higher rates of murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, etc.

If that were the final word, we could leave it at that. But it’s not.

You see, academics disagree with each other all the time. Many of their disagreements hinge on methodological choices that will inevitably sound arcane to the lay reader but are of crucial importance. Sorting through arguments to arrive at the most reliable methods is the key to genuine intellectual progress.

In this case, it’s true enough that Donahue et al found in a 2003 study that guns were associated with increases in crime. But a review of their work, also published in the Stanford Law Review, argued that Donahue and his partner “simply misread their own results … Their own most general specification that breaks down the impact of the law on a year-by-year basis shows large crime-reducing benefits.” (Emphasis added.)

Donahue later, using a different methodology, found that right to carry laws “are associated with 13-15 percent higher aggregate violent crime rates ten years after adoption.” Two other academics reviewed this paper and published a piece in Econ Journal Watch concluding that Donahue’s results were “fragile,” as his study “fail[ed] to control for any of the major factors that cause crime rates to vary,” and concluded from the same data and similar methodology that “we find states where crime increased after the implementation of [right-to-carry] law and we find more states in which crime decreased.” (Emphasis added.)

For my part, I could point to many dozens of peer-reviewed academic studies conducted by a wide range of authors suggesting that widespread gun ownership deters crime. Academics have found evidence right-to-carry laws deter violent crime, including rapes and murders, lower burglary rates, and that restrictive concealed carry laws may increase the murder rate.

Others might argue that those studies have their own shortcomings. And such disagreement ought to be encouraged.

Rather than attack researchers engaged in the debate — or try to police who should be allowed to engage in it — we should welcome a diversity of voices and perspectives into the issue of gun control. Many people have strongly held beliefs on the issue. Mr. Dix has his, having lost a son to an unsecured gun stored at his friend’s house.

I have mine, having lost my daughter Meadow in a school shooting. Rather than jump to blame the gun itself, I looked for all the facts and found that there were so many layers of human failure that had absolutely nothing to do with gun control that enabled it. But all of these failures were effectively covered up by a single-minded media narrative that only wanted to blame the gun. I documented the full story in a book “Why Meadow Died.” For now, consider this: Two unarmed security guards gave their lives charging at the shooter with their bare hands. If they had been armed, my daughter might have been saved.

Thanks to my advocacy, school staff in Florida are now armed. I firmly believe this will save lives. Others are certainly welcome to argue for gun control policies that I believe would be misguided and dangerous.

But no one should try to police the research community’s efforts to better inform this debate. The stakes are too high to pretend like the science is settled or to forget that diverse voices are needed to arrive at the most trustworthy facts.

.

.

—Andrew Pollack is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, which until November 2020 was led by John Lott. He wrote Why Meadow Died about the tragedy at the Parkland, Florida high school in which he lost his daughter.

The best movies for gun nuts to stream

By
Caleb Giddings
-

As we head into another weekend and the world is going crazy, here at GAT Daily we’d like to provide you with some fun diversions. Here’s a list of great firearms enthusiast movies that you can stream this weekend if you don’t feel like watching football.

We’ll start our streaming list with Netflix, where we’ll save you from playing the endless scrolling game and give you two movies and a show. The movies are classics, and if you haven’t seen them…why? First up is Mel Gibson Kills the English Part 2, better known as the Patriot. Do you like America? Do you like watching redcoats get killed? Boy howdy will you like this movie. Also on Netflix we have the movie that’s responsible for more .45-70 sales than any other: Quigley Down Under. Yes, I know Quigley’s rifle is a .45-110, but most people are happy to settle for a .45-70 when they discover that .45-110 ammo is basically unobtanium. Our last streaming option from Netflix is a show to binge if you’re interested: the TV version of Shooter. Personally, I found this version to be far superior to the Mark Wahlberg movie, and while the TV stretches credulity a bit, it’s a fun binge.

Moving on to our streaming gun movie list, it’s time for Amazon Prime video. We’re in a wonderful time, because Way of the Gun is on Prime right now. I promise I’m not just recommending things that have Ryan Phillippe in them, but Way of the Gun is a cultural touchstone for a lot of people who are passionate about firearms and self defense. And it’s full of great lines, especially from Benicio Del Toro. For our second movie, this one is kind of a grab bag, because Prime has a really deep catalog of classic spaghetti westerns. Once Upon a Time in the West is there, but so is Death Rides a Horse and My Name is Nobody. You can’t go wrong with any of these, although My Name is Nobody is a personal favorite. For a series, our friends over at Forgotten Weapons somehow managed to get a bunch of their content on Amazon Prime, which is awesome. Just search “Forgotten Weapons” and you’ll get there.

