The M110 SASS has been in our United States Army since 2005. It is outfitted with a Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10 power scope. Since 2005 this weapon system has proven its worth and capabilities. However with anything, technology and marksmanship techniques has evolved. This causes weapon systems to be looked at with a ‘what can make this piece of equipment more user friendly and deadly’ evaluating eye. The scope is a large part of engaging targets faster and more precise.
Why the Need for Change?
Within the Army the standard for asking for new equipment or changes to things that have “always been done this way” is to the state the problem, the solution, and the plan of implementation. This should be done in terms that are easy to understand as often the people making the final decision on these changes may not be as well versed as the person asking for the change.
The Problem
Minutes are out..Mils are in. The engagement process for Sniper Teams involves quick understandable communication and the ability to take that communication and engage a target with “one shot one kill”. The way to do that is by using mil reticles and mil adjustments. The Mark4 has a Mil Dot reticle with Minute of Angle (MOA) adjustments. That is like reading math in Chinese and immediately giving the answer to the equation and writing it down in English. Your spotter is also giving you the answer to the equation in English due to them using the Leupold GR 12-40x60mm which now includes the Patented Army Reticle which..you guessed it, is in mils.
The Mark 4 has 3.5-10x power which can inhibit target identification and impact adjustments. It also does not include what shooters like to call “the Christmas Tree”. This is the additional stadia lines and hairs that allow shooters to not have to “hold in space”. This means that while holding over a target on their optic they have a precise measurement to hold on and not just open glass. It means they can use a called hold without having to touch a dial.
The Solution
Before we go any further on the journey with this optic let me remind you how important it was that the Army Common Reticle program was born and executed with such success. It gave the organization a Patented Reticle that is now able to be implemented with pieces of equipment that are purchased by the Army. This gets those employing weapon systems on the same page which drastically increases the ability to perform rapid target engagement techniques.
The Leupold Mark5HD features the patented Mil-grid reticle. Weighs 26 ounces and measures 12.06 inches long. This makes it lighter and shorter than the previous optic. It is First Focal Plane (FFP). FFP is needed in this application, when magnification is adjusted the reticle gets larger and smaller precisely with the magnification adjustment while keeping subtensions correct. The Mark5HD also more elevation travel than the Mark4 and is 3.6-18, 5-25, or 7-35 power.
This process began because Soldiers who were employing the equipment, including teaching others how to run the same equipment, saw a way to do this more efficiently and effectively. Instead of complaining or just talking about it they took action.
A representative from Fort Benning stated that the fight for this optic wasn’t much of a fight at all. The United States Army Sniper Course (USASC) instructors reached out to the Program Management office at Picatinny Arsenal about their thoughts and plan. The rep stated that they were very receptive and worked with the Manuever Capabilites Development Integration Directorate (M-CDID) at Fort Benning on making this happen. All together the process took about a year.
Jawbone Media
Think about that for a second. “Wasn’t much of a fight, took a year”. All excuses are invalid when someone states that they can’t make a change in this Army. Yes not every process happens in this shape, form, or timeline. However, laziness and empty complaints will get you NOWHERE and get this Army nowhere.
All it took was driven individuals who had an idea and took action to make that idea a reality. Often times Soldiers will think that somebody already tried and failed to make an idea happen. Don’t ever assume anything. Do your homework, reach out to those who can make it happen, give them the full idea, the problem, solution, and plan of implementation, and then STAY ON IT.
There are a lot of resources to reach out to when you have these ideas, not just about weapon systems but about anything that can improve our Armys Lethality.
-Tank-automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM). This is a very broad entity however it is a place that makes a lot of final decisions and does a lot of fieldings. Hint hint new ideas.. You will find who you need within TACOM depending on the area you are focusing on with some quick searching and asking around.
–XVII Airborne Corps, This entity recently created an “innovation challenge” to get ideas into the corps from those willing to give them.
The discussion over which is the best home defense weapon will go on way beyond my level of patience. Personally, if it goes bang reliably and works for you, I don’t doubt it will work to defend your home. However, when we examine the different types of weapons out there for home defense, we are unlikely to find a more bitter contention than the pistol caliber carbine vs. rifle debate. PCCs are a broad category, and due to US definitions of rifles and pistols, they can meet the definition of both pistols and rifles.
With that in mind, when I say PCC, I am talking about guns with 16-inch barrels, SBRs, and handguns equipped with braces that resemble submachine guns and fire pistol rounds. Rifles, legally, are guns with stocks and 16-inch rifled barrels. An AR 15 pistol is a legal term more than a factual one. When I say rifle for this article, I also mean AR, AK, and similar style pistols chambered in rifle calibers.
Today we are going to examine the situations in which a PCC is superior to a rifle in a home defense situation.
You Want a Suppressor
The power of a suppressor shouldn’t be underestimated for home defense. Suppressors preserve your hearing, as well as reducing muzzle flash and concussion. Shooting a gun inside a home is never comfortable, but a suppressor can make it safer.
Rifles can be suppressed too, and rounds like the 300 Blackout are great for home defense. However, 9mm suppressors and subsonic 9mm ammunition are a helluva lot more common and affordable than any subsonic rifle round.
A suppressed PCC is almost always shorter than a suppressed rifle. The shorter receivers shave off some inches, and pistol calibers suppressors are often shorter than rifle suppressors without limiting their effectiveness.
You Want the Lightest, Shortest Gun Possible
Light and short guns are handy for home defense tasks by their very nature. They work well in cramped quarters and can be superbly lightweight. Smaller framed shooters may not be able to comfortably handle a regular rifle compared to a 5 pound PCC.
A rifle round coming out of a 5-inch barrel is losing lots and lots of performance and power. The same can’t be said about a PCC. Outside of a loss of power, extremely short rifles tend to have lots of flash and concussion. PCCs with 5, 4, and even 3.5-inch barrels tend to be quite pleasant with 9mm loads.
Being ultra-short and lightweight is the best trait of a modern PCCs like MP5 clones, the CMMG MK 17, the Sub 2000, and the MPX. Some PCCs can be a little heavier, especially blowback models, but they are typically smaller than rifles. This results in a gun that can be fired with a single hand and manipulated around corners and through doorways with greater ease.
Close Range Capability
You are inside your home. The range is extremely limited, and the rifle’s long-range advantage makes don’t count here. The PCC can own inside of 50 yards, and unless you’re Dr. Dre, I doubt your house will run that kind of range.
Unlike a rifle, a pistol cartridge won’t create excessive flash and concussion inside a home. A rifle, especially a short-barreled model, will create substantial noise, flash, smoke, and general unpleasantness.
Needs a Brace!
PCCs tend to be a bit more polite, at least if you are behind it. A rifle round will still outperform a pistol caliber at close range, but the PCC’s design typically encourages and allows for rapid follow up shots should one not get the job done.
Maximize Value
Ammo is expensive during this time, and rifle ammo is more expensive than pistol ammo. While upsets in the supply line occur, on average, pistol ammo is much cheaper than rifle ammo. I can fill a AR 15 gun case up with 9mm ammo for cheap. When brass cased 9mm is costing 17 cents per round, you can get a lot more practice than paying 24 cents a round for the garbage tier 5.56. (Ahh, those were the days)
Many modern PCCs utilize pistol magazines, and this will allow you to purchase pistol magazines that can serve a dual purpose. Heck, if you are a fan of specific platforms, you might be able to share between several rifles and handguns.
Recoil is a Big Issue
Is recoil a major concern for you? Some shooters with arthritis, varying strength levels, and other concerns may choose the PCC over any other weapon. A modern pistol caliber carbine offers less recoil than shotguns and rifles but is much easier to handle than a handgun.
