Our favorite flanneled gun reviewer, Garand Thumb, has come to throw some good informative fuel to the intellectuals fires of the now raging gun control debate. We know a variety of proposals are being pushed, from universal background checks to a renewed assault weapons ban.
Yes a new assault weapons ban is in congress as S. 66 and because of the current public and political climate it has the greatest chance of gaining momentum in recent history.
This bill makes it a crime to knowingly import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon (SAW) or large capacity ammunition feeding device (LCAFD).
The prohibition does not apply to a firearm that is (1) manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action; (2) permanently inoperable; (3) an antique; or (4) a rifle or shotgun specifically identified by make and model.
The bill also exempts from the prohibition the following, with respect to a SAW or LCAFD:
importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession related to certain law enforcement efforts, or authorized tests or experiments;
importation, sale, transfer, or possession related to securing nuclear materials; and
possession by a retired law enforcement officer.
The bill permits continued possession, sale, or transfer of a grandfathered SAW, which must be securely stored. A licensed gun dealer must conduct a background check prior to the sale or transfer of a grandfathered SAW between private parties.
The bill permits continued possession of, but prohibits sale or transfer of, a grandfathered LCAFD.
Newly manufactured LCAFDs must display serial number identification. Newly manufactured SAWs and LCAFDs must display the date of manufacture.
The bill also allows a state or local government to use Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program funds to compensate individuals who surrender a SAW or LCAFD under a buy-back program.
S. 66 is looking to impose a massive sweeping legislative change and drastic violation of the individual right to firearms ownership in a completely ineffectual manner. This either won’t be the last law they pass because it will be ineffectual (assuming it passed in the first place) or they really don’t understand how to effectively influence the homicide rate.
The legislation is looking to permanently hamstring millions of gun owners in order to curb a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of annual homicides. I don’t know how to get it through to people just how hail mary a pass this is to actually lower deaths, but imagine it’s a pass in a field 10 times as long, in hurricane level crosswinds, while blindfolded.
Nothing in these measures will save lives. This assault weapon ban and the other bread and circus proposals currently in Washington and the states have no realistic chance of impact. This isn’t “gun loving NRA lifer” talk. This is realistic analysis of rates of general criminal determent, non-compliance, societal outlook on violence, and ineffective removal of method. This law doesn’t remove rifles as a method, not even close. The tens of millions in circulation will remain so and still contribute to that small segment of total homicides for decades. The hundreds of millions of magazines will still be around too.
When you run incredibly generous numbers (like say the buyback proposed would pay $1.50 on the $1.00, MSRP, to remove these weapons and we get 50% compliance with the magazine ban) how would the law actually track a positive decline in homicides, mass or otherwise? Projected influence under ideal circumstances is less than year to year fluctuations, far less than the 2016 to 2017 difference.
Instead of focusing on keeping violent offenders incarcerated, especially those with criminal enterprise (gang) affiliation, which would actively cut into all those numbers, not just the rifle one, we use terrifying events to make ineffective policy. Great job guys… way to “do something” more than thoughts and prayers. Expecting this to work seems like a very cynical attempt at real earthly thoughts and prayers, as the politicians pray they can point to a number that says this hairbrained thought really worked.
Those that push these policy concepts are either completely ignorant or have a final agenda. Total firearm ban and confiscation by force is the only logical conclusion of their line of reasoning, regardless of what the gun controller camp says about their “respect for the 2nd Amendment.”
We are at the soap, press, and ballot box stage of this fight. I don’t expect us to leave that area anytime soon, and that’s a good thing. But we must be certain we stand firm against bad policies and actively support and promote good effective policies. We must keep speaking about why the bad policies will fail and why the effective policies will push the numbers they claim to want to influence.
Be the voices of reason even with an unreasonable audience, folks. This is going to be long fight.
The Springfield Saint line of rifles have been pushing the boundaries of what a rifle is capable of being for under 1,000 dollars. The Saint Victor has an MSRP of $1,073 dollars, but retails for about 850. In a crowded AR market, it’s hard to stand out, but a classic and surefire method is to offer a lot of bang for your buck. The Springfield Saint Victor rifle is one of the latest models of the Saint and one of the most impressive. The Springfield Saint Victor comes in rifle, SBR, and pistol variant. The Saint Victor also comes in a 308 AR 10 model. Today I have the Victor rifle variant in 5.56.
What’s In the Saint Victor
The Victor offers shooters a 16-inch CMV barrel with a 1:8 twist rate. Around the barrel we have a 15-inch M-Lok aluminum free float handguard with Springfield Armory locking tabs.
The Saint Victor comes with SA flip-up iron sights which is a major relief in my eyes. The trend of selling rifles without sights, especially higher end rifles, is dumb. If a rifle doesn’t have sights its not a complete rifle. Beyond that the rifle comes with lots of Bravo Company furniture. This includes a Bravo Company Mod 3 pistol grip, a Bravo Company trigger guard, and a Bravo Company stock.
The pistol grip is nice, as is the trigger guard, but I love the stock. This has to be one of the more comfortable stocks and is certainly one of the most stable carbine stocks on the market. The Bravo Company Gunfighter stock offers an excellent cheek rest, is 100% beard friendly, and is an overall excellent stock. I could do an entire review just on it.
The Saint Victor also comes with a Spring Armory muzzle brake, a QD mount in the end plate, and a flat faced nickel boron trigger. The entire package is well put together and an impressive package for under a thousand dollars. I’d make one change and that’s to add an extended charging handle to make it easier to use with an optic.
The Saint Victor comes together to be a complete package of a rifle. The Victor is well made, and Springfield did an excellent job at designing it. The lower is a stock standard forged model, very similar to any other lower on the market. Be it an Anderson, a Colt, an 80% Lower, or any other Mil-Spec manufacturer. The Victor also only weighs 6 pounds and 9 ounces. I love lightweight rifles and the Springfield Victor is an all together excellent package. The Victor also comes with one Gen M3 Pmag and a soft carry case which is a nice touch.
Range Time With the Saint Victor
The Saint Victor is a handy little carbine and it’s lightweight and comfortable to wield. I really love the stock and the thin handguard of the Victor combined with the Bravo Company grip makes every point of contact a comfortable one.
The gun is quick and easy to shoulder making it an excellent for quick reactions. Going from low or relaxed ready to an accurate shot on target can be done is less than a second. I found this out through snap drills where I aimed to hit a headshot at 25 yards starting at the low ready.
The gun has very little recoil and the muzzle brake does its job very well. Admittedly it’s freakin loud and your fellow shooters to your right and left may not like it. The AR in 5.56 is already very easy to control, but the Victor’s brake makes it even easier.
The 15-inch M-LOK rail is plenty comfortable, but it also heats up fairly fast. I shot the Table 5 USMC close quarter’s shoot and by the end the rail was nice and toasty. On top of the fact it was 96 degrees and I was in the sun so that didn’t help. Gloves will be your friend if you decide to amp up your shooting.
Accuracy wise the gun is certainly impressive. The flat trigger offers very short travel and a is nice and crisp as it breaks. The reset is short and tactile. On top of that the included irons are solid and well done. At 100 yards the rifle is capable of producing 1 MOA groups or better in the prone position, and an optic obviously helps, but irons can do it too.
Killing It
Shooting the USMC Table 5 drill turned out to be an awesome way to test this rifle. This drill required engagements at multiple ranges and done so with a par time. I had zero issues getting a perfect score with the Saint Victor. I also ran through drills like the Box Drill and Failure to Stop drill well below the required par times.
The lightweight design also helps with getting the gun from the low ready and into action quickly. You can drive the rifle easily between targets, and between different points of aim on the target. Placing round after round in the head and chest of my targets offered little challenge with the Saint Victor.
Reliability wise I ran Monarch, Wolf Gold, and Hornady training ammo without any issues in the Victor. We hit several hundred rounds between multiple runs of the USMC Table 5 shoot and shooting for accuracy. Magazines used were the included PMag as well as my favorite Lancers.
All in all, the Saint Victor is an excellent rifle, a well-made, well designed and well outfitted rifle. The price point makes it very attractive for those looking for a high-quality rifle. It represents an amazing value, and while they are certainly cheaper rifles the Saint Victor is still an excellent bargain when you combine the features and design.
Kimber’s Custom Defense Package is the ultimate in concealed carry design. It comes with the standard Kimber EVO SP features like a beveled magazine well, deep crown barrel and TRUGLO Tritium PRO, but has a streamlined carry melt treatment for improved draw and reduced chance of snagging on clothing.