For our last series of recommendations we’re going to pull a bit of a grab bag. On Disney+ go watch The Mandalorian. I feel like I shouldn’t even have to say that, but…go do it. It’s amazing. All two seasons are available for streaming. Over on HBO Max they have all of Band of Brothers and The Pacific, but if you’re in a festive mood they have two of the greatest Christmas movies of all time: Lethal Weapon and Die Hard. Classics! And then on Hulu you can…I guess watch some anime or something.

At GAT Daily we hope you enjoy your weekend, and take in some of these great movies for firearms enthusiasts!

The Bill for Our Rights

By
DRGO
-
(from funnyjunk.com)

[Ed: We have published this piece annually since 2015 for Bill of Rights Day each December 15. The  Bill’s Second Amendment is the reason for our being, in more ways than one.]

Today we all should be jubilantly celebrating the 229th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the original 10 amendments to the United States’ federal constitution. Remarkably, it slips by relatively unremarked. Yet our Bill of Rights may actually be the most significant of our republic’s founding documents.

The Declaration of Independence announced our nationhood. The Constitution defined our government. The Bill of Rights confirms our liberty as free people who are not subservient to our government.

There is a lot wrong today that the authors of the Bill of Rights anticipated and meant to preclude. But the Framers knew that natural and civil rights, including these broad and individual ones that were defined so early on, are actually not worth the parchment they’re inked on. They’re worth what each generation holds they mean regardless of original intent. That’s how they’ve often become too loosely interpreted.

There was strong agreement among the Founders about the importance of these principles to a civil, democratic society and in their belief that they were codifying rights that were mostly pre-existent and inherent to the dignity of human beings. The conflict between Federalists and Anti-Federalists over whether to formalize these was about the impact of leaving unstated other rights “retained by the people” or “reserved to the states”. There was no disagreement about the importance of any of the rights for which the colonists had fought and died for.

Federalists worried that documenting any rights implied disregard for those not enumerated. Anti-Federalists feared that not including these in the Constitution would eventually make it easier to ignore them. Over 200 years later, it appears the Anti-Federalists showed the greater foresight on this question.

The Second Amendment (in James Madison’s original draft, beginning with “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”) is our particular concern here at Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership. Not just to protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but also because this individual right is so basic to all other rights of Americans. It is, in St. George Tucker’s words, our “palladium of liberty”. Just having this enumerated right for individuals to own and use weapons makes us unique among nations.

One reason Americans have always seen ourselves as exceptional is because of the individual obligation for self-responsibility that is required by minimizing dependence on government. We’ve been realists since the first boots trod the Atlantic coast, taught by the frontier experience that we have to take care of ourselves.

We discovered that people have the right “to the pursuit of Happiness”, not to be made happy. We learned that we have the right, and therefore the duty, to protect ourselves because there is no right to be free from harm. If we do not comprehend these core truths, we become dependent on government for happiness and protection— according to others’ standards, not our own.

As Americans moved westward, they outpaced the advance of existing government, an unusual pattern throughout the hemisphere. Sometimes alone, often in scattered clusters of neighboring settlers, they had to meet their own needs. They were guided in establishing their own local authorities by the same traditions we look to today to understand our relationship to government that now envelops us.

That historical ethic of self-reliance without a safety net is a recent enough phenomenon to continue influencing our psyches. That’s good because this world, and too often our own part of it, is an unpredictable and dangerous place.

Accepting the responsibility to care for oneself, one’s families and fellow citizens must be at the heart of any successful society. A hard-nosed, far-sighted understanding of that reality is central to American history, coupled with our optimism and generosity.

This is why DRGO speaks out on behalf of our fellow citizens. We oppose professional and cultural group-think that would have us ask more what our country can do for us, than what we can do for ourselves and our country.

DRGO vouches for the capacity of people to do the right things for themselves and each other, even with powerful tools like firearms. If we don’t, we’ll lose our history, our liberty, and each other.