Some blowback-operated PCCs can have recoil similar to a 5.56 rifle, but more refined models exist. The MPX uses a gas-operated system, the Banshee uses a radial delayed system, the MP5 uses its famous roller delayed blowback, and the Ruger PC Carbine series uses a dead blow blowback system. These systems all allow a PCC to deliver less recoil than a traditional blowback system and a rifle.
PCC For Me, PCC for You
Five or six years ago, no one may have cared much about pistol caliber carbines. Within the last few years, they’ve gained respect and exploded in popularity. While the rifle is often cited as the best home defense weapon, the PCC most certainly has its place inside the home. It offers advantages over the rifle in close quarters that shouldn’t be ignored.
Now, I understand legal integrity and journalistic nuance, at least a little. A study almost never proves something, the parameters of any given study are too narrow, a study can suggest correlation and point towards causation. It may very well be that if the western half of the 48 states had California like gun control universally then the border states would be the only ones with reduced effectiveness in their screening and higher death totals.
That may be accurate. But, I doubt it. It is far too broad a conclusion with limited and varying data tables that does not take into account enforcement, prosecutions, recidivism, general mental health, and the thousands of other societal factors that go into someone deciding that their only course of action is the commission of a homicide or suicide.
Yes, this dubious piece is lumping those together (still) because 39,773 (Death from Gun Related Injury 2017, NCIPC) is far more provocative a number than 14,542. The MNT piece doesn’t even do us the courtesy of splitting those two numbers into suicide (23,854 firearm method of injury of 47,173 total, CDC 2017) vs homicide (14,542 firearm method of injury of 19,510 total, CDC 2017). That would confuse our poor little plebeian brains by giving us ‘context’ and that would defeat the weak premise that all we need to curb gun deaths are more gun laws. Keep in mind that suicide method of injury is only 50.56% firearm compared to homicide at 74.54%, it becomes relevant down the read.
Disregard completely that suicide and homicide are vastly different and complexly motivated human decisions, just correlate them with a single method of injury that we can declare the scariest because it happens to be the easiest and most common. I bet if we correlate ‘holes dug’ with ‘shovel use’ we can find strong chain of logical method there as well.
I’m not here to pretend a firearm isn’t a weapon, it absolutely is. It’s existence as a tool for a human being to fight and survive is the efficient continuity in technological development. It’s development status today didn’t introduce humanity to violence, nor did it influence our disposition to it, we’ve been tribal and territorial our whole stint on this planet. The gun is simply today’s preferred method, until there is another that comes along. Used ethically and with discipline there is no more problem with firearms than any other item, but we cannot mandate morality anymore than we can mandate intelligence or health. The late 20th and 21st Century delusion of moral superiority, or “woke”ness, perhaps today, always seems to include a shallow and poorly thought out reason for how humans do not need individual weapons anymore, or at the least that they certainly don’t need _______ ‘grade’ of individual weapon since it is far too lethal.
Little facts like physics tend to muddy their argument a great deal but that has never stopped them or their high horse. Speaking of…
Overall, research indicates that stronger state laws governing the sale and ownership of firearms reduce firearm-related deaths. However, some states have relatively high rates of gun deaths despite strict regulations.
So, some framed research suggest rules work. At least to a degree. But sometimes rules don’t work?
Shocking…
To investigate why this might be the case, scientists at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and the Boston University School of Public Health at Boston, MA, looked into the effects of firearm laws in neighboring states.
Why not Alaska? Are Russian and Canadian laws that irrelevant? [In 2018, according to Rosstat, there were 7,067 murders, and the homicide rate in Russia fell below the United States for the first time in recent history, falling to 4.9 per 100,000 compared to the US rate of 5.0 per 100,000 in 2018. This was a 25% decline from the 2017 rate of 6.1 per 100,000.]
Oh, most of the sampled time frame wouldn’t have been good for that. Also, yes, I do understand the difference in freedom of movement.
There were 578,022 firearm deaths in total, including homicides and suicides, but excluding deaths due to shootings by police or other law enforcement agents.
No mention on adjustment for civilian justifiable homicide. Noted. That number is generally parallel to the Law Enforcement number and could roughly double the number of excluded deaths from the study.
The team used the number of these laws as a proxy for gun control strength in each state.
So number of rules on the books, that is the measure of how effective the laws are? But no accounting for prosecution and sentencing perspectives, compliance rates, or the fact that suicide isn’t a crime in any traditional sense and so legislating it is ‘difficult’, to use an overwhelmingly inadequate term. So the students used the Pelosi, Giffords, Feinstein method of “grading” gun law strength (more is better) and then determine that states with less than an ‘more’ are bringing down states with ‘more’. Got it.
Anything specifically.
Overall, stronger state gun laws were associated with reduced firearm deaths, but having a neighboring state with more permissive laws undermined this protective effect.
Larger policy differences across state borders were associated with increased gun-related deaths, suicides, and homicides, though the results were statistically stronger for suicide than homicide.
Hold on…
results were statistically stronger for suicide than homicide. (I told you that the suicide percentage would come back around)
By how much? This article already started with a great deal of obfuscating generalization, so I am genuinely curious. The whole Chicago line about it being everyone’s fault except theirs does’t really hold up in the data now since suicide, again a human event with far ranging motivations, was the stronger correlation? Interesting.
The authors conclude:
“This study adds to the growing literature emphasizing the role played by neighboring states’ firearm regulations in addition to own-state firearm regulations in firearm deaths. Failing to account for neighboring states with weaker laws, in some instances, can make a state’s own regulations appear less effective in reducing firearm deaths.”
Wow.. that certainly feels conclusive. This study is going in the pile of other studies that say rules that are different (more or less numerous) than other rules might produce a mixed result. Failing to account for other rules when we look at our rules, sometimes, can make our rules look less good based on a very generalized assumption that our rules (because there are more) are better in the singular context of total firearms deaths.
Here we go, it’s time for me to do a Ruger GP100 10mm Match Champion review. I’ve actually had this gun for a while, and I’ve shot it a bunch more since the video in the header. Spoiler alert: I like it. Also spoiler alert: I’ve modified it. Not a lot, but some. Should you buy one? Yes.
It’s sort of difficult for me to be impartial when I’m doing a review like this. The GP100 10mm Match Champion review is tough, because everyone knows I like the GP100. I used a regular GP100 in IDPA, then switched to the first generation of Match Champion guns with fixed sights, then when they dropped the adjustable sight models I bought one of those in .357. Of course I like this gun.
But why does this gun even exist in the first place? The first Match Champion in .357 made sense – designed to shoot IDPA matches and ICORE Classic division. But this gun came out with the Match Champion branding after USPSA killed 6 shot major revolver and after IDPA combined revolver from two divisions into one. Why even make it? Well, two reasons – one, because 10mm is enjoying a bit of a comeback. A bunch of companies are offering 10mm guns, and even though it’s a niche round, it does have a dedicated fanbase. Two, I think Ruger is interested in selling revolvers to revolver super nerds like myself, and something tickles my fancy just right about a 10mm GP100.
At this point you’re probably like “okay how does it shoot?” Good news: it shoots great. I shot a couple of sub-2 inch groups at 25 yards with 10mm Hydra Shoks. Once I drop a Wilson Combat spring kit into the gun, the DA trigger pull goes down to 8lbs and the SA trigger pull is 2.75lbs. Of course, that makes it a “Federal primer only” gun, because Federal primers are the softest in the game, but that’s okay. It’s not like I’m carrying this gun to defend my life.
During the Ruger GP100 10mm Match Champion review, I discovered where the gun shines – as a competition gun. If you’re willing to spend a little money and order some .40 S&W moonclips from TK Custom, you can run .40 in the gun. Let me tell you, that is a blast. With 180 grain FMJ the recoil is easier to manage than polymer .40s. It takes .40 and makes it pleasant to shoot. Especially if you spring for the Federal Syntech 205 grain .40 Action Pistol load. Shooting those rounds, at 20 yards I was able to get consistent 2 inch groups, and the recoil is easy. It’s like shooting a soft .45 out of a nice 1911, nothing to think of.