Accuracy. Power. Speed. For as long as there has been shooting, whether it be for hunting, self defense, sport, or any other reason, these three aspects have embodied an idea of balance. This saying has literally become iconic, and not only is it an apt description of key shooting aspects that most are trying to equalize, but it is constantly applicable across all manner of shooting.
Dedicated and serious shooters are always looking for a better way to accomplish hitting a target, whether that is in the application of shooting (the accuracy and speed part) or an increase in power. Despite current trends, there are still many shooters who desire a cartridge that represents more power than just “good enough,” especially for a specific task or purpose. More power will always be more power, but this constant search can also lead to excesses in one direction or another. However, if we use this axiom of accuracy, power, and speed to measure a pistol itself, what results would we gather?
Enter the TRP 10mm RMR
This new offering from Springfield Armory takes the existing TRP 10mm 6″ and steps it up a bit. When compared to the original TRP 10mm, the addition of a Trijicon RMR®(Ruggedized Miniature Reflex) sight along with back-up tritium sights immediately stands out.
Similar to the existing TRP 10mm 6″, this new pistol uses a stainless steel match-grade bull-barrel with fully supported chamber, as well as a long recoil spring plug that allows for the use of standard government-length recoil springs. No special long-slide recoil springs needed.
However, what I think is the most notable change for this gun is the long, full-profile, heavy dust-cover on the frame, as it puts more weight low and forward on the pistol, but more on that later.
So, applying the “accuracy, power, speed” maxim, how does Springfield’s TRP 10mm RMR 6″ measure up?
Red Flag Laws and Universal Background Checks appear to be the D.C. flavors of gun control that are most palatable. With even “pro-gun” Republicans stating their support for such measures in varying degrees it is becoming more and more inevitable that there is going to be pressure for something to give…
Anti-Gun Democrats that populate the 2020 presidential field are calling for far more, unsurprisingly. Buybacks, magazine bans, assault weapon bans, waiting periods, monthly limits, and the whole gun control dream buffet are all being proposed. The candidates are basically tripping over each other to see who can say it fastest and loudest is the only variance.
But not everyone is completely losing their minds. There is evidence in corners of the internet that people not only take the problems of violence in this country seriously but also have some much needed perspective on it. At least a little.
Over at BigThink.com there is a rather well written article documenting two studies from Boston University that dug into CDC and FBI data. They found that banning certain “dangerous” guns was as bogus a tactic as we all believed it to be. They also found…
Neitherstudy showed that certain gun laws cause homicide rates to go down, but both revealed associations that point in the same direction: There are fewer gun-related deaths in places where it’s harder for high-risk individuals to buy guns. [Emphasis added]
As always, we have to be really careful about the whole correlation causation game. But it’s reasonable to assume that if we’re efficiently keeping firearms from those with violent histories they in turn aren’t using guns they don’t have to commit violence.
“Using completely different datasets, we’ve confirmed the same thing,” Boston University (BU) School of Public Health researcher Michael Siegel told BU’s The Brink. “The main lesson that comes out of this research is that we know which laws work. Despite the fact that opponents of gun regulation are saying, ‘We don’t know what’s going on, it’s mental health issues, it’s these crazy people,’ which doesn’t lend itself to a solution — the truth is that we have a pretty good grasp at what’s going on. People who shouldn’t have access to guns are getting access.”
But here’s the kicker. The dataset of “people who shouldn’t have access to guns.” is all an after the fact collected dataset. Someone does something illegal with a gun, commits a violent crime, and we all go “Oh, he shouldn’t have had a gun.” Duh. Hindsight being 20/20 and all. Timothy McVeigh shouldn’t have had homemade explosives or been allowed to rent a truck to haul them either.
The problem is that predicting future behavior is tricky on persons with no criminal history. That is a common trait among the mass killers, there may have been concerning signs in documented cases but convicted criminal history is rarer. This makes all efforts to reduce mass homicide a game of whittling percentages down to levels that end up being… nothing.
The numbers game and why the the politicos are lying to you.
As often as mass violence “appears” to happen it is still a statistical outlier. The reason is that a certain set of circumstances must all come together with means and motive. The means are prevalent and cannot be eliminated. The motive is extremely rare and can equally no be eliminated. Trying to eliminate all the outliers is a fool’s quest… but I’ll be damned if the Dems aren’t promising pretty much exactly that impossible scenario.
And it sounds good! Of course “preventing” mass attacks sounds good, let’s not let the impossibility of the task prevent that fantasy from being the headline. Of course they couch the promise in terms like “reduce” to insulate themselves when it fails.
The numbers say that mass casualty violence is not significant.
Its overall rarity does nothing to aid the victims directly in any manner, I know that. Neither does the overall rarity of drownings aid those who actually drown. But perspective must absolutely be maintained if we want to reduce violence and respond in the manners that will most often save lives.
We, through law, are looking to create a percentage reduction in the death toll. Most of the currently proposed gun control uses the psychological terror of the rare mass casualty incident to justify sweeping moves that are just thought up to see if it works and praying it makes an impact they can point too. They are not soundly structured methodical plans, its “do something” and “if it saves just one life.”
What Gun Control the study says made an impact
“What surprised us the most was that in states that enacted a combination of universal background-check laws, laws prohibiting the sale of guns to people with violent misdemeanors, and concealed carry permit laws, the homicide rates were 35 percent lower than in states with none of those three kinds of laws,” Siegel said. “The practice of keeping guns out of the hands of people who are at the greatest risk for violence — based on a history of violence — appears to be the most closely associated with decreased rates of firearm homicide.”
See, numbers game.
Every state in the nation has a concealed carry permit law so I don’t see how the metric 35% was compiled for states with “none of those three.” But Siegel’s last point is one of those “yeah, that’s already the rule. How’s that working out for us?” type statements. It brings us back to keeping people locked up who should be. Violent crimes that carry long harsh sentences will be done less frequently because of both the harsh sentence and those who would do them anyway stay in prison longer or forever. Science.
“Less frequently” The Narrative Game of Gun Control.
In 2017 there were 147 people killed in Mass Attacks in Public Spaces (US), what we think of as the typical mass shooting or mass casualty attack. In 2018 that number was 91. I cannot find the total firearm homicide number for 2018 but for 2017 it was 14,542. Total homicides were 19,510. Numbers are the CDC’s
A little quick math says that if we prevented every single mass casualty event, a noble and yet impossible goal, we would move the homicide rate by .75% We would decrease the firearm homicide rate, because those are the really bad homicides, by 1.01%. While the deaths themselves are not insignificant, especially to the families, that reduction in homicide is eaten by the year to year deviations. We wouldn’t even notice, not from the total number of dead. Just a change in the publicity of those deaths.
Let’s even say that 2017’s reactions and any law changes were all directly responsible for reducing the death toll in 2018. So it is down to 91 solely because laws were passed, it doesn’t work that way at all but let’s pretend. We dropped the mass casualty rate 38% through assumed direct legal action, an absurdly optimistic number… and reduced homicides by only .285%
Meanwhile – In 2017, the estimated number of murders in the nation was 17,284 (FBI). This was a 0.7 percent decrease from the 2016 estimate, a 20.7 percent increase from the 2013 figure, and a 5.0 percent rise from the number in 2008. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
For all the legal efforts, for all the constitutional violations, for every mistake that will be made to enforce all the provisions of ERPO’s, Red Flag Laws, and the like, the stated goal is to shift the homicide rate by so little that it is would be lost in any given year to year variance.
Readers, we call that statistically insignificant. The efforts will net no gain.
But that doesn’t matter to the narrative of “Curbing Mass Shootings” and “Stopping Gun Violence” and any other beloved headline of the ‘do something/thoughts and prayers don’t work’ crowds.
Our Efforts
Where would our efforts be most fruitful? Where will we actually make progress in steadily lowering the death toll?
Siegel’s study already had that answer. “The practice of keeping guns out of the hands of people who are at the greatest risk for violence — based on a history of violence — appears to be the most closely associated with decreased rates of firearm homicide.”
City of Industry, CA (Aug 13, 2019)- Holosun Technologies is pleased to introduce the latest in its lineup of micro red dot optics, the HS407C. The HS407C is an entry level pistol sized optic that features two of Holosun’s proprietary battery saving technologies, as well as a unique red 12MOA ring in place of the standard 2MOA red dot. This unique small optic built into a durable aluminum body is ideal for use on a shotgun or whatever the situation demands.