.

.

Robert B Young, MD

— 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.

All DRGO articles by Robert B. Young, MD

AR-15: Origins

By
Keith Finch
-

Nobody has hit the for the fences in the Retro AR market like Brownells. There are those out in the world *cough* Clint Smith *cough cough* who are firmly convinced that the AR-15 hit its stride in 1969 with the M16A1 era. Chrome bore, forward assist and dust cover, lightweight, accurate, and with a proper set of directions for maintenance. It would be nearly 15 years until any major changes were again made to the rifle, and in context they weren’t that drastic. They firmed up the barrels in the A2’s because they, falsely as it turned out, believed the A1’s were bending (just dirty gas ports) and the revamped the iron sights to more precise and adjustable ones at the behest of the Marine Corps who like to shoot further than the Army. Oh, and a longer stock because everyone is 5’11” and will only shoot the rifle prone (whoops)

Other than rifling it and sighting it for M855/M856 NATO the how the A2 performed and functioned compared to the A1 were minor, they took Full-Auto away and gave it a garbage trigger in comparison, but in the grand scheme the A2 occupied the same space as the A1 and wasn’t much in the way of forward advancing tech. Compare the 69′-83’/86′ spread to the 2001-2020 similar time lapse and the tech pace is in small arms is drastically different. But a great many of those improvements were ancillary, the core of the M16/AR is still very much itself from the A1 era.

Sure we’ve gotten better at materials and machining, but its still the little stainless gas tube from the gas block throwing a bolt back under light recoil to grab the next 5.56 round and getting ready it to send. And datgum if these retro guns are light. You forget how quickly the ~7lb M4 doesn’t weigh that anymore with all your value add “force multipliers.” There’s nothing in this world for free and 6x of observation, light for positive target ID, and passive/active night vision aiming systems come with weight (both physical and financial) in order to gain the abilities.

But any, hit play if you haven’t already and listen to Ian. Brownells tends to stock these fairly regularly so if you’re hunting a rifle you could do worse than hopping on these wait lists.

The SUB from Sneaky Bags

By
Travis Pike
-

Sneaky Bags is a company that famously produces discreet weapon cases. These are not diversion bags designed to look like something else, but simple weapon cases that are rather plain and untactical. The outside of the bags lack MOLLE, Viking symbolism, or any other dead giveaways when it comes to identifying what the bag carries. Sneaky Bags also produces the Shoulder Utility Bag, aka the SUB. 

The SUB comes in three sizes, and predictably those sizes are large, medium, and small. The bag we have today is the medium SUB. The medium SUB would make Subway proud with its foot-long width. The SUB is also ten inches long and five inches deep. It’s a relatively moderate-sized shoulder bag with four separate compartments. The bag has an adjustable shoulder strap that makes it quick to don and easy to take off. 

The SUB – Stay Discreet

The bag looks plain. Super plain. The outside has a Velcro area for patches, name tapes, or whatever. When closed, it looks like an oddly shaped laptop bag. There is no visible MOLLE or tactical tags that let you flex your Gucci brand. On the left and right side of the back is a series of webbing that’s relatively invisible. 

The straps are so close together they blend in but still allow for the attachment of standard MOLLE based pouches. Like any other Sneaky Bag, the SUB is designed to be disguised. It doesn’t stick out but allows you to carry a whole lotta gear well organized and discreetly. 

The rear of the bag has four buckles for a stabilizing strap to secure the bag to your leg when moving fast and hard. This keeps the bag in one place and doesn’t let it slide or flop around. The rear also features crisscrossed bungee straps that would make stashing an outer layer to the bag easy and convenient. 

Purpose 

The SUB is designed to replace an overt fighting carrier like a chest rig. With the SUB, you carry all the necessary gear to get into trouble and fight your way out of it without needing to slap on a chest rig. The SUB is designed so armed professionals can remain discreet but could be adapted into civilian use in several ways. 

Bugging out is the perfect task for the SUB. This could be your gun bug out bag. You have a bag loaded with clothes, food, water, etc. You load the SUB with a sidearm, ammo, and more.

I shoved a lot of different stuff in the bag, and mine is a pistol fighting load. The SUB could easily be converted to carry a load for a rifle, a shotgun, a team medic, communication gear, or anything else. The bag is endlessly adaptable and fits numerous mission profiles. 