As a competition gun, the GP100 10mm Match Champion is a little lost in the world. As I mentioned above, USPSA killed major power factor revolvers a while ago by allowing 8 shot revolvers, and IDPA merged their two revolver divisions. You can still use it in IDPA, but I think that .38 revolvers have an advantage in that game. Regardless, my plan for 2020 before the ‘Rona hit was to use it for an entire IDPA season, culminating at Nationals.
Bottom line from the Ruger GP100 10mm Match Champion review: if you like GP100s you’ll like this gun. If you like revolvers you’ll like this gun. And if you’re a degenerate 10mm fan, you’ll really like this gun.
[Ed: This piece was forwarded by one of our DRGO correspondents on behalf of the writer, who didn’t respond to our inquiries. But it is an excellent depiction of the crazy-making that “gaslighting” describes. We thought it was worth sharing further, edited for DRGO.]
“Have you ever asked yourself, “Am I crazy?” If you ever have, then you’re not crazy. You’re most likely being “gaslighted”. Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse aimed at controlling a person by altering reality to the point where the person will doubt his/her own sanity.
The term “gaslighting” comes from a 1930’s play called Gas Light. The main character in the play literally tries to drive his wife crazy by gradually dimming the gas-powered lights in their home. When she notices the lights dimming, her husband not only denies that the lights are dimming, he convinces her that she is imagining it to the point that she questions her own sanity.
We are living in a society of perpetual gaslighting. The reality that the media reports is often at complete odds with what we are seeing with our own two eyes. And when we question the false reality that is being presented, or we contradict it by our own witness, we are vilified as racist or bigots or just plain crazy. Well, you’re not racist. You’re not crazy. You’re being gaslighted.
New York State has suffered twice as many deaths from Covid-19 than any other state, and New York has accounted for one fifth of all Covid-19 deaths. But we are told that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has handled the pandemic better than any other governor. Yet if we support policies of Governors whose states had only a fraction of the infections and deaths as New York, we’re called anti-science and accused of wanting people to die. So, we ask ourselves, “Am I crazy?” No, we’re being gaslighted.
We see mobs of people looting stores, smashing windows, setting cars on fire and burning down buildings, but we are told that these acts are “mostly peaceful” protests. And when we call this destruction of our cities, riots, we are called racists. So, we ask ourselves, “Am I crazy?” No, we’re being gaslighted.
We see the major problems destroying many inner-cities are crime, murder, gang violence, drug dealing, drive-by shootings, armed robbery, etc. but we are told that crime is not the inner-city problem, but that police are. We are told that defunding the police and reducing law enforcement in crime-riddled cities will make them safer. If we advocate for more policing in cities overrun by crime, we are accused of being white supremacists and racists. So, we ask ourselves, “Am I crazy?” No, we’re being gaslighted.
The United States of America accepts more immigrants than any other country in the world. The vast majority of the immigrants are “people of color”, and they are now enjoying freedom and economic opportunity not available to them in their countries of origin. But . . . we are told that the United States is the most racist and oppressive country on the planet. If we disagree, we are called racist and xenophobic. So, again we ask ourselves, “Am I crazy?” No, we’re being gaslighted.
Capitalist countries are the most prosperous countries in the world with the highest standards of living . We see more poor people move up the economic ladder to the middle class and even to wealth by their efforts and abilities in capitalist economies than in any other economic system in the world. But we are told capitalism is an oppressive system designed to keep people down. So, we ask ourselves, “Am I crazy?” No, we’re being gaslighted.
Communist countries killed over 100 million people in the 20th century. Communists strip their own citizens of basic human rights, dictate every aspect of their lives, treat them like slaves, and drive their economies into the ground. Yet we are told that communism is the fairest, most equitable, most just economic system in the world. So, we ask ourselves, “Am I crazy?” No, we’re being gaslighted.
A current egregious example of gaslighting is the concept of racial “fragility”. You spend your life trying to be a good person, trying to treat people fairly and with respect. You disavow racism and bigotry in all its forms. You judge people solely on the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. You don’t discriminate based on race or ethnicity. But you are told you are a racist, not because of something you did or said, but solely because of the color of your skin. You know that charging someone with racism because of their skin color is itself racist. You believe that you are not racist, so you defend yourself and your character, but you are told that defending yourself proves your racism. So, you ask yourself, “Am I crazy?” No, you’re just being gaslighted.
Gaslighting has become one of the most pervasive and destructive tactics in American culture and politics. It is the exact opposite of what our system was meant to be. It deals in lies and psychological coercion, and not truth-seeking via intellectual discourse. If you ever ask yourself if you’re crazy, you most likely are not. Crazy people aren’t sane enough to ask themselves if they’re crazy. So trust yourself, believe what’s in your heart. Trust your eyes over what you are told. Don’t credit people who tell you that you’re crazy–because you’re not. You’re being gaslighted.
I really got all your wheels turning on this one. Excellent!
First and foremost it was brought up that, while I ragged on the military for not wanting to drop .30 caliber and the M1 Garand, and thus came the M14… the M1 Garand wasn’t originally shaping up as a 30-06 caliber rifle.
[Twenty gas-operated .276 T3E2 Garands were made and competed with T1 Pedersen rifles in early 1931. The .276 Garand was the clear winner of these trials. The .30 caliber Garand was also tested, in the form of a single T1E1, but was withdrawn with a cracked bolt on 9 October 1931. A 4 January 1932 meeting recommended adoption of the .276 caliber and production of approximately 125 T3E2s. Meanwhile, Garand redesigned his bolt and his improved T1E2 rifle was retested. The day after the successful conclusion of this test, Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur personally disapproved any caliber change, in part because there were extensive existing stocks of .30 M1 ball ammunition.[24] On 25 February 1932, Adjutant General John B. Shuman, speaking for the Secretary of War, ordered work on the rifles and ammunition in .276 caliber cease immediately and completely, and all resources be directed toward identification and correction of deficiencies in the Garand .30 caliber.]
The .276 variant of the Garand was acknowledged as the superior rifle. There was so much surplus 30-06 in US supply that, even after the ammunition broke the first 30-06 chambered Garand variant (the T1E1), all future development would be mandated for the 30-06 variant. It would eventually win and begin replacing the M1903 in 1936.
So even as far back as the 1920’s and 30’s there was plenty of evidence that the turn of the century .30 caliber rifles could be retired and a narrower profile and lighter round (roughly 6-7mm, 100-140 grain) would produce better results. We would go onto resist this idea for nearly another century.
What about lowering the mass of the 7.62 and cranking the velocity up?
This theory comes up from time to time. And a couple folks brought up that they didn’t like the AR-15 compared to the M14 so I will address that also. Yes, for any asking, I believe these individuals did use both rifles at the time in the 60’s.
In short , despite the AR’s reputation as being “maintenance intensive” the M14 requires more maintenance and at higher levels to keep running, is more expensive, and less effective deployed in a squad.
The M14 received a lot of help to win the trials (especially cold weather) over the FN FAL. Compromises kept having to be made with the design, like removing select fire capability for soldiers. The effort expended to keep them in spec and running was very high. These efforts were compounded when they tried to make the M21 and M25 work as designated marksman/semi-auto sniper rifles. They were what was on hand so they got used but they were a righteous pain to keep working and keep accurate.
The SR-25/M110 won out in the role for many reasons, just like the 6.5 Creedmoor M110 is supplanting the 7.62. It’s an objectively better system.
Now fast and light is something Hornady did with their TAP line of ammunition for tactical CQB rifles, like the 13″ SCAR17. Several companies, development groups, and individuals (including a gentleman who wrote in with this inquiry) did as well with the .308. TAP was throwing a 110gr bullet out of a 16″ barrel at roughly 2900 FPS and indications are it will cycle gas guns efficiently.