As an entry level micro optic, the HS407C is built for rugged reliability and dependability. The HS407C’s aluminum housing makes it durable, corrosion resistant, and lightweight while Solar FailSafe and Shake Awake technologies keep it running, no matter what. Additionally, the HS407C has an IPX7 waterproof rating which means that the optic can safely operate in wet climates.
Holosun proudly boasts a battery life of up to 100,000 hours, or ten years, on the HS508C. Holosun knows battery life is crucial and features Shake Awake technology that helps users preserve battery life by detecting motion, and a lack of motion, in the optic. When it senses the optic is no longer in use through movement it will automatically power down the L.E.D. to conserve battery life. Once the optic detects movement again, it immediately restores power to the L.E.D. so that the user never has to guess or wonder if their optic is active. If the unexpected should occur and the battery does fail, Solar FailSafe uses a small solar panel mounted on top of the HS407C to collect ambient light to provide illumination for red dot. The brightness of the L.E.D. varies depending on the amount of light in the environment so users will never have a dim red dot in daylight or one that’s too bright indoors.
The HS407C is unique to the Holosun lineup as it features a 12MOA ring only. This reticle style is favored among shotgun users as it can be used to help shooters predict their spread pattern more easily ensuring nothing misses the target. Additionally, this reticle allows users to see through it so it does not obstruct view like a large red dot might. This optic features ten daylight brightness settings and two night vision compatible settings as well.
Durability and affordability are where the HS407C excel. Even as an entry level optic, the HS407C still delivers strength, clarity, and a long battery life. The HS407C is available today at authorized Holosun retailers and through their website http://www.holosun.com. The HS507C is the sibling unit of the HS407C that adds Multiple Reticle System technology to the optic. With an MSRP of $270.58 the HS407C is an affordable micro red dot optic. For questions and retail inquiries please contact info@holosun.com for more.
I went away on a trip for a weekend and the country’s gone to hell again. Sheesh, can I not leave you people alone for two minutes???
Confisc…. I mean “buybacks” are in the news again. These political mental giants are the very illustration of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Rushing to “do something” – or to be at least SEEN to be “doing something” – is the order of the day every time a tragedy happens. It doesn’t apparently matter if the “something” is effective, Constitutional, or even enforceable. It’s the “doing” that matters – so that everyone can pat themselves on the back, feel better about themselves, and go back to business as usual.
Too bad for the poor schmucks whose Constitutional rights have been trampled in the process – whether via 2A violations, or 5A and 14A “Due Process” violations. I’m looking at YOU, red flag laws. But shame on me confusing the issue with logic when people are busy having “Feelings”.
Obviously none of these people has looked at the compliance data on the New York SAFE Act “assault weapon” registration scheme that was rushed through after Sandy Hook. Can we say “single digits”? You could almost say that the single “digit” was a middle finger from otherwise lawful gun owners to the New York State government. Biden, the sudden tough-guy talking “buybacks”, would do well to take a lesson from history.
I have not heard a single “new” idea coming from a single politician when it comes to reacting to the latest mass shootings. They might as well push a button and play a recording. Second verse same as the first. It’s almost as bad as every war in Europe for the past several centuries. When in doubt – invade France. Except for these guys it’s when in doubt – call for gun control.
Has anyone introduced a law banning news agencies from trumpeting the name and photo and manifestos of these scumbags? Nope – because 1A. Never mind that this does everything to ensure the next mass shooter seeks similar attention. God Forbid that news agencies “do something” like this voluntarily, despite the fact that there is evidence to back it up.
Nope. It’s GUNZ – inanimate objects with no sentience or agency of their own. Why? Because as is my constant refrain, it is much easier to demonize an object than it is to modify human behavior. Except what needs to be changed IS human behavior. Did we have these copycat shootings before the advent of the internet and 24 hour news cycle? Not many. Read the linked article about the news and human behavior above.
It’s funny that we always get these finger waggling nannies who say “Now, now, don’t be so dramatic, no one wants to take your guns”. Except what is every idiot calling for? “Buybacks”, banning, and confiscation. That sounds an awful lot like “taking my guns” to me there, Skippy.
Does anybody care that NHTSA stats say that 30 people die in drunk driving accidents on a DAILY basis? Nope. Does anybody care that scores of people are shot in criminal activity in Chicago every weekend? Nope. Because logic doesn’t enter into it. It’s the public freak-out of the moment, and politicians seek to capitalize on that emotion by rushing bad ideas through the legislative process in the middle of the night before anyone has time to calm down and consider anything rationally. How do you think the NY SAFE Act got passed in the first place? So effective that, with its 4% compliance rate.
I’m not saying that public mass shootings aren’t tragic. They certainly are, and the pond scum that perpetrate them deserve to have their names erased from the book of humanity. But for all of the public spectacle and grief, they are still RARE. None other than Neil deGrasse Tyson pointed this out in a chart on social media, and was apparently crucified for it. When the public is hopped up on borrowed emotion – feeling all righteous and outraged on someone else’s behalf – trying to insert logic into the mix can produce a violent blow-back. Never interfere with someone else’s righteous indignation, lest they turn it upon YOU instead.
There are some who are even trying to hang the latest shootings on Trump – because he weighs as much as a duck apparently, and floats like very small stones. (Monty Python reference for those who are scratching their heads).
THAT is the level of critical thinking involved here. But unlike Monty Python’s witch hunt, it isn’t funny. When emotions run the world instead of logic and reason, it is in fact very, VERY dangerous.
I’d like to pose a question to the experts on this topic: Is there a gun-control measure that could mitigate the risk of mass shootings in public venues, such as the one that occurred at the Gilroy Garlic Festival?
Whenever society is besieged by important problems, it turns to experts for insight. In this context, rank-and-file police and boots-on-the-ground infantry veterans are the experts—not chiefs, sheriffs or generals.
Mass shootings, particularly those occurring in public places, are currently the driving force for gun control. (School shootings are important but are a subset of all mass murders, even though they occur in nominally secured buildings.)
The Gilroy incident is an excellent case study. This public access venue was as well controlled as could be for such gatherings. The “gun-free zone” was secured by a chain-link fence and attendees were screened for weapons via controlled access. Nevertheless, the 19-year-old perpetrator bypassed the controls. Similarly, the Mandalay Bay shooter overshot the concert’s barriers from a high-ground position. What could conceivably be done to reduce mass shootings in such public venues? Most additional interventions for preventing either kind of attack would make the events undoable.
Further securing the perimeter is impractical. Whether there are 100 or 10,000 attendees, attackers can skirt or evade perimeter barriers like at Gilroy and Mandalay Bay.
Reducing the number of guns to prevent bad guys obtaining them would be impossible. There are 400 million guns in America. Suppose half are suitable for mass killing—that’s 200 million. Suppose the total was reduced by 95%? (Which is impossible, given the 95% plus non-compliance with recent orders to turn in outlawed firearms.) A crazy killer would still be able get access to one of them somewhere, all that he needs. If he couldn’t buy an outlawed or diverted commercial firearm, ones will be available that are fabricated in a cottage machine shop or smuggled from abroad.
Could we shut down cottage machine shops? Stop smuggling? Clearly, we’ve been ineffective in shutting down meth labs or stopping drug smuggling. We couldn’t do any better with guns.
Bear in mind that mass shooters, gang killings and suicides are vastly different in character. An argument can be made for saving a few lives in a population of 10,000 gang bangers by reducing their gun inventories from 9,000 to 8,000. However, no such case seems plausible for a population of 10 deeply disturbed mass killers who plan and prepare for their attacks for months. How do we find any of those 10? How do we disarm them or keep them from accessing the black market?
America has suffered relatively few mass public venue shootings, from unbalanced people with a variety of motives (and some with no explicable one). Who are the greatest threats? What if other kinds of threats change the whole battlefield?
America was asleep at the wheel with respect to the prospect of an attack by Japan before World War II. How about today? Could an unexpected attack come from some other Asian, Middle Eastern, African or Latin American country?
If Americans are concerned about the minuscule risk of being shot in a public venue by a domestic mass killer, then we should also be concerned by the potential for such an attack by foreign-influenced terrorists again. How could gun control possibly reduce this risk?
Positioning sufficient security personnel wherever they might be needed could help. But can American taxpayers afford a cop in every public venue? How many officers or armed guard would be needed to cover each place, not to mention metal detectors?