Capacity and Design 

Once you pop the hood, you see the big main portion of the bag, followed by a small internal pocket, another moderately sized pocket, and finally a tiny pocket on the very front of the bag. The main pouch is outfitted with an inner layer of Velcro topped MOLLE. Across from the MOLLE/Velcro panel is a simple Velcro panel for more pouches and accessories.

Inside that SUB main pouch is a Velcro closed pouch that acts as an easy separator for different gear. This is the perfect pouch for gear that needs to be quickly and easily removed. IFAKs are perfect for this pouch. You can grip, rip, and deploy an IFAK without it getting caught on anything on the way out.

In front of this main pouch is a dump pouch perfect for stashing magazines or other gear you don’t have time to organize properly. Beyond that is an ultra-small pouch that’s perfect for small electronics, mini-medical gear, or in my case, I shove a rolled-up poncho in there because it’s Florida and always raining at random. 

What’s In My SUB

Between these four pouches, you can shove a lot of gear in the medium-sized SUB. I went above and beyond to shove in two 31 round magazines,  an IFAK, an Emerson PUK, a small flashlight, a SOG multitool, and a Glock 17 in a Recover Tactical 20/20 brace complete with an Aimpoint Acro and TLR 1. The Glock is nearly the size of a small submachine gun and fits perfectly in the bag. Like a greedy gluttonous beast, it eats it all. 

I was able to easily organize my mag pouch, IFAK, and a Vertx molle panel holding the knife, light, and multitool in the bag. Everything is easy to access and placed in an organized way for instant access. The dump pouch portion eats the RT 20/20 equipped Glock.

With nearly fifty rounds of ammo, a gun, and all this gear, the bag is rather heavy. The thick and well-padded shoulder strap makes it comfortable to carry. The strap refuses to dig into your shoulder and maintains a high level of comfort. 

A Foot Long

A single buckle secures the flap, so opening the bag is easy and quick. The flap also has a mesh compartment for small goods of all sorts. Mostly paper goods like maps, IDs, etc. The flap is oversized, making it easy to conceal the goods tucked inside an overstuffed SUB. 

The SUB’s massive open mouth design and rigid structure allows everything to be easy to reach. The mouth sits open, giving you an easy means to grip your gear and get it into action. 

The SUB places your gear at waist level and allows for rapid access when worn correctly. You can naturally get fresh magazines into play and deposit used mags in the drop pouch. It’s a smart design that prioritizes both discreet design and easy access. 

The Foot Long SUB

The Sneaky Bags SUB is a versatile bag that could be used as a tacticool dad bag like me or simply used to carry your laptop from class to class. Maybe you’ll use it for fly fishing, or maybe you’ll shove your bug out gear in it. Regardless of what you use it for, you have a sturdy, well-made bag that’s easy to organize. The Sneaky Bag SUB allows you to loadout but blend in.

BREAKING: Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with “Stabilizing Braces” – ATF Draft

By
Keith Finch
-

First seen on TTAG,

The letter (at the link above) is a draft that is allegedly about to be submitted into the ‘Request for Comment’ phase of ATF rule making, where a proposed rule change is open to the publics comments via email, fax, and letter to the ATF. The ATF are required by their rule making process to address and respond to all public comments prior to issuing a final rule, which in today’s climate could make for a long process.

It is that long process, despite the aggravation it has led to for manufacturers and owners, that it is theorized the ATF has been actively seeking to avoid. Keeping their determinations and rule making shrouded and nebulous saved them from the aggravation of this process but left us, the public, out in the cold, scratching our heads as to what was and was not an SBR vs a Braced Pistol/Firearm. What was Title I and what was Title II?

The ATF appears to be making that criteria public (finally) and objective so everyone understands. They are also looking at opening the NFA register up to tax free braced firearms, listing as corresponding SBR’s and SBS’s. So if you didn’t want to pay the tax and wait a ridiculous amount of time, now might be the time.

This is not yet a published, in the official sense, document so public comment is not open yet.

When it is, we will let you know. The portal for making comments http://www.regulations.gov/ will need to reference ATF 2020R-10 in the comment to be properly attributed. Follow the rules for commenting. They may also be mailed or faxed.