The question: Would a fast light .30 make a good DMR round? The answer is yes, it could make a decent DMR round. Especially if you are working in range limited urban environments where you want all the effective terminal energy of your round to be inside 100 to 200 yards. After that distance, retaining that energy might become a liability.
But how about for 800, 1000, or more?
The gentleman who asked said they (him and a friend familiar with precision rifle) used a Remington 700 as a test bed. This is a notable deviation since we aren’t talking about a bolt action rifle when we talk battle rifle and modern DMRs, we’re talking gas operated guns with barrels probably between 14.5 and 18 inches. A bolt action is likely to offer a false performance envelope for developing a DMR cartridge unless you match barrel length and twist rate to the proposed DMR platform, even then a rounds performance in the static action of the bolt gun will not indicate its reliability in a gas operated system.
Now say that we optimize the fastboi .308 in the DMR gas guns, the real answer to the real question: Would it out perform 6.5 or 6.8 at long range? is no.
We’ve seen this answer born out in distance shooting for several years now, 7.62x51mm loads do not dominate that space, 6mm and 6.5mm do.
I’m a novice when it comes to ballistic science, but the short version comes down to both ballistic coefficient and sectional density matter. When we are talking tactical rounds we need both, we need external and terminal ballistics to work in favor of the shooter’s goal. It’s less about the speed at the muzzle, more about what that speed does during the trip, and most about how much it has finishing the trip. That ‘end of trip’ at the target and how much speed is retained will determine what the round can do. Then the rounds composition (steel tipped copper), including the sectional density, assist in its effect on target. Ballistic coefficient also tells us just how much atmospherics are going to mess with our shot on the trip.
Now, For Science! (Actually Math)
The best ballistic coefficient on a ‘light’ .308 round, 125 grains(gr), offered from Hornady is .305 (G1) for their SST, for a FMJ it is only .250. Now, compare that to the best ballistic coefficient that is offered in all .30 caliber, .878. That .878 round is a 250gr match bullet. Hornady doesn’t make match bullets in .308 lighter than 155gr because the ballistic coefficient won’t break .4, the match 155gr is only .405.
.30 caliber does live on in the 7.62×51/300/338 Norma MK22 where 7.62x51mm will be used as a sniper training round for range safety and because it’s lower ballistic coefficient and velocities force the shooter to work the math harder. The ballistic coefficient for M118LR, 175gr, is .494 G1.
Compare those with 6.5mm ballistic coefficients and even a 95gr round has a ballistic coefficient of .365, much higher than the .250 or .305 of the short 7.62. At 123gr weight, the ballistic coefficient on a 6.5 can easily be .506, significantly higher than 7.62/.308 at the same mass. Dipping into the 6.8mm side (since that is what the NGSW provided for) they are probably looking at a ballistic coefficient of around .400-.500 which puts it comparable with current M118LR MK316 sniper ammunition, but at a higher velocity and out of shorter barrels.
By the numbers
Now what do a lightweight .308 and a equally fast 6.5 look like out of a rifle when you increase their velocities to 5.56 levels? 3165 FPS to be exact.
125gr* . Ballistic AE App125gr starts out fast but loses speed and energy quickly. By the time we hit 800 yards we’re at about 9mm defensive round energy. Still lethal, but it certainly isn’t going to defeat armor.Drops subsonic at 856 yards. Rounds tend to lose a significant part of their stability passing back through the sounds barrier.
As we can see, we have impressive energy at the muzzle with our ‘fastboi .308’ and out to 300 yards we’re only looking at about 9 inches of up and down travel on the target, with a 100 yard zero. We’ve dumped half the energy by 300 yards but it still has near 7.62×39 AK energy there. At 500 yards we are at half the speed and under 1/3 muzzle energy and it just continues to bleed off after that. This round gives up it’s authority early but would still be very effective inside and beyond typical 5.56 distances.
Now, our hypothetical high velocity 6.5 round.
As you can see, we start in just about the same place muzzle energy wise, which makes sense with same speed and similar mass, however over the first 300 yards we only see 7 inches of total vertical travel with the 100 yard zero compared to the 9 inches on our fast .308.
Now compare velocity and energy numbers, at 300 yards. We are still at 2600 fps with the 6.5 instead of 2265 with the .308. The energy behind the round is significantly higher too, at 1847 ft/lbs vs 1424 ft/lbs. The 6.5 round even arrives at the 300 yard mark .03 seconds faster than the .308, fired at the same initial muzzle velocity. The 6.5 is 23% ‘flatter shooting’ with its trajectory over that distance, given the same 100 yard zero.
When the 6.5 reaches 500 yards its packing the energy that the .308 did at 300 yards. This isn’t even accounting for the terminal efficiency of the sectional density differences, we’re just talking raw kinetic energy here and the 6.5 made it 60% further with the same energy on target. The .308 dropped below 1000 ft/lbs of energy by 450 yards where the 6.5 has kept that until 750 yards.
Consideration of optics for long shots: The ‘fastboi .308’ has dropped 23.36 minutes of angle (93 clicks on 1/4 MOA turrets) while the 6.5 dropped 15.59 (62 clicks) by the time we hit 800 yards. While the Tango6T 1-6x from SIG, the current DMR optic for the US Army, has plenty of adjustment range (about 106 MOA total) a zeroed optic will be somewhere in the middle of that range (53 MOA) and the .308 takes a significant chunk of that if the shooter throws on an adjustment to zero for range. By 1100 yards the .308 is out of the optics adjustment range, the 6.5 won’t run out until 1450 yards.
And as the final point here, the distance at which the 6.5 goes subsonic in our little equation is 1419 yards. As I noted, when the round hits subsonic it is delivering roughly 9x19mm energy onto the target. Our hypothetical high velocity .308 hit that point at 856 yards, the 6.5 made it 65.7% further before hitting that 9mm energy level.
Keep in mind that stability suffers greatly once the round comes back through the sound barrier too. When people say that 6.5 makes 1000 yards easy, they aren’t kidding. It is that much more efficient a round than 7.62 for the bullet mass.
Now, let’s look at a two more rounds much less hypothetical.
First, the M855A1 EPR out of the M4/M4A1. The 62 grain round with the solid steel tip has a listed ballistic coefficient of .152 (G7) and produces the following numbers down range. I won’t get into the G1 vs G7 ballistic drag profiles here, that is a whole different discussion.
So far, out to 300 yards we’re doing alright with only a 10.60 inch drop from the point of aim given a 100 yard zero (LPVO/ACOG would utilize). The energy on target is much lower but we are dealing with a smaller projectile at a slower velocity than our hypothetical .308 or 6.5 were.
The M855A1 can take a shot outward to roughly 700 yards prior to hitting that subsonic transition (730 yards). The energy on target is still at 9x19mm kinetic levels at 500 yards. The .308 and 6.5 both hypothesized a greater range, but scaling up to the larger frame of the traditional battle rifle is done with much greater efficiency in the 6.5.
Finally let’s look at one more round. This one, while still a mystery, isn’t so hypothetical as the previous two. The US Army NGSW program has in their possession 3 prototype 6.8 rounds that are of unknown performance. I’ve read several theories as to their plausible stats, but nothing concrete.
The rumor: It is an extremely high pressure round designed to achieve very impressive muzzle velocities out of a shorter barrel. The recent rumors I saw that said ‘3600 fps out of a 16″ barrel at upwards of 180gr’… seem a little far fetched to me. However, with the rumored/listed chamber pressure of 80,000 PSI, a 140ish grain projectile, and the 13″ barrel of the SIG NGSW in 6.8x51mm/.277 FURY we can run some numbers.
Impressive, with energy matching our hypothetical high velocity .308 rather nicely.