Gilroy and Mandalay Bay are cases in point. Both venues were adequately covered by police bearing handguns. Gilroy officers were close enough to run to the sound of gunfire and stop the attack within a minute. Their bravery and preparedness are to be applauded. Las Vegas officers were too far away from the shooter’s high ground position even to attempt to return fire with handguns.
It was purely a coincidence that police were in Mandalay Bay offices on other business and could reach the shooter’s position within minutes. Yet that shooter was still free to fire at will for 10 minutes until distracted by an unarmed hotel security guard approaching his door. Arguably, the Las Vegas Police failed to anticipate the potential for a high ground shooter. After all, the only comparable historical incident occurred half a century earlier in 1966, from the Clock Tower at the University of Texas-Austin.
The challenges described here are well beyond the ordinary attention of the American voter. Nevertheless, there is an audience qualified to advise: American law-enforcement officers and combat veterans. They understand mass shootings.
Cycle through the usual gun-control solutions: universal background checks, magazine capacity limits, semi-auto rifle restrictions, registration . . . Would any of these change the number of psychopaths determined to kill people at a public venue? Would any of these have the slightest effect on a foreign-influenced attacker?
Law enforcement experts and combat veterans could offer realistic, if ultimately limited, answers. Would enough police equipped with rifles in public venues stop or dissuade attackers? How much of the deterrent lies in knowing there are trained, official marksmen on duty, versus knowing that well armed citizens are on site?
I was prompted to think about this question at my village’s summer Gay Pride parade. A dozen cops clustered at the major choke point of the parade route to separate eight anti-Pride protesters from parade marchers and watchers. These cops could readily respond to ground fire with their handguns, but would be challenged if a shooter took a perch from a rooftop or a second-story window. I asked one why they didn’t have rifles. He responded hinting that their rifles were present but out-of-sight.
Did we learn anything from the UT-Austin Clock Tower shooting? In that now ancient case, students deployed rifles from their pickups parked on campus, and returned suppressing fire until a civilian and three police officers scaled the tower and killed the shooter. The outcome of that attack demonstrated how important armed citizens are at any venue.
.
.
—‘MarkPA’ is trained in economics, a life-long gun owner, NRA Instructor and Massad Ayoob graduate. He is inspired by our inalienable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and holds that having the means to defend oneself and one’s community is vital to securing them.
If you are unaware of the mountain of procedure the US Military has to go through for… well… anything, I wish to direct your attention to TC 3-20.40. The 826 page document is all about the new and improved individual weapons qualifications for the U.S. Army.
Yes, nearly 1,000 pages to summarize how to qualify on the various individual and crew served weapons soldiers will use. It gives everyone from commanders down to individual soldiers what they need to be doing in order to qualify, including expected time to complete per soldier(s).
There’s a mountain of information packed into this document but I want to highlight something that Appendix E brings out, and I am thanking heaven above and anyone else who apparently listened because the old Army rifle qualification procedure, combined with the rest of the bureaucratic insanity, was a shit show.
Ye Olde Army Qualification
The military likes to pretend that every soldier and Marine is a shooter. They aren’t, the military apparatus doesn’t spend nearly enough time on small arms handling for proficiency. Combined arms, infantry, SF, and units expected to actually get into shooting situations are usually better off, but the rest of the “every soldier is a soldier first” and “every Marine a rifleman” gets left behind.
Bureaucracy at its finest.
The old start to finish annual rifle qualification for those “left behind” units consisted of… 98 rounds. 98 rounds to train and retrain soldiers in order to effectively engage targets 50-300 meters distance. For anyone who shoots regularly, at those distances and these standards, passing this qualification was easy.
It also gave those soldiers no training value. None. And if you didn’t qualify, oh well.
Here was the breakdown.
Zero
18 rounds of the 98 was slated to zero your service rifle. Not train. Zero. 6 iterations to achieve a useable 25m/300m zero that was good enough, hopefully, and off to the qualification range the soldier went.
Qual.
Qual or Qualification is 40 rounds of whack-a-mole with green pop-up targets. Minimal direction is given and in my observation even the three shooting positions (prone supported, prone unsupported, and kneeling) were not really adhered to. It was just get the minimum number of hits to mark your check in the box as “qualified” and get off the range.
In “theory” there is supposed to be a practice (pre-qualification) 40 rounds and then a qualification 40 rounds. In working effort shooters who would qualify first time around would just shoot and then the leftover ammo would be used to give the failing shooters another crack at whack-a-mole in hopes that they passed.
It was a shit show.
No training value. No assistance for soldiers who could not hit targets even 10 times out of 40. No emphasis on the importance of marksmanship or that this is a life saving combat oriented skill set. THE lifesaving combat oriented skill set. Just a talk with someone who passed the qualification and try again…
New Army Qualification! More Rounds! More Trainable Content!
The new qualification course has changed several things, and oh do I like them. Combined with a proper bit of training in dry-fire prep this will turn the qualification into an exercise that has value to soldiers, especially those who are struggling now by being under trained. These soldiers previously had little-to-no recourse to develop their skill set.
They cannot take extra ammunition and go train independently. Reserve and guard soldiers were twice up the creek, no paddle in sight. They couldn’t even jump into another qualification happening at the minimum time frame.
New Target, A8
The first phase that is dramatically different from the older methods is on the 25 meter zero range. New targets.
A8 rifle zeroing target
Zeroing is NOT a threat engagement training exercise. It is for setting up a fully functional rifle.
The new target (A8) helps with this fact and provides an aiming point to zero the sight(s) properly to the 4 MOA goal, 6 MOA minimum that does not leave it subjective to the soldier to pick their “hold” on the silhouette. It wasn’t on the old targets either but soldiers treated it as such and it was poorly designed to focus the eye.
Here’s new the layout – The target’s center diamond box is the point of aim. It is 4 MOA (Minute of Angle) tall and 4 MOA wide. The perforated inner ring is a true 4 MOA, the perforated outer ring is 6 MOA. All shots after zeroing must be within the 6 MOA ring, preferably within the 4 MOA ring.
The boxes are each 1 MOA at 25 meters. This means all of the military optics that use MOA adjustments (the majority, and all for service rifles currently) can adjust off this target. It does not matter what rifle is used and a guide for common optic systems is on the target for adjustments.
Grouping and Zeroing
The old standard for zeroing was 3 round groups. The new standard is 5 round groups. The 5 round group is far more indicative of both the point of aim the soldier is using and how well the soldier is shooting through dispersion. The goal is 4 MOA or less. It can be easy, even with poor form to get a false reading for accuracy and point of aim off of a 3 round group.
9-Hole tells us why 3 rounds sucks.
Grouping
After the period of instruction on proper marksmanship fundamentals, which is largely unaltered, the first live fire exercise isn’t zeroing. The first live fire exercise is grouping.
Grouping is 3 strings of 5 rounds, for a total of 15 rounds, fired by the soldier with the primary sighting system or iron sights to establish that the weapon and the soldier can shoot to standards. 4 MOA grouping or under is the goal, with the 6 MOA minimum. The 5 shot string will be fired center point of aim, however the sights or optic will NOT be adjusted during this time. 4 of the 5 rounds must be under the dispersion standard.
Grouping was entirely absent from previous qualification iterations, at least in practice, and its failure to be included did a great disservice to the soldiers who were struggling. As a consequence soldiers consistency was never observed. It is impossible to track errors on the pop-up range because the target systems are hit/miss and will not indicate where a miss occured.
These first 15 rounds allow coaches to assist soldiers who are struggling with consistency, remember fundamentals, and not be as affected by information overload. IO normally shuts struggling soldiers down from learning what their service rifle is trying to tell them because each time they shoot so many things would happen and they are being pressed through the grinder just to get done with the day.
The first 15 rounds, those 3 strings of fire, are just focusing on fundamental shooting and grouping. This at a distance where coaches can make corrections and recommendations for remediation early and on targets that will visually show the information they need.
These 15 rounds will provide a much needed benefit to the soldiers who struggle most and were completely left behind on the old system.
Zeroing
Zeroing will follow the same 3 string 15 round procedure as grouping. This will bring the rounds fired total to 30 so far. Primary optics will be adjusted during this time period. If iron sights are to be used or have not been zeroed the same procedure can be used to zero the iron sights. If both iron sights and optics are used the total fired rounds so far will be 60.
Red dot optics (CCO) that can be co-witnessed can be zeroed first and then the iron sights (BUIS) zeroed after. With an ACOG (M150 RCO) the iron sights must be zeroed first and then the ACOG properly installed before zeroing, there is no co-witness with magnified optics.