“Objective” Criteria

Objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Now with that defined, scroll down to Background on the document. After establishing that it is the United States Attorney General’s responsibility to enforce the sometimes conflicting National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act (they state differing definitions), it outlines that the responsibility has been delegated to the BATFE, commonly ATF, and that the FATD within the ATF makes determinations on particular firearms to allow industry members “to plan, develop, and distribute products in compliance with the law,”

Then in the next paragraph they reverse course with, “Generally, when FATD evaluates a firearm sample, it examines configuration, physical characteristics, objective design features that are relevant under the statutory definitions of the GCA and NFA, and any other information that directly affects the classification of a particular firearm sample.”

Ok, all well and good so far although we are using “objective” still in a rather vague manner… Also the fact that definitions from 1934 and 1968 might not remain all encompassing doesn’t fill me with confidence about the ATF’s ability to make good and effective policy without the authority to update definitions in some manner based on public commentary and evidentiary rationale.

But…

“Even though firearms appear to have similar features, an ATF classification pertains only to the particular sample submitted, because variations in submissions, applicable statutes, judicial interpretations of these statutes, the manufacturer’s or maker’s intent, and the objective design features supporting that intent, make the general application of any particular classification exceedingly rare.”

So.. not that useful “to plan, develop, and distribute products in compliance with the law,” after all… huh. So why did the ATF bother with ‘Determination Letters’ at all? Why did we have the ‘It’s a Brace and Braces are cool.. unless you use it like a stock, which it isn’t, then that’s not cool.. but there is no illegal way to fire a pistol with all legal components installed and a brace is a legal component like we determined so, it is cool.. but don’t intend to use a Brace as a stock..’

What say you, ATF?

“ATF’s longstanding and publicly known positions…” I would argue ‘publicly known’ is a stretch because we keep asking and getting differing and inconsistent.. one might even say subjective instead of objective answers, but go on. “…is that a firearm does not evade classifications under the NFA merely because the firearm is configured with a device marketed as a “stabilizing brace” or “arm brace.” When an accessory and a weapon’s objective design features, taken together, are not consistent with use of the accessory as an arm brace, that is, not to stabilize a handgun when being operated with one hand, such weapon, configured with the accessory may fall within the scope of the NFA, particularly where the accessory functions as a shoulder stock for the weapon. Accordingly, ATF must evaluate whether a particular firearm configured with a stabilizing brace bears objective features of a firearm designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and thus subject to the NFA, on a case-by-case basis.”

One problem with all that, what are the, “objective features of a firearm designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder” other than a buttstock aka ‘shoulder stock’? Seems fairly interpretive and not objective.

‘Speed Limit 70 MPH’ is objective, it is defined, we know what 70 MPH is. “Too fast for conditions” can also be objective based upon known factors like icing, vehicle performance, and observed control. But there is an environmental factor at work in that case that may or may not present a danger and ATF is essentially trying to use similar logic.

The problem is there isn’t a consistent ‘environmental’ factor. It isn’t illegal to fire a pistol from the shoulder, it is impractical to do so for conventional handgun designs, but not illegal and it doesn’t reclassify the gun. It is also less practical or impractical to fire from the hip, or one handed instead of two handed, but not illegal. So those environmental factors of use and intent are always going to be subjectively applied. Most attempts at making an objective (meaning written based on numerical and physical standards that can be objectively measured and followed) would become immediately discriminatory or arbitrarily picked. Pistols over 80oz for example, as a measure of what is too heavy to shoot one handed (ironically, why the pistol brace exists) even when objectively speaking two handed is safer and superior.

The braces exist because of somewhat ridiculous but objective definitions. Look at what the ATF states has been “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.” (Page 7 & 8)

They then go further and state, “No single factor or combination of factors is dispositive, and FATD examines each weapon holistically on a case-by-case basis.” Meaning, to objectively say whether or not it is a pistol or SBR/SBS/Firearm, the ATF would have to see every single firearm individually and the determination would only cover firearms made exactly to the standard of one examined.

This task and burden is objectively absurd. Especially when considering the NFA is “to regulate certain weapons likely to be used for criminal purposes,” and we can objectively prove that the two greatest factors determinate of criminal misuse are total cost of acquisition (both risk based and financial) and concealability.