Sig Sauer announced a 135 grain match load and a 140 grain hunting load. Since the 6.8 projectile the Army requested is secret I took a 145 grain selection from the Hornady list and gave it a muzzle velocity of 2900 fps, this will be our stand-in approximation of XM1186. The ballistic coefficient on the 6.8 is significantly higher than the M855A1, an impressive .270 (G7).
The claim is the FURY outperforms 6.5 Creedmoor, by what metrics we are not entirely sure, however SIG Sauer claims that the cartridge has performance superior to the current SOCOM M110 favorite by exhibiting 6 to 9 feet (1.8 to 2.7 m) less bullet drop at 1,000 yards while delivering 20–25% greater energy. This could very well be the case since the higher velocities will mean flatter trajectories and there won’t be as substantial a change in ballistic coefficient between the two differing diameter rounds the way that 7.62 and 6.5 exhibit.
Now what does our approximate XM1186 6.8mm do further down range?
Looking out to 1000 yards we have very good numbers on retained velocity and kinetic energy. Compared to the 5.56 it will be replacing, the 6.8 has 3.38 times the energy and 20% greater velocity at 1000 yards than the M855A1 has at 700 yards. It will, in every metric except size, be a more capable and lethal round for the military to utilize.
Now this is the realm of the purely academic. Soldiers have difficulty hitting 300 yard targets at the moment. The NGSW should, through its across the rifle system improvements, allow soldiers to extend that envelope of coverage out to 500-600 yards with a very reasonable degree of success and increased hit effectiveness on better armored targets. In theory, the new rifles should make 1000 yards “easy” and turn Army and Marine ground forces into far more dangerous combatants. In practice this will take not only the NGSW but the combined efforts to train troops on the new weapons.
If that is done then the future ground forces of the United States will be able to very efficiently fight as far as the eye can see… and then some.
[Editor’s Note: Travis’ post didn’t feature quite enough Scorpions so…
…End Editor’s Note]
Bullpup is a fun term that goes beyond that NFAC guy’s looney and incorrect rant. One of my favorite lines regarding bullpups is that they “Are the gun of the future, and always will be.” If there is a better way to praise and insult a firearm type, then I haven’t heard it. The bullpup rifle is controversial, misunderstood, and their military service has been met with some contentious results. However, they remain a feature in the gun industry, and every year we see more and more rise up.
What’s a Bullpup?
The origin of the term bullpup is not set in stone. In fact, for many years, no one really knew where it came from. April 2020 delivered us a video from Forgotten Weapons featuring British firearms historian Jonathan Ferguson. The term bullpup was used in the 30s to describe bulldog puppies. The analogy comes from the fact that both types of bullpups are described as small, squat, ugly, but aggressive and powerful. This is the most likely source of the bullpup name.
Bullpup was also a name the United States applied to the first guided air to surface missile in use by the military and applied to precision target pistols, but it has since fallen out of favor for both.
IWI Tavor, built for combat; ideal for competition.
Bullpups often appear futuristic in design, but bullpup military rifles go all the way back to 1901 with the Thorneycroft carbine. Bullpup rifle designs come in a few different configurations, but the most common feature tying them all together is the design places the action of the weapon behind the trigger.
This results in a platform that’s much smaller than most. As you can see here, we have a Scorpion pistol with a brace and a 7.72-inch barrel compared to a Scorpion rifle with a 16-inch barrel and stock in a bullpup configuration. The rifle is only 26.25 inches long overall and is just a bit longer than the pistol variant and brace even though it has double the barrel length.
The bullpup configuration shaved off nearly 10 inches from the standard carbine variant. Bullpup rifles deliver a shorter and handier package than a full-sized rifle. In fact, they deliver a weapon the same length as an SBR without the necessary tax stamps.
Why Are They Disliked?
The immediate advantages are quite apparent. However, bullpup rifles often get the short end of the stick with plenty of detractors in the civilian and military community. A lot of the poor reputation bullpups get come from two famed European service rifles, the French FAMAS, and the British L85.
Also this Mossberg 500 was an awkward bullpup
Both of these bullpup rifles were marred with issues in their service life and took decades to straighten out. These two rifles are often cited as some of the worst service rifles of the modern age, and their country’s stubborn refusal to seek a new rifle drove their Commando troops to AR-style platforms. Sadly this reputation ignores the great success the Steyr AUG saw with numerous defensive forces around the globe and the state of both rifles today.
In recent years bullpup rifles like the Tavor series and VHS have proven more successful than most, and the AUG continues to serve around the world.
The Advantages
The obvious and aforementioned advantages are the overall length and barrel length ratio. A rifle can have a 16, or even 20 inch barrel and remain incredibly compact. While that’s less important with the 9mm Scorpion, with rifles in 5.56 the more barrel the better.
There are also some legal advantages if you want a rifle with a compact design, but you don’t want a tax stamp. A Mk18 rifle is 26.75 inches long with the stock collapsed, and as we mentioned above, the Scorpion is shorter at 26.25 inches. Rifles like the AUG with 16-inch barrels are a mere 28.15 inches. It’s an SBR sized package without the SBR required stamp.
Practical Advantages
Shorter guns are handier for close-quarters shooting. Bullpup rifles can maneuver around corners, through doorways, and in and out of vehicles with ease. On top of that, the longer barrel reduces muzzle flash, concussion, and a good bit of noise associated with short-barreled rifles. They tend to make excellent suppressor candidates for these reasons too.
There are also some handling advantages, many fail to mention how a bullpup handles compared to a standard rifle. The design and shorter overall length puts the center of balance is to the rear, into the shooter’s shoulder. The Scorpion bullpup moves faster to my shoulder and up and on target faster compared to a standard configuration Scorpion.
Moving between targets also feels faster and more intuitive with less momentum and leverage carrying the weapon off target. Snapshots, box drills, and even the Eleanor drill from Sage Dynamics are easier to accomplish with the bullpup Scorpion than the standard pistol model.
Disadvantages
Models like the bullpup Scorpion are not exactly left hand friendly. However, not all pups hate lefties. In fact, many are convertible for left-handed use like the AUG and Tavor. The PS90, FS 2000, and KelTec bullpups eject shells into neutral space instead of left or right. Modern bullpup variants keep lefties in mind.
Misunderstandings
There are also lots of misunderstandings reported as bullpup detractions. They all have a little facet of truth to them, but with a healthy dose of personal preference and bias thrown on top.
The first and most prominent is the ‘crummy’ trigger situation. A bullpup trigger’s complexity, and thus feel, is caused by the trigger linkage necessary to place the trigger forward of the action. On some guns like the bullpup Scorpion, the non-bullpup trigger is crummy to begin with so not much is lost. While the Scorpion isn’t an impressive trigger, that doesn’t mean bullpups universally have crappy triggers.
The KelTec RDB and K&M Arms M17 both sport fantastic triggers. Trigger upgrades for the Tavor and Steyr AUG also bring them into the same vein as AR-type rifles. Bullpup triggers have come a long way and continue to improve by leaps and bounds.
Swapping shoulders is often said to be difficult, if not impossible, with a bullpup. It’s simply not true. Although the techniques may vary, swapping shoulders is possible with a bullpup rifle. I prefer to use a technique where I switch shoulders but leave my hands in the same place. It’s faster and more intuitive, but a traditional shoulder swap still works with most bullpups.
Last but not least is reloads. Slow is relative, and bullpup reloads are not slow to the trained hand. You can be a bit faster with emergency speed reloads with a traditional rifle. However, a bullpup only lags behind a hair for this specific reload technique. A shooter experienced with a bullpup can be quite quick. X95 users often find themselves faster on reloads with the bolt release location.
When running the Bullpup Scorpion side by side with a traditional Scorpion, a reload with retention takes nearly the same amount of time. A speed reload is quicker with a standard Scorpion, but hardly enough to matter unless we count Instagram.