This covers six “engagements” so far. 1,2, and 3 are the grouping strings of fire, 4, 5, and 6 are the zeroing of the optical system(s). Repeated if the soldier zeroes more than one optical system (IE: Backup Iron Sights/BUIS & CCO).
Engagement 7 is confirmation at distance. Soldiers will fire 5 rounds at a 300 meter target and achieve 4/5 hits to confirm their rifle is zeroed and they can fundamentally hit at the required distance.
Engagement 8 will be 5 hits on a 100 meter target and 5 hits on a 200 meter target. This is known as the application of hold offs.
Why the middle distance targets?
The trajectory of a 25/300m is very steep, so at ranges of 100 and 200 meters the bullet is well above the line of sight/point of aim through the optic.
Illustrated here, 25m/300m zero. Image credit I sadly cannot remember but I pulled it from the interwebz, not mine.
As seen on the target here the 100, 150, and 200 meter shots are much higher than the point of aim. It’s for this reason I do not like the 25/300 zero, but it is the US Army standard.
Engagement 8 is passed with 4/5 hits at 100 meters and 4/5 hits at 200 meters. Soldiers will aim low on the exposed targets to offset the high part of the trajectory arc. For both engagement 7 and 8 it will be singular targets that fall when hit and then reappear, the target will not randomize. At this point the soldier is still confirming zero and fundamentals.
At the completion of engagement 8 the soldiers will have fired 45 or 75 rounds (two optic systems) minimum compared to the 18 rounds of the old system. More trigger presses equal more practice. This new zeroing procedure will allow for a higher percentage of qualified soldiers by virtue of an over 100% increase on fundamental repetitions in a controlled and trackable environment.
Practice
The practice phase should be conducted, according to TC 3-20.40, but due to time limitations it may be skipped.
Personally I believe it should be allowed for, especially as the qualification has altered significantly from the old standard. The live round count is still 40, but position shooting, starting position, and target sequence are all altered.
What’s different?
Instead of 20, 10, and 10 for the firing sequence the new standard uses a 4×10 format with timed position changes and magazine changes. There is also a soft stoppage clearance with a dummy round in one of the magazines. The dummy (or empty case) must be somewhere in the middle of the magazine and not the first or last round, this forces the soldier to clear during target engagement and assesses proper technique under time.
Barrier use will also now be part of the qualification. They will be used in the supported kneeling and supported standing strings. Benefit to the soldiers include greater use of support and more realistic use of barrier cover and support to engage targets at distance.
Sequence of Fire, Practice
Soldiers will start standing.
Loading a 10 round magazine and waiting for the first target. Once the sequence is started, it is on, there will be no stopping until all 40 rounds are expended. One round per target. Targets should be engaged near to far if more than one target is exposed.
The first target will pop up at 50 meters. The soldier will engage the close threat standing and then drop to prone, unsupported. This simulates a close contact engagement and reaction.
First target will expose for 3 seconds, there will be a 5 second period for prone transition, and then the remaining 9 targets will expose in sequence. There will be 2 more single target exposures, one at 100m and one at 150m. The next will be a 3 target exposure at 50m, 150m and 200m. Soldiers should remember there are two 50m targets, one left and one right. The final will be a 4 target exposure at 150m, 200m, 250m, and 300m.
Soldiers move to a prone supported position using available aids, like sandbags. 8 seconds are allowed for this transition. Soldiers will reload their weapon during transition. Prone supported target exposure will start at 100m. Then 150m and 300m, 200m and 300m, 250m and 300m, and finally 150m, 250m, and 300m.
Soldiers move to kneeling supported using the barrier. 8 seconds are allowed for the this transition. Soldier will reload their weapon during transition. Kneeling supported targets will expose at 50m, 100m, and 200m to start. Then 50m and 200m, 150m and 250m, and 100m, 150m, and 200m.
Soldiers move to standing supported position, still using the barrier. 8 seconds are allowed for this transition. Soldiers will reload their weapon during the transition. Standing supported target exposure will be at 50m and 100m to begin. Then 200m and 250m, 50m, 100m, and 150m, and finally 100m, 200m, and 250m.
Sequence Training Value
The whole drill will take 3 minutes and 10 seconds (3:10). During that time the soldier will fire 18 engagements on 40 total targets (one round per target), perform 4 position transitions under time, perform 3 emergency reloads under time, and clear one induced soft malfunction placed somewhere in the 4 magazines at a random interval.
Passing the event is considered 28/40 targets hit. The practice is not an event required to be passed, it should be an individual goal to clear it with as many hits as possible. It is not an overly demanding course compared to other drills, but it is a long sequence and given heat, fatigue, and other draining factors it can still be a challenge.
Completing the practice and passing the standards indicates the soldier (or any shooter doing so) can proficiently engage targets within the effective range of their rifle, reload the rifle on empty, fire from different positions, and clear a soft stoppage.
They are “qualified” to a minimum standard. Soldiers and all rifle shooters who can should aspire to shoot this cleanly 40/40.
Qualification
I will go through some of the details. As with previous iterations of the qualification the nightfire and CBRN portions can be completed on a simulator. I will not be covering those portions in detail but they are altered (CBRN is done standing, unsupported) and accuracy standards are higher (70% to pass).
The minimum score to qualify is 23/40 with live fire.
Sequence of Fire, Qualification
In short it’s the same sequence as the practice, 4×10. Two factors are made easier, the total time limit is now 3:58 not 3:10. Target exposures will be longer and the time to transition positions is now 10 seconds, not 8. Finally, there will not be a deliberate stoppage induced for the qualification. It is a straight 40 rounds.
If you can clear the Practice, the Qualification should be no problem. The Practice is specifically designed above minimum standards.
Validation
Sometimes referred to as the 25 Meter Qual, the Validation is not a true rifle qualification. It can be used officially to extend an existing on record qualification by 6 months.
As an unofficial tool it is easier to facilitate this training than using the 300 meter range. It can also very easily be done by any individual on their own who wants to train to the Army standard but has more limited and non-automated facilities.
ALT-C Target used for the Validation course of fire.
Those shooting the Validation will also need a barrier.
Sequence of Fire, Validation
The Validation is an 82 round (80 live, 2 dummy) exercise completed in two phases. Whether you pause between may be left up to you, the individual, or the unit SOP, but if completed in unbroken sequence it will require 7 minutes and 24 seconds (7:24).
The soldier/shooter will have 8 magazines. The 2nd magazine (first reload) and 6th magazine should also each have a dummy round in their load of 10, in order to induce a stoppage.
Slow Fire
Soldier/Shooter will be given a 10 second phase to make ready and go prone, unsupported. They will engage each silhouette with 1 round in a 1 minute time limit.
10 second transition and reload to prone, supported. Engage each silhouette with 1 round in 1 minute. Stoppage will be in this magazine and must be cleared correctly.
10 second transition and reload to kneeling, supported. Using the barrier as support, engage each silhouette with 1 round in 1 minute.
10 second transition and reload to standing, supported. Using the barrier as support, engage each silhouette with 1 round in 1 minute.
Standards to pass is 75%, 3/4 hits on each silhouette.
Intermediate Fire
A 10 second transition takes place between the Slow Fire and the Intermediate Fire phases. If logistics do not allow for an 8 magazine loadout use this period to pause and reset for Intermediate Fire. I recommend using a 6 second load and make ready phase once the soldier/shooter is prepped. NOTE: That time suggestion is not part of the TC course of fire, just a logistic recommendation.
During this transition the soldier/shooter reloads and goes from the standing position, how they ended the Slow Fire phase, to the prone, unsupported. Soldier/Shooter will engage each silhouette with 1 round in a 30 second time limit.
6 second transition and reload to prone, supported. Engage each silhouette with 1 round in 30 seconds. There will be a stoppage to clear in this magazine, if the loadout was done correctly and in order.
6 second transition and reload to kneeling, supported. Using the barrier as support, engage each silhouette with 1 round in 30 seconds.
6 second transition and reload to standing, supported. Using the barrier as support, engage each silhouette with 1 round in 30 seconds.
Standard to pass is 75%, 3/4 on each silhouette.
What does the new standard mean?
If you’re among the sadly small percentage of the population that has taken an intermediate or advanced rifle course on your own time/dime or an agencies’ time/dime you can recognize the standards here are not overly difficult. However that percentage is the result of those courses difficult buy in, not just the cost but the independent time requirement. Not going to a course because you cannot go to one, or do not want to go to one are understandable sentiments. I believe these are the wrong sentiments though, especially for those who want to improve themselves as shooters.