It comes down to this. For every factor the ATF is trying to use to be objective, there is another they are generally ignoring for one reason or another that makes such a factor subjective. The environmental factors, as I termed it earlier, are too wide ranging, ill defined, and inconsistently applied for the ATF to issue a detailed ruling.

Solution

Objectively, SBRs, SBSs, and Suppressors/Silencers should not be NFA items. They should fall under Title I. A case could still be made that select fire weapons (machine guns) and destructive devices should remain NFA, as they differ enough from Title I firearms to a degree that a different classification becomes relevant. There is no effective evidentiary basis for saying an AR-15 with a 15.9″ barrel is more dangerous, and therefore rationally subject to additional regulation, than one with a 16.1″ barrel. The 14.5″ M4 Clones and the 20″ M16 Clones, and every AR variation on those themes of any length with stock or brace or bare tube, rationally represent approximately the same threat to law enforcement and the general public. The existence of the AR-Type Pistol and Pistol Brace serve to emphasize that point.

The solution, the objective solution, is to expand and simplify the Title I definition to encompass all manual loading and semi-automatic firearms.

I will be commenting such when comments open. You should too.

Smith & Wesson vs. New Jersey

By
Keith Finch
-

Smith & Wesson is a household name. It is recognizable at levels that companies like Bravo Company and Sons of Liberty can only imagine. Even companies like Springfield Armory, FN, and IWI, major manufacturers that have massive recognition inside the gun community do not hold this kind of recognition. It’s a fame all its own.

The just had a successful product launch yesterday too, by introducing their M&P15-22 in an AR pistol format. The 15-22 is already among the best .22 lr rifles out there for people seeking an AR like rifle. I would argue it is nearly peerless in category for how well made, how well it runs, and how well it actually conforms to the AR-15 for crossover training.

So the new little pistol is really cool and I hope they sell many many thousands, including one for me.

But all is not peachy,

Smith & Wesson Sues New Jersey Over ‘Anti-Second Amendment Agenda’

NEWARK, N.J. (CN) — A leading firearms manufacturer alleges New Jersey is engaged in an “unconstitutional fishing expedition” to try to curtail gun rights by using a new tactic: false advertising claims. 

In a federal lawsuit filed in New Jersey on Tuesday, Smith & Wesson claims New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal has tried everything in his power to stymie gun sales, and that he is now sifting through decades of company advertisements and marketing materials in an extra-legal attempt to restrict the right to bear arms. -Court House News

This is a tactic we have seen before. Springfield, Colt, and Remington (RIP) have all been targeted by attacks on their old advertising material. The most famous case has been Bushmaster (Remington) and the attacks on their marketing of the XM-15, ACR, and rifles in general the wake of Sandy Hook.

The ‘Machismo’ advertising strategy has been a long and drawn out one. The defensive firearms industry lives on the fact that they generate feelings of security and self-reliance. Like every other advertisement in the world.. some land.. some don’t.

Yep.. this is one. Shame marketing always works.

Many of theses ads were placed next to ‘T’ supplements and other low-ball ‘you’re not as manly a man as you could man up to being’ and that is a whole trope of the advertising market. It wouldn’t be if it didn’t work.

I remember the ACR launch page having a bangin’ heavy guitar riff on repeat as you clicked the various features and links to see just how metal the ACR was. Turned out far less metal than they thought since I believe they spent more on advertising the thing then they did making certain it ran the way they advertised. It ended up alright in the end, especially as an SBR candidate, but was never the rifle the riff promised us.

But now the sights are firmly on Smith & Wesson, and Smith & Wesson is firing back.

The argument is the same drivel that has been spouted before in a new set of shoes. “Violent Video Games cause violent kids!” (which was unfortunately spouted from corners of this industry as a deflection tactic) is now “Ads cause violent outbursts from unstable people!”

By this same logic, all actors and actresses cause their stalkers. All artists, both visual and audio, cause the wild acts of violence that offenders cite were “inspired” by the piece. It is a projectionist liability and culpability that is largely meant to shift blame from an individual, who probably cannot afford to pay damages, to an entity, multi-million dollar company that has money to pay damages. It’s the simple greed of “who pays” and it is largely driven by people other than the victims.