The Bullpup Life
Bullpup rifles are fascinating and efficient designs that pack a lot of punch in a small package. Bullpups are not for everyone, but they do offer significant advantages over more traditional firearms. These pups might not be the future, but they are far from being described in the past tense.
Appendix carry is rapidly becoming the most popular method of concealed carry; today in the JM Custom Kydex Appendix Carry Holster Review we take a look at one of the best options on the market right now.
Contrary to what some people would have you believe, appendix carry isn’t new. There are photos of cowboys on the frontier with guns jammed into their waistband at the exact same position modern day shooters are sticking Glock 19s. It’s a natural position to carry a gun, and works well with the body’s natural range of motion. As appendix carry, or AIWB has gained popularity in the internet age, a lot of companies have jumped in the pool making holsters. But not all holsters are created equal. What sets the JM Custom Kydex appendix carry holster apart from the others?
First, the JM Custom Kydex appendix carry holster is well-made. Anyone who’s ever handled a kydex holster made from cheap material and one made from quality material can instantly tell the difference. The cheapo holster flexes, deforms, and generally feels low quality in the hand. The JM AIWB holster on the other hand is made of high quality material. How high quality? One of my personal holsters survived a 30+ MPH fall off a motorbike with cracking or damage to the holster.
Secondly, the JM Custom Kydex appendix carry holster is comfortable for all day wear. Whenever you show someone your AIWB rig, the first thing they say is “I’d like to see you drive with that.” So I did that, driving 4,344.7 miles with a Ruger GP100 in my JM AIWB holster. At an average speed of 70 mph, that’s just over 60 hours in the car, with an appendix carry holster. My legs started to get cramped up from sitting long before I felt any discomfort from the holster.
Lastly, the JM Custom Kydex appendix carry holster has all the features you’d want. Because you can order your holster made-to-order, you can get whatever options you want. For semi-autos I get a wing claw and pull the dot loops, and for revolvers I get a flat muzzle pad to keep the muzzle from rotating. Both those options make the holster easier to conceal, and more comfortable.
Bottom line, JM Custom makes a great AIWB holster. They’re reasonably priced, starting at $70 before options, although mine usually cost around 80-100, because I like options. Custom products will run at least 6 weeks wait time as well, but I have to say: it’s worth the price and it’s worth the wait. If you’re like me and like special snowflake guns, JM Custom is your go-to.
According to the German language publication Soldat und Technik, the German Army has selected the CG Haenel MK556 carbine to replace the G36. The MK556 is a short-stroke piston design in 5.56mm NATO.
Image via Soldier Systems Daily
This rather surprising upset may have its roots still in politics. The German government has come down hard on H&K over the G36 scandal and they may still be charging hard over that. But at the same time… they may not. It is possible H&K simply… lost. They didn’t deliver an expected product at a price point the Bundeswehr and German Government wished to purchase.
This ends the service’s multi-year search for a G36 replacement. The program to purchase around 120,000 new rifles began in 2017 and suffered a slight set back in 2019 when testing had to be reaccomplished. The G36 entered service in 1997 and underwent two upgrades during its service.
The MK556 beat out the new Heckler & Koch HK433 which was developed specifically for this tender after the German government told H&K that their existing HK416 (adopted by the German Kommando Spezialkräfte or, Special Forces) was too expensive.
Interestingly enough, Haenel part of the Merkel Group, which is under Tawazun Holding (United Arab Emirates) (Caracal). So the Bundeswehr is essentially getting a lower cost HK416.
Essentially a 416 at non-H&K prices. I do wonder if they will also go M-LOK like the Brits and drop HKey?
I also wonder if this means 433’s for the states? But that’s a big wonder.. more like a high fantasy adventure in my own mind where all kinds of cool equally improbably things happen.
A “Rights Tax” is not a new tactic. Just as with a “Sin Tax” it is an attempt to limit or eliminate a behavior that the group who levied the tax considers undesirable or to limit a certain group of people (the poor and middle class) from exercising a behavior. The rich folk who can are then a considered a combination of “smart enough” or “important enough” to exercise the behavior and a minority of the population with enough power and positive offsetting traits for it to be an issue best left unspoken about an unaddressed.
There is no single privilege as powerful as money intelligently spent on establishing reputation. We like to throw the term “influencer” around, but the greatest influencer known to man isn’t a YouTube or InstaPersonality of some type. It’s trusted money.
Now, back to the ‘Right’s Tax’, the sin tax to trump all sin taxes.
With the federal courts offering lukewarm protection to the Second Amendment, anti-gun politicians are attempting an end run around legal gun control obstacles through taxes.
Michigan State Representative Cynthia Johnson (D-Detroit) has proposed a 10% excise tax on ammunition, already selling at inflated rates due to scarcity. We can anticipate more firearms related excise tax proposals in the 2021-2022 Michigan Legislative Session.
Firearms dealer licensing and manufacturing fees are increasingly being proposed in many states. And Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has called for a $200 federal registration fee for popular semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 as well as a $200 federal tax stamp for every magazine that could hold more than 10 rounds.
In a September 9, 2020 article, Ammoland reports: “In 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court famously wrote: ‘the power to tax involves the power to destroy ….’ This truism has not been lost on firearm prohibitionists, who when unable to ban guns outright have often tried to tax them out of reach of the average citizen.” Read More
The result of such taxes would make legal self-defense, particularly concealed carry, even more unaffordable to many middle class and economically disadvantaged people. History has taught us this will lead to a proliferation in blackmarket sales and corresponding increase in crime.
A sin tax is a basic concept, using financial stress to curb a behavior. We do it for cigarettes and alcohol and while its effectiveness is suspect, its revenue generation is not. Certain states and cities have added that same tax to legal marijuana. Others have added it to guns and ammo.
Using the sin tax, the government can price people out of being able to afford something. Usually by putting it in the, ‘its just not worth that much to me…’ category and then pocketing the money for the general fund. The extra tax on a certain good above and beyond any general sales tax which actively discourages or punishes the use.
Oh sure they can say its going to fund ‘Gun Violence Prevention Efforts’ or ‘The Harm Caused by Firearms in the Community’ but they also say all the lottery money goes to schools… If we don’t have receipts showing every dime going to ER’s, trauma help, and LE then I’m going to call shenanigans and say this is just more general revenue. Directly at the expense of the financially challenged, temporary and long term, these axes cause harm.
But it is seen as ‘acceptable’ to some to tax this particular civil right… because guns. It’s immoral in the highest degree to mandate even a free ID to vote, but we can tack on hundreds of dollars to your right of self defense and vaguely say that it is offsetting the ‘cost’ of gun violence? What about the cost of uninformed voting? #RememberObamaPhone
On the Federal level Joe Biden wants to make magazines over 10 rounds and semi-auto rifles like the AR-15.. the infamously vague ‘assault weapons’, into NFA controlled items with $200 taxes attached to each one. $200 extra for every single PMAG, Surefeed, Lancer and more.
[Sidenote: I bet the morale at ATF, all branches, would improve 66% instantly if we amended the NFA to just cover machine guns and all other firearms were considered Title I and narrowed to a single ‘Firearms’ category. Make everyone’s life easier. Tracking ‘type’ by pistol, rifle, etc would be academic data only, the legal categories would be Firearm (Title I) then Select Fire Firearms and Destructive Devices (Title II).]
After some of the protests that came as a result of 2020 policy decisions, many related to COVID-19 Coronavirus infection prevention decisions, the debate has been opened in the Michigan State Capitol Commission on whether or not to ban firearms from Capitol premises.
This recent round of debate on banning firearms comes after armed protesters of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s COVID-19 infection reduction policy entered the Capitol Building in April to make their displeasure known, heard, and felt. They succeeded, perhaps too well and the inevitable happened. Instead of progress on opening businesses the Commission is deciding whether to leave the policy unchanged, ban long guns, or ban firearms outright from the building.