The new standard does mark several doctrinal improvements over the old standards that will aid soldiers in making those standards and make the rifle qualification count for a little more than it did. The Validation and Qualification are actually pretty good standards drills on their own, if your range can support them logistically.
Many things that were lacking as standards to train toward are incorporated. Reloads, position transitions, stoppage clearance, and target transitions all receive an emphasis. Zeroing and grouping are also given independent time and emphasis in a segment that can be used to aid soldiers who struggle, the execution phase of the grouping and zeroing better allows for this.
Expediting those phases for soldiers who do not need the help is also still possible. To push soldiers into the practice or qualification portions as they have other duties to complete is the nature of military life, the different sections can be accounted for and utilized to best effect.
In short. Firing the new 155 round standard that includes grouping, BUIS zero, optic zero, practice, and qualification, effectively doubles the repetitions soldiers will get on fundamental tasks to operating their service rifles. This is good. The addition of emergency reloads and position transitions under time are skills that were never emphasized in the old standards, now they are. This is excellent.
I hate the phrase “train how you fight” for the crock of crap it is in practical everyday practice for the military. However, this new qualification is proof someone somewhere in training is paying attention and has finally gotten a practical modernized standard through.
A few of Dragonmans' machineguns that greet you in the store
This past July I took a road trip to Wyoming and Colorado to shoot a couple of pistol matches and to The Rockies. One of the stops was in Colorado Springs to see the USAF Academy and other places in the area. There are many things to explore in the area from the mountains to the small towns. Outside of town is Dragonman Gun Shop/Range and is a must see for shooters.
The man, the myth, the legend; Dragonman Mel Bernstein as he looked in Nam and today.
To many folks visiting Dragonmans/Colorado Springs Military Museum might not be a “touristy” thing to do. For shooters and those who love military history this is a must see. The Dragonman is Mel Berstein, a Vietnam Veteran. He has a passion for military history, firearms and things that make lots of noise.
A few of Dragonmans’ machineguns that greet you in the store
Before we continue, I am sure you wonder how Mel got his nickname. When he lived in NYC, he built a motorcycle that looks like a fire breathing dragon is wrapped around it. The neighbors used to say, there goes the Dragonman. Hence the Dragonman was born and is now a legend in the firearms industry.
Mel’s famous Dragon Cycle that earned him the title Dragonman
When
you pull into the property you will drive past a dirt bike race track, a
paintball arena and several ranges. You are created by various mannequins and
civilian vehicles as well. After your drive up the road that takes a few
minutes because Mel’s property is nearly 250 acres, you come to the shop. It
looks like a bunker, for good reason; to protect the contents.
This Dodge is over 100 years old and still runs. It sets inside to preserve it.
Inside
the door you will seen hundreds of rifles on the walls, hundreds of handguns in
display cases, in the back corner there are dozens of historic fully
operational machineguns and through the inner door if it is open is the machine
shop where firearms and vehicles from the museum are maintained. You did not
misread that, Dragonman has a museum, Colorado Springs Military Museum behind
the shop that houses a couple thousand mannequins in military uniforms from all
periods of service, thousands of historical military artifacts including
hundreds of items Nazi concentration camps, current and recent Veterans have
provided Mel with dozens of unique items from OIF/OEF, they are life size dioramas
and the center piece over two dozen fully functional armored vehicles and
dozens of non-armored vehicles (nearly 100 total). Everything in the museum is
operational and ONE HUNDRED PERCENT REAL, they are no reproduction items.
Normally
tours are given on Sundays or by appointment, but Mel was gracious enough to
take me an abbreviated tour so I could share it with the readers of
GATDaily.com. To say the collection is breath taking would be an understatement.
I say that having been to many museums around the world. It also sends shivers
up your spine when you see the area reserved for the concentration camps.
My
tour started with Omaha/Utah Beach and the invasion of Fortress Europe on D+1.
These dioramas depicted a command bunker, a medic area with supplies, signal
lights, weapons, flares, kitchens; everything that was used on the invasion
save for a landing craft or Sherman tank. You could spend a couple of hours
just looking at all of the small items here and in every area and still not see
it all.
After
that we ventured into the Pacific Theater area. You will see antique Samurai
Swords carried by Japanese officers, suicide kits complete with cyanide,
countless photos and relics from both sides. Take time to look at the original
photos from the surrender on the USS Missouri and other action in the Pacific.
After
that we breezed through the Korea, WWl, Vietnam areas taking time to look at
the vehicles used by the troops in The War to End All Wars (WWl). They are all
over 100 years old and still run. One of the mannequins is a horse with WWl as
it would have been use by cavalry; this war was the transition from horse cavalry
to motorized cavalry. Again the small artifacts are endless and must be seen.
This horse is outfitted as it would be for a mounted US soldierA sled used by mountain troops in WWll.
From
there we went into the area commemorating our time in SE Asia from Desert Storm
to OIF/OEF and ongoing operations in the GWOT. What is amazing about this area
are the artifacts including one of Saddam Hussein’s scrapbooks. The troops from
the 4th ID operated with special operation forces searching for
Hussein and they donated it to the Colorado Springs Military Museum. Many of
the uniforms of the Iraqi Republican Guard come complete with bullet holes and
stains. To say the artifacts in this room are breath taking is an
understatement.
One of Saddam Hussein’s scrapbooks donated by the troops from Ft. Carson.Troops from Ft. Carson have their uniforms from OIF/OEF in the hall of honor.
We
finished the whirlwind tour in the Nazi machinegun bunker. This area is the most
chilling because of items from The Holocaust including uniforms from the death
camps, manacles used to move the victim’s bodies and the cans of Zyklon B that
was used to gas Jews, Gypsies and any other group the Nazis sent to Auschwitz, Treblinka,
Dachau, Sobibor and others. You will find items the Jews used in the Warsaw
Ghetto to fight the Nazis and just to live. This area will give you chills. If
you take the tour, make sure you get photos of these items. We must ensure the
world remembers how evil man can be.
Artifacts from Nazi concentration camps. The cans are ZyklonB when opened the pellets turn to deadly gas.Prisoners wore these uniforms in the camps.Manicules used to move bodies in the camps.
We
finished the tour the most unique item here or anywhere in the world. This is an
engraved/inlayed serial numbered belt buckle (#1) of Hitler’s personal body
guards. What makes the buckle unique is that it is a three barrel 22short pistol.
This last ditch pistol gave the guard three up close and personal single shots
to protect Hitler. Like all other German firearms the workmanship is amazing
and precise.
To say this is a brief description of Dragonman’s and Colorado Military Springs Military Museum is an understatement. I could post all the photos I took and they would not show a tenth of the sights. If you want to see the museum it is open on Sundays at 10AM March through November for tours or if you have nineteen friends you can schedule a tour. Dragonman has events throughout the year at his compound including his annual machinegun shoot, this year it is September 14th and 15th. You can get information about the shop and museum at https://www.dragonmans.com/ For videos search facebook for Dragonman or Colorado Springs Military Museum, you will be amazed. In closing I assure the museum is worth the trip, I plan to make another road trip so I can get the full tour.
Last evening at a social event, my wife was engaged in a conversation with the wife of an associate. I half listened until I realized that the conversation had morphed into gun control.
It became more interesting when I learned that the other lady had been a United States Marine, and had been part of the security detail for one of our better known and highly esteemed presidents. She has a Washington CPL and although we were in Oregon, I didn’t question whether or not she had one from that state as well.
It was most interesting, given her background, that she was purse carrying, and that she walked away from her purse and keys for an extended period of time. Noting the above, she was expressing her position in favor of stricter gun laws, as she personally believes that most people, herself of course excluded, would not be competent or fit to carry a firearm.
At that point I inserted myself into the conversation. I took quiet but definitive exception to her position and I asked her ‘the question’. That question, of course, is: “What law of any kind has prevented a crime? “
She was clearly taken aback and could not answer the question, but proceeded to offer a flurry of comments in favor of red flag laws, which I deflected by repeating the question. She drifted into the subject of law enforcement and the need for laws and enforcement, and I took the opportunity to remind her that enforcement of law is punishment but not prevention. There is no prevention in apprehending and punishing a criminal. The crime has been committed because the criminal does not obey the law. She flustered a bit and then chose to break off conversation.
I am personally quite satisfied with the outcome. I have come to the conclusion that people with her mentality will not be changed by any pleasing argument, or by any partial acquiescence to their premises.