In October, Grewal filed administrative subpoenas seeking evidence of fraudulent advertising from the gun manufacturer. The subpoenas request documentation related to advertisements that claim firearms make a home safer, an untrained homeowner could use a Smith & Wesson firearm safely and effectively to defend his home, and whether guns enhance one’s lifestyle. 

Which, as we well know, will translate into pulling studies with cherry picked data that when taken in context proves a whole of only one thing… This question is hard to answer.

Do guns make people safer? Yes, in context of proper use.

Are guns dangerous? Yes, when improperly used.

Are they dangerous in the house? See previous answer.

Do they make a household safer? See the first answer.

Do they provide a peace of mind to the owner? Do they improve the feeling of security and reduce anxiety? Do they _______?

You can frame the questions to make the answer become your foregone conclusion and that is precisely what AG’s like Grewal are looking to do in order to stick companies like Smith & Wesson with a bill that will drive them out of business. They can claim this isn’t the goal, but the data shows that it is. The most conservative estimate of defensive gun uses per year outstrip homicides by nearly 4 to 1 and deaths including suicides still by 3 to 2 (~60,000 lowest estimated DGU’s compared to ~39,000 total firearm deaths).

If we take the highest range of estimation at 3,000,000 DGU’s the rate of positive uses to negative outcomes is unquestionably positive. That is for one, admittedly crucially important, positive use of firearms in society. If we begin to factor the other hundreds of millions of positive uses from collecting, sport shooting, and hunting the numbers skew further.

It is telling to me that despite being comparably lethal we do not attack alcohol and vehicles in this manner. We don’t decry ads displaying professional drivers doing stunts like we do ads. We just tag it (professional driver) or (drink responsibly) while a firearm get pages in bright colors of their manual dedicated to safe operation and tags on the gun itself telling the new owner and operator to read the manual and use the product safely.

There is no sticker on a new cars steering wheel declaring “Warning! Unsafe handling may result in injury or death!” but there sure is a gun.

Instead, vehicles are looked at as a product to make safer and educate users further on. Don’t give me that “we license drivers!” line either, we know there are multitudes of unlicensed, suspended license, and so forth drivers on the road daily because they have places to be. Licensing is a permission slip to use publicly owned (tax payer) roads, not operate a vehicle.

So back to the topic at hand, Smith & Wesson suing New Jersey.

Good.

This witch hunt against advertising, while ignoring every effort S&W makes to have their consumers use their product responsibly, should be decried as the hollow gun ban effort that it is. For after all, there is no need to ban Smith & Wesson if you bankrupt them instead, same effect in the long run.

Or so anti-gunners hope. As we can see from the number of quality AR makers that sprung up after 2004, the market will provide. But nobody should be bullied from the market for a hollow attempt at ‘false-advertisement’ claims.

Smith & Wesson saying, “Our guns never miss what you want to hit.” would be false advertisement. Smith & Wesson tagging a photo of their M&P9 2.0 and a M&P15 with the line, “Be Secure. Be Safe.” is not false advertisement.

In 2018, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy announced that gun manufacturers would be listed in monthly reports showing the source for every “crime gun” recovered by police in the state. 

Murphy said months after signing the executive order that he hoped “bringing light to this topic” would spur gun manufacturers to “act responsibly and work with us to stop weapons they make from ending up in the hands of dangerous criminals.” 

State data show that more than 80% of the guns used in crimes in New Jersey came from outside of the state, with Smith & Wesson firearms among the heaviest-trafficked firearms into the state. According to the latest report, 48 Smith & Wesson-brand firearms were used in crimes in the state, the leader among all gun manufacturers. 

Do they also so voraciously go after alcohol companies, I wonder? Is every death or injury listed by brand, when they know? Does Jack Daniels or Coors get an email from Jew Jersey stating their product resulted in XX many deaths and YY many injuries last month and that they should do more to make sure alcohol doesn’t make it into the hands of dangerous drivers and abusers?

Criminal misuse of a product or use outside its intended lawful purposes is not the fault of the company who built the product. The only time you can claim otherwise would be by building a case that the product is actually intended for other uses than those described, like the recent case a against a ‘wall hanger’ manufacturer where one of the two components acted as a drop in auto-sear for an AR-15.

Good on S&W, bring them down a notch back to the land of reasonable assertions.

1...242243244...422Page 243 of 422
© All rights reserved © 2023 GAT Daily. Designed by GAT Marketing