I think we can file this under ‘Unintended but inevitable consequences…’ since we have an anti-2A governor and AG in Mitten State at the moment. Never let a crisis, even an overblown or manufactured one, go to waste as an opportunity to erode firearms freedoms.
Comments to the commission can be left here. As always, those comments should be kept civil and in keeping with good discourse. Any opportunity to see firearms owners in the state as barely controlled nearly off their rockers holligans will be exploited to erode the 2A while polite but firm opposition to a change in policy negatively influencing the 2A rights of Michiganders can only be helpful if there is any help to be had.
Sometimes everyone has made up their mind already when these open, and there is no way to ‘win’. We will see.
Optics on shotguns can be a tricky proposition. Shotguns are like handguns in the fact that many will argue an optic isn’t necessary. Most people are wrong about that, at least from a defensive perspective. Optics make everything faster and more precise, and a shotgun is no different. Optics on shotguns are tricky, but Scalarworks has a problem-solving solution through their Sync mounts.
The Scalarworks Sync Mount is a shotgun specific optic’s mount available for the Mossberg 500/590/930 and the Benelli M2/M4/SBE. The Sync mount is also optic’s specific and made to mount the Trijicon RMR or SRO. The Trijicon footprint is quite popular, so the Sync mount will accommodate various optics. I mounted the Holosun 507C v2 over an RMR, and the fit was perfect.
The Sync mount is made from 7075-T6, and when the open bottom RMR is mounted to the mount, the gun has a rock-solid and waterproof fit.
How It’s Different
The Benelli M4 already comes optic’s ready, so you may be asking what the point of the Sync mount is? The Sync mount lowers the optic to the point where it perfectly co-witnesses with the Benelli’s iron sights. A brief glimpse through the rear sight perfectly places the reticle in focus and provides a clear view all the way to the front sight.
The Sync mount positions the optic much lower than most and provides you with a rock-solid cheek weld and a comfortable position in which to use the optic. No more chin or jaw welds to be had here. Most shooters using a Benelli often find the LOP too long for optic’s use, but the Sync mount eliminates that for all Benelli M4 stock types.
The Sync mount is also much lighter than the Benelli optic’s rail. It weighs only .64 of an ounce compared to the Benelli’s 2.71-ounce optic’s mount.
Sync Mount Installation
The Sync Mount also doesn’t use a traditional installation method. On guns like the Benelli, four holes and four screws hold down the optic’s mount. The Sync mount goes in its own direction. The middle two bolts act as anchor points that remain under the mount entirely. This Key Slot mounting system locks the mount down before it’s genuinely connected.
Once the first two bolts are in place, and the Sync mount is locked in, you then add the front and rear bolt, which properly secure everything. This system spreads side-impact over four points, and once in place, there is no shaking or looseness to be found.
Tossing on your optic of choice is relatively simple and takes no time at all. A little Loctite and a turn of the bolts and bam, you are ready to go.
In Action
Zeroing is easy because I know my irons are zeroed for Federal Flitecontrol at 15 yards. I moved the 32 MOA circle down and matched the reticle to the irons, and I was off. The reticle was dead on with my chosen load, and I was a happy shotgunner.
The Scalarworks Sync mount has since been subjected to my wills and whims for shooting during the quarantine. I’ve put hundreds and hundreds of buckshot downrange, and even more birdshot with my newly decked out Benelli M4, and the mount remains secure. None of the bolts have loosened, and the setup is just as tight today as it was on day 1.
I do adore being able to get right behind the optic with a natural cheek weld. It makes shooting the gun much more comfortable and natural feeling. Shooting with a compromised cheek weld is never fun, especially when set against some stress. You’ll find yourself missing the optic and losing your reticle, which results in sacrificed time and frustration.
The Sync mount guarantees that when you jam your cheek to your stock, the reticle will be a part of your vision. Forget spending time trying to find it; spend that time pulling the trigger. Shotguns and optics are tricky because few people have invested the time to do it right. When paired with an excellent red dot optic, a shotgun is faster and inside a shotgun’s effective range, speed is king.
Bead? Ghost Rings? Nah, Red Dot
The red dot gives you the speed of a bead sight with the accuracy of ghost rings. However, this only works when the optic is placed low and in the ready position. The Sync mount gets the red dot nice and low and perfect for shots on the fly. Shotguns rule when it comes to fast snapshots and reactionary shooting, and the Sync perfectly complies with that kind of use. The Scalarworks Sync mount is an excellent addition to your Benelli or Mossberg, and I’m glad the gauge is getting a little attention.
[Ed: DRGO’s Virginia activist, Dennis Petrocelli, MD, just won’t quit. As all of us must, he is keeping the pressure on Virginia governments that seek to restrict our individual liberties and 2A rights. These were his comments at Tuesday’s public meeting about the Richmond, Virginia ordinance to prohibit firearms anywhere “used by, or . . . adjacent to” a public event (e.g., a demonstration) [my emphases — how near is “adjacent” and who knows when an event “should be permitted” if it wasn’t ?].
President of the City Council, Councilors, and other guests,
My name is Dr. Dennis Petrocelli. I’m a forensic psychiatrist who has studied human violence and aggression for the past 20 years that I’ve worked here in Virginia. I’m asking all councilors to vote in opposition to 2020-184 and I’m happy to quickly go through a few reasons why I’m asking you to do that.
First let me clarify I speak for myself and one particular organization; I do not speak for my employer. I am a member of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a national organization of healthcare providers that debunks mythology about gun control that has masqueraded as public health.
Let me turn my attention now to 2020-184. Mayor Stoney has proposed this as a gun ban, and his stated intention is that by passing this members of the community would feel more secure in public places where there are gatherings that either should or are permitted. This legislation would do none of that and let me cite some reasons for this.
It is well established that criminals do not fear law enforcement–what it is that they fear are potentially armed victims. This has been established by surveys that have been conducted of persons who are incarcerated for violent crimes. With regard to those of us who are law abiding, it has been repeatedly established that the enforcement of law does not make us feel more secure. Fear of crime is only reduced by the presence of security, and it’s important to emphasize that this so-called ban does not provide perimeter security or any measure of security at any event.
Additionally we know that lawful defensive gun usages vastly outweighs criminal uses of guns by at least a hundred to one. There are roughly 500,000 defensive gun uses annually in the United States. It’s also known by FBI data collected in 2018 that armed civilians have often stopped active shooters before law enforcement can arrive. We know that armed civilians who are lawfully armed and properly trained are vital immediate responders who respond prior to the arrival of law enforcement.
Finally, I really need to emphasize that all of your constituents are buying guns in absolutely record numbers. Local gun stores have been picked clean of their inventory and all of those folks are your constituents. I cannot imagine what it will be like for you to go to your constituents who have recently bought guns and explained to them that they’re going to have to keep their guns in a safe and cannot carry them in order to keep themselves safe. Thank you.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Good Evening Members of Richmond City Council and my fellow Richmonders,
I’m Dr. Dennis Petrocelli. I’m a constituent of Ms. Larson and I appreciate your allowing me to address you yet again on this ordinance. Again, I’m asking you to oppose it. I want to add two points to those I made at my previous opportunity to speak, and some of these are in reference to Mayor Stoney’s comments about the purpose of this ordinance.
I’ll remind you that on the last Virginia Citizens Defense League Lobby Day, January 20th, 2020, roughly 20,000 people showed up to the capital armed, and we left the capital cleaner and neater than we found it. None of us committed any offenses whatsoever. There’s no basis in fact for this ordinance supposedly making anyone safer.