We honest citizens must come to the sure and certain understanding that there will be no satisfaction on the part of those who consider themselves “elite“ until they are the only ones in possession of the tools of self-defense. They have no concept of Constitutional existence. Their false pretensions of rationality are clearly negated by their lack of common sense and performance.
It is my considered opinion that they truly have no understanding of that which they are proposing. They believe that the police will do their dirty work and go house to house confiscating firearms.
Except where police are corrupt, that will not happen. Every police officer whom I know personally has firearms at home for family members. None of them are willing to have those firearms confiscated, leaving their families at the mercy of the criminals who would not hesitate to do that which criminals do.
My comment, terminating the conversation above, was: “… it will be interesting when those who do not have guns assume that they will be able to take guns away from the people that have them”.
.
.
—Robert A. Margulies, MD, MPH, FACEP, FACPM is an emergency medicine specialist, retired Navy Medical Corps captain, sworn peace officer, and firearm trainer with multiple certifications from the NRA and the Massad Ayoob Group.
While the BBC has an overall reputation of lower bias than many news outlets worldwide and I personally tend to agree… they have, as the intellectual community would say, “done goofed” this time.
How Fast Can Weapons Fire?
The chart makes such inquiries. It then goes onto give you some information in that regard. Ladies and gentlemen… it’s not good… not good at all. I can forgive a certain degree of generalization and I hope I am given the same courtesy but… BBC come on!? Google is there for you. Ask Siri or Alexa. Something…
“Approximate fire rates of selected weapons”
First Goof
The Revolver, Ruger LCR: 20 rounds per minute. Okay, that’s actually probably close from a practical standpoint with reloads. However this is a Ruger LCR.
What’s outlined is not…
It might be a Smith & Wesson Model 36.
Such an error would be forgivable. It is after all just ‘Revolver’ as a category, however they went out of their way to highlight the LCR and failed to provide an accurate graphic when that is literally internet childs play.
I’m doing it right now, look at me go!
Second Goof
Second verse same as the first but a little bit louder and a little bit worse…
The Semi-Automatic Pistol, Colt Model 70: 70 rounds per minute. Again, I think this is a fairly practical rate of fire estimate. Given magazine size vs. an LCR cylinder being 40% greater and reloads being both faster and easier on a slide locking semi-automatic, 70 is fair.
But then they single out the Colt Model 70.
Which is a little misleading. More accurately it’s a Series 70 Colt Model 1911A1. The BBC could have just generalized and said a ‘typical’ semi-automatic pistol. They additionally could have used a more accurate but still broad ‘1911’.
They also could have shown an actual 1911 instead of a Sig P226…
Oopsie, BBC. That’s two really junior varsity grade errors right in a row with the added snafu of not actually nailing down a firearm model in a situation where you chose too but didn’t truly need too. The BBC put in extra effort to take a data point and make it a failure.
The AK
Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle, AK47: 120 rounds per minute
Hey! You got one right. I’ll give you this one wholesale. That is a practical fire rate for a semi-automatic rifle and I’ll even give you guys a pass on the ‘assault’ term. I just don’t care about that one anymore. Call it an assault rifle, I’m still keeping mine. A rose by any other name and all that.
Good job, BBC. That’s 1 for 3. The graphic matches too! Look at you go, we’re riding without training wheels now ladies and gentlemen.
Goof Three: The Grand Goof
“Modified” Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle, AR-15: 1,200 rounds per minute…
Wait… Wait what… You… you were just doing so well, BBC! You had it! Who did this to you!?
That’s a Kriss Vector or MG42 rate of fire. The cyclic rate on an AR-15 is ~800 rounds per minute and it can vary a little… but not 50%! I don’t know of any combination of parts right now that would lend an AR a 1200 RPM cyclic rate, even as a machine gun with all the safeguards in place.
I cannot imagine the catastrophic combination of parts that would grant a rifle, not built with the automatic sealed safeguards in place, to fire at 1,200 rpm without flying apart. As a man with mechanical understanding of what is going on inside the rifle this is a terrible.. terrible.. terrible plan.
And then they say it’s still semi-automatic… just “modified”
AR-15’s, semi-auto have a listed sustained fire rate of 45-60 RPM by the way and an extremely “rapid” rate of 180 RPM. These aren’t just made up numbers. They are to keep the rifle from becoming a useless heap of metal due to extreme parts fatigue.
Goof Four: The Final Goof
Fully Automatic Assault Rifle: M16, 950 RPM
Close. Closer than the last one, BBC… but c’mon guys you’re literally listing the mechanically fully automatic variant of the AR-15, as in as fast the parts can operate together and fire, as having a slower fire rate than a semi-automatic.
The M16 hasn’t been produced in a fully automatic version since the A1. The A2 and A4 variants are 3-round burst. It will fire 3 rounds and then pause like a semi-automatic. Yes, the concept A3 variant had an automatic trigger group and the M4A1 and M27 are also automatic. None of them operate at 950 RPM because of the wear and tear on the guns.
Rate of Fire is not indicative of “Lethality”
It’s a stupid measurement of lethality and is only used as a scare tactic, so can we stop that already?
My truck has 5.7L V8 and can go well over 100 mph but could be lethal, probably more likely lethal even, at 25 mph. Because if I wasn’t paying attention and I hit someone the thousands of pounds of vehicle are going to do what physics do and the “capability” of doing more at a higher rate doesn’t matter in the equation one iota.
Every single one of the 5 poorly listed and cited firearms in this list is a lethal threat were it to be used against you in a mass shooting, or any shooting. Every. Single. One.
What we have come to accept as “civil” societal discourse has gotten wildly out of control. A combination of factors have contributed to this decline and it is the fault of many, not a single group. A group would escalate and then the group attacked would escalate to match. Dialogue is about winning a fight, not a conversation to spread understanding…
We have bred a culture of accepted levels of violence so long as you are “in the right.” Is it any wonder that persons mentally unstable enough to succumb to extremism take this societal que as an additional justification for their actions?
Don’t agree with an individual? Well that person is a _______, so it is actually okay to attack their character. You’re a hero for doing so even. You’re doing righteous work in the name of your ______ cause. Look at the disparity in portrayals of the KKK in left leaning media vs. Antifa, and then look at the same disparity on the right. Information is second to the message today. “Right think” has become the more important than and the enemy of free critical thinking.
Many claim to support free think, but only as a veil to push “right think” instead. It’s the correct way to think so of course free thinkers should agree, correct?
That, of course, is one of many fallacies we’ve allowed to permeate our societal conscious. Make no mistake, these fallacies are contributing to the evolution of societal violence we currently see. We quietly accept that certain unprovoked violent acts against certain labels are “ok” because said individual is a _______.
This attitude must end.
It is not the government’s job, and if we give it to them they can only fuck it up
Just as an assault weapons ban, a magazine ban, or a ban on mass murder has not curbed those events out of our culture, a ban on “wrong think” or tools that can be used against “wrong think” are a drastic threat to the civil rights of the citizenry of this nation.
The problem we are facing today is hard. It’s damn hard. The caustic conversation phenomena is rooted deeply. Combined with the magnifying power of data transfer speeds those at risk for radicalization and respond to radical stimuli have access to all of that stimuli faster than ever before. And our unwritten rule today is that in certain circumstances as long as its for “right think” purposes some violence is ok… that’s the unwritten and quietly spoken sideways of acquiescence.
“But let’s remember these people, the ones that were attacked were _______, so on a certain level it’s understandable.” It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about antifa in that box, or white supremacists with stupid tiki torches, or immigrants, or Muslims, or Jews, or name a freaking sub-group.
If you believe violence is necessitated against a group who has not directly aggressed you then I can guarantee you someone else believes the group you inhabit also is deserving of violence, and with equally as poor a justification.
Motivations
The motives and machinations of these three recent public attacks are wildly different. One was a racist xenophobe who left a rambling manifesto blaming Hispanics for the woes of the world. One was a registered voting democrat, supporter of Antifa and Elizabeth Warren, who was a vocalist of a “pornogrind” band that glorified rape and slaughter. The motive for the third is still a mystery.
So with wildly different motivations and every action they took already illegal… assault with a deadly weapon, first degree murder, reckless endangerment, terrorism… what do we do?
Be the change
We must engage ourselves personally. We must become a truly civil society so that even the extreme fringes of our spectrum of thought still feel violence is largely unwarranted. This is a cultural shift, not a legal one. It cannot be legislated, it must be a conscious individual choice.
Carry a gun…
Nothing will remove violence completely from the human condition. There will always be one, even in civil society, who will rise to the extremist stimuli and attack their neighbors. The motivation in that moment will not matter, nor will it the next time, nor the time after that. The motivation is irrelevant in the moment.
What will matter is what the people around that aggressor do in that moment. What they do to stop the violence, to protect themselves and shield the injured. Leave behind all the pseudo-moralistic arguments, of “Live by the sword, die by the sword,” and the paralleling thoughts. These are cited by those unwilling to accept the moral responsibility of their safety, they have given their lives into the hands of those who would wield the sword. They justify it by the supposed authority and oaths such people are sworn to, but they do not comprehend the limitations of oaths and people whose duties are to so many.
Carry a quality gun that you know how to use, when you cannot carry gun carry something you can. Understand how to stop the bleeding from a wound and to treat shock and other injuries. Know to the very core of your being that you and you alone are the ultimate arbiter of your safety and no rule made by man can supercede that fact.
The ‘K’ designator comes from our Teutonic friends and in regards to guns it means compact. Most famously it applies to SMGs and today we are looking at two guns that are K models. They don’t have an official K designation, but they certainly fit the mold. Today are doing a Micro Scorpion Vs Copperhead debate. Both of these guns recently hit the market and both fill a niche role as small SMG style pistols. They aren’t quite rifles or SMGs, and they are a bit larger than your traditional handgun. Both are smaller versions of standard-sized models and they have a lot in common.
We are going to pick apart the differences between both guns and do an unbiased and fair Micro Scorpion Vs Copperhead rundown. The goal is to use data versus my own vague impressions as much as possible. My plan isn’t to declare a winner in our Micro Scorpion vs Copperhead contest but to provide facts about both guns.
Out of the Box
Here we are going to look at what the guns come with and how they come out of the box. The CZ Micro Scorpion comes with two 20 round magazines, a bore snake, the included brace, and a set of robust iron sights. The SIG Copperhead comes with a single 20 round magazine and SIG’s new brace. There are no included iron sights or extras.
Off the bat, the CZ does come with two magazines and iron sights, which make it ready to go out of the box. The Copperhead in this article is equipped with a Burris Fastfire 3 so it can compete on the range.
In this portion of our Micro Scorpion Vs Copperhead debate the Scorpion does provide a better value overall. It’s priced considerably less than the Copperhead as well. Online the Copperhead is going for over $1,500 dollars and the Micro Scorpion is going for around $1,100.
Micro Scorpion vs Copperhead Size Wise
The goal of both of these weapons is to be small, lightweight, and compact. So the general consensus would be smaller and lighter would be better. If you wanted bigger and heavier there are alternative options for both guns.
The CZ Micro Scorpion has the following specifications. Barrel Length – 4.2 inches Overall Length Brace Collapsed – 16.35 inches Overall Length Brace Extended – 23.35 inches Weight – 5.5 pounds Height – 9.4 inches
The SIG Copperhead has the following specifications. Barrel Length – 3.5 inches Overall Length Brace Collapsed – 14.5 inches Overall Length Brace Extended – 19 inches Weight – 4.5 pounds Height – 8 inches
The Sig Copperhead is the smaller, lighter weapon. It’s less bulky and more streamlined in design. It features a completely redesigned upper when compared to the original MPX. The Micro Scorpion is smaller than the original but is still a larger and heavier weapon overall.
If you were using this Micro Scorpion Vs Copperhead contest to find a more concealable gun the Copperhead wins out.
Ergonomics
Both guns feature a healthy dose of ambidextrous controls. The Copperhead is a truly ambidextrous weapon. The controls are fully ambidextrous and lefties will love it all together. The Copperhead is an excellent weapon ergonomically.
If you’ve trained with an AR 15 you’ll have no issues transitioning over to the Copperhead. Everything is basically identical.
Ambi Controls All Day
The Scorpion features an ambidextrous safety as well as an ambidextrous magazine release. The charging handle can be swapped for left-handed use but isn’t truly ambidextrous. The bolt lock and release is not ambidextrous either.
The safety is a major pain, and I mean that literally. It digs into the trigger finger as the gun recoils and gets old fast. In fact, one of the first upgrades we saw on the aftermarket was a safety delete. As a safety, it’s a shorter throw than the Copperhead, and it’s very tactile and audible. It’s also a little painful.
Both guns are ergonomic powerhouses, and ergonomics are often a very personal decision. The Copperhead certainly scores points for its ambidextrous controls and AR familiarity. This is not one I can objectively decide in our Micro Scorpion Vs Copperhead debate.
Reloading
Starting with the weapon dry, and the bolt locked back to the rear I conducted 5 reloads, alternating between each gun as not to get more practice on one than the other. The drill ended when I fired a single shot. I used a Pocket Pal 2 to time these drills and all the drills in this article.
While both guns feature intuitive controls I found myself much faster with the CZ Micro Scorpion. On average I could reload the Scorpion in about 2.3 seconds. The Copperhead took on average of 2.7 seconds.
There are a few reasons. The first is my overall size makes it more difficult for me to handle the much smaller gun. I feel a bit gorilla-like when I’m hunched over the gun. Second, the charging handle and short brace length of the Copperhead means I have to move my head away from the sights to reach and activate the AR-style charging handle.
With the Scorpion, I can keep my sights on target and my body behind the gun as I reach for the forward placed charging handle. The first shot on target was quicker with the Scorpion. Getting the magazine in the gun was not much difference between the two weapons.
Fixing a Malfunction
I set up a complicated malfunction with a brass case stuck in the chamber. To complete the drill I’d remove the magazine, clear the chamber, reload and fire a round to end the drill. Here, the Scorpion again won once more.
The time difference was 4.5 seconds for the Scorpion and the Copperhead took me right around 6 seconds. The Scorpion’s forward charging handle was another major benefit in getting the gun back in action. The Scorpion also has a much bigger ejection port so it’s easier to fish that piece of brass out of the chamber.
Shootability
Let’s cover how the guns shoot and handle. First and foremost, they are both reliable weapons and I’ve never experienced a malfunction with either. Both weapons are similar in design and both are made for close quarter’s combat. Neither is made for long-range shooting, but both are accurate well beyond normal handgun ranges.
You can easily engage man-sized targets out to 25 yards and beyond. I’ve used both guns out to 75 yards and landed chest and torso shots on target. Standard accuracy tests are not necessary for these guns as far as I’m concerned. Instead, I wanted to do something more practical.
I went to the 25-yard line and fired 5 rounds in 5 seconds and I repeated the test four times alternating firearms. From there I measured the groups. The Micro Scorpion produced slightly smaller groups. At 25 yards the Scorpion produced roughly a 2-inch group for 4 of the tests. The Copperhead produced a 2.5-inch group on average.
Scorpion 5 Shot Group
I moved to the fifteen-yard line and repeated the test with 3 shots in 3 seconds. The groups shrunk for the Scorpion to 1.75 and the Copperhead was still roughly 2.5 inches.
Copperhead group
Recoil
Recoil between the weapons is about even. Keep in mind the Scorpion is much bigger and features a wider brace and heavier weight. The Copperhead’s lower weight and smaller brace do not mean an increase in recoil.
The Copperhead’s gas piston system results in less recoil than the CZ Scorpion’s blowback system. The blowback system results in a big bolt flying backward. Even so, it’s not painful or hard to control in absolutely any way. The sights hardly come off target.
Muzzle rise is very mild. Extremely mild, even when rapid firing. Both guns are easy to control. The Micro Scorpion offers a longer handguard, but I tend to grip both weapons by the magazine well.
While technically it’s a tie the Copperhead is an underdog and I’d say the Copperhead has less recoil when you consider how small and light it is. Both weapons in our Micro Scorpion Vs Copperhead article are very easy to control.
Trigger
Without a doubt, the Copperhead has a shorter, and lighter trigger pull with a shorter reset. The CZ Micro Scorpion isn’t a bad trigger, but its somewhat long and spongy. We can keep this nice and short and anyone who does their own Micro Scorpion Vs Copperhead comparison will find it out for themselves.
Who Wins?
As I said earlier I’m not trying to declare a winner necessarily in this Micro Scorpion Vs Copperhead debate. There is no clear winner, and both guns have their strengths and weaknesses. Overall, I’m better with the Scorpion shooting wise. The smaller and lighter Copperhead does have some very clear merit when you are looking for a K Model SMG wannabe.