The second point I’d like to make is about gun control in general. There isn’t a single piece of gun control legislation in the United States that hasn’t been used toward racist ends. I’m an ex-New Yorker and I can tell you that the New York SAFE ACT is nearly exclusively enforced in Brooklyn and the Bronx. It is not enforced in Westchester, it is not enforced in other counties, and that’s entirely due to demographics. I strongly encourage the city council to think about this and to vote no on this ordinance. I thank you very much for your time.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Dear Chief of Police Smith,
Your comments tonight regarding Mayor Stoney’s proposed ordinance to “ban” guns at and near events that are or should be permitted in Richmond were a shocking affront to the Second Amendment community. At a time when your position, your department, and your brothers and sisters throughout the country are attacked and scrutinized, you chose to stand with the lawless and infringe upon the rights of your law abiding supporters.
This “ban” provides no perimeter security, or any other measure to ensure security. It merely tells responsible citizens that their guns are not welcome, despite the fact that concealed handgun permit holders are among the safest and most law-abiding members of society. It simultaneously informs criminals that participants are unarmed.
You stated that this “ban” was “not an infringement.” It absolutely, unequivocally is. I have a God-given right to bear arms to protect myself and others, and this ordinance prohibits that. The fact that you cannot see this ordinance as an infringement makes it all the more frightening: it is now reasonable to believe that there’s no limit to what your police force is capable of. You will enforce one infringement after the next, eventually losing sight of the Second Amendment altogether. Perhaps you already have.
You stated that your police force would seek “compliance” before implementing “enforcement.” Let’s examine what “seeking compliance” would look like. Police officers, armed with guns would approach citizens armed with guns, and demand that those citizens secure those guns at some unspecified distance from the event, absent any evidence that those citizens had any intention other than to be ready to defend themselves. If there is anything the Second Amendment was designed to prevent, it is exactly this scenario.
In response to my observation that gun control laws have been enforced disproportionately against minorities, you stated that under your leadership it would be enforced fairly. You are our third Chief of Police since the rioting began roughly three months ago; there is little reason to believe that your tenure will endure the duration of this ordinance.
Assurances about enforcement were made before the Supreme Court in the New York Rifle & Pistol Association v New York City case, and several Justices were appropriately troubled that such assurances were meaningless, but that’s all you offer us tonight. Recall that your officers tear gassed protesters before the curfew took place. If your officers literally do not know what time it is, how can we expect them to follow the nuances of enforcement you contemplate?
Events of the past several months prove that immediate responders, that is, lawfully armed citizens, are all the more important when police are diverted by the mayhem of rioters. I’d like to think that the Richmond police exist to uphold the law in the support of the rights of the law-abiding. Instead, you make it clear that you’d happily allow your department to serve as the leading edge of infringement against our rights.
It is deeply troubling that your allegiance to politics is greater than your allegiance to the law. The context of this ordinance is crucial to understand it. This year’s Virginia Citizens Defense League Lobby Day brought 20,000 open-carrying law-abiding citizens to Richmond. No crimes were committed, and we left the Capitol grounds literally cleaner than we found it. This has been the case for many years now, yet you choose to ignore all of this. Therefore, I can only conclude that you are helping the Mayor do our Governor a favor, in return for his recent campaign endorsement. This year the Governor declared the Capitol Grounds an “emergency shelter” and banned guns inside that perimeter. He knows that maneuver won’t stand on appeal, so the Mayor is delivering this ordinance for him. It is as transparent as it is unconstitutional.
Dennis Petrocelli, MD
.
.
–Dr. Dennis Petrocelli is a clinical and forensic psychiatrist who has practiced for nearly 20 years in Virginia. He took up shooting in 2019 for mind-body training and self-defense, and is in the fight for Virginians’ gun rights.
What is the modern fighting revolver? It’s a topic I’ve visited in the past, but until now lacked the time, resources, and ambition to bring to fruition. In short, it’s a revolver updated and designed with the features that a shooter in 2020 would want on their gun.
The plan for the modern fighting revolver was simple: find a full size revolver that carries more than six rounds, fix the trigger, mount a red dot. The first step is finding the gun, and there aren’t a lot of choices. Keeping the gun to a realistic carry size meant eliminating guns like Ruger’s 8-shot Redhawk or the similarly large Smith & Wesson N-frames, such as the 8-shot Performance Center 327. While those guns are awesome, they’re not the right size for concealed carry. That leaves the seven shot Ruger GP100 and the various 7 shot L-frame S&Ws. While it’s a known fact that I personally am a fan of Ruger revolvers, one of the weaknesses that they have for this project is a lack of suitable mounts for red dots without machining. The final choice was the Smith & Wesson 686+ with a three inch barrel. This balances the gun well between shootability and concealability.
Next up were the grips. The factory stocks on the 686+ are fine if you’re doing range work, but for a full day class they lack surface contact area and friction. That was fixed with an order from VZ Grips, which landed the marvelous round to square butt conversion grips in my lap. These grips change the profile of the grip so it widens at the base, giving the shooter more gun to hang on to, which is ideal for extended shooting sessions.
Fixing the trigger would prove more difficult, but wasn’t impossible after the judicious application of a bucket full of Apex parts. Apex conveniently sells an all in one kit: the Evolution hammer. This hammer converts the gun to DAO, is machined steel instead of MIM, and pre-polished to reduce friction. The kit also has an extended firing pin and two new rebound springs. The lighter spring is the “competition” spring, which is the spring we installed. After dropping the new hammer, firing pin, and rebound spring in, the new trigger is a smooth 12lbs with a fast reset. A little tuning to find out what cracks primers and we might be able to get that under 10lbs in the future.
The last install was the red dot, and again our solution starts with Apex. There aren’t a lot of great revolver red dot mounts on the market. Apex offers a mount for the Aimpoint ACRO, which uses all three of the revolver’s pre-drilled screw holes to secure the mount. That makes it the sturdiest revolver mount that doesn’t require milling, and of course the ACRO mounts up perfectly to it.
I’ll be using this revolver as my primary gun for shooting classes for hopefully the next year, and providing period reports about its durability, accuracy, and any other issues. Oh, and for those wondering how much all this awesome stuff costs? The gun, parts, and dot all together: 1619.88. But no one ever said it was cheap to be this awesome!
I was sitting in a seventh grade classroom on the day I learned, the day I truly learned, that hate had followed mankind into the 21st Century.
It was the day I learned my father could cry. It was the first day I learned evil did exist. That it was real and it killed people for what ever reason it wanted. The 21st Century didn’t leave behind the concept of slaughter just for someone’s origin, their nation, and their heritage.
Nineteen men would take it upon themselves to kill nearly 3,000 people. Just because they were probably American, that they were working in America and traveling in America. September 11th, 2001 proved that mankind had brought their vindictive hatred and grudges with them into the next century… and that it only takes one person to do that.
I knew, as I saw my father crying, as I saw the bodies of people falling from the towers, as I gazed at a TV screen showing flames and smoke and wreckage… as I watched the Towers fall… I cried too and I knew the fight was on, it had been dragged across the year 2000 by evil men with evil intentions and hollow justifications in their hearts. They brought it with them across the line so that anyone could pick it up for any reason to bring violence again and again.
I don’t know why, at twelve years old, I thought the turn of the century was some sort of barrier. I believed that the hatred of the past couldn’t cross the year 2000. This was the Information Age. We had weapons just in case, not because we were inevitably going to war and mankind can’t leave it behind.
I learned that it doesn’t take a nation to make war. The world learned war had changed again, just as it had at the last turn of the century. Mankind can never leave it behind, because it takes the united effort of everyone to do so. If even one person does not, then the effort fails… hatred remains… and war continues.
Nineteen years later, mankind still holds the hate we brought over the century mark even if some of the targets of it have changed.. and I just wish we would put it down. No conditions, no stipulations, no reasons to hang onto the hate. That part of my naive twelve year old self remains, and I’ll keep it. I know the reality, I know there are more fights to come both large and small, for righteous reasons and for selfish ones. I know it, I accept it.
