I’ve dived deep into the world of mini shells. I’ve tested and tried buckshot, birdshot, slugs, and more. I’ve experimented with every minishell I could get my grubby little paws on. I’ve patterned them, tested slugs at range, and even tried a few different adapters designed to make the shells reliable. In all this experimenting, I’ve come up with what I think would be the perfect mini-shell.
When I say perfect, I mean one I would actually consider for self-defense. A load I’d toss in my gun and trust to get me through a defensive encounter. Of course, this is a mere musing, and maybe this particular load wouldn’t work, but I think it would do quite well.
The Current Problem With Mini Shells
The current crop of mini shells has a few problems. The first big problem is reliability. With a normal pump shotgun, you need an adapter for these things to function. I’ve heard they work fine in KelTec shotguns and even Winchester shotguns, but that’s not my experience.
The adapters produced so far have been limited to Mossberg series shotguns due to their skeletonized shell lifter. Essentially, mini shells only reliably cycle in one type of shotgun with an adapter.
Second, they don’t work in semi-autos. I’ve tried 1.75, 1.95, 2-inch, and 2.5-inch. Only the 2.5-inch shells from Nobel Sport will cycle in a semi-auto. The rest turn the gun into a straight pull jamomatic.
Finally, we get to my main problem with these shells, which is a severe lack of payload. I like shotguns because they are a repeating claymore. I get to fire half a magazine of a Glock 17 per trigger pull. Most mini shells have a much smaller payload, with many relying on Number 4 buck, which isn’t always the best round for adequate penetration.
The Perfect Mini Shell
Technically, I might as well make this an open letter to Winchester or Olin. The Winchester brand of shotgun shells has done some odd loads in the past. They have the PDX .410 loads with the defensive disks, the buck and ball slug loads, and at one point, they released a home defense birdshot—much to my chagrin. These three oddball loads aren’t perfect, but they show a willingness to be creative.
A 2.5-inch load would make the perfect mini shell. As mentioned previously, a 2.5-inch shell would cycle flawlessly in a semi-auto shotgun and a pump-action shotgun. This slightly shorter shell would also expand your capacity by one round in a tube-fed shotgun. The 2.5-inch shell size also allows for a decent payload. The Nobel Sport load has six pellets of 00 buckshot. That’s good, but I would go with a Number 1 Load.
You could likely fit eight pellets in the 2.5-inch shell or maybe even ten. Number 1 buckshot is the smallest projectile that adequately penetrates a threat. A smaller projectile allows for more room and a sufficient payload.
In terms of velocity, we’d have to experiment with what gives the best pattern and ensures the cycle of semi-auto shotguns. I think something between 1150 and 1300 feet per second would be perfect. Since this is my dream load, it would also be equipped with the FliteControl wad, but I think that’s asking for too much.
Pure Potential
Most mini shells these days are novelties. They really aren’t a great self-defense option, but can be fun to shoot. The Nobel Sport 2.5-inch loads seemed to have disappeared completely, rendering my single box the last I’ll likely see. I do think a shorter shell could have potential, but it’s unlikely we’ll see it anytime soon.
The Winchester Model 70 has a special place in my heart. Specifically my Dad’s Winchester Model 70. It was the gun I used to take my first deer, and I stalked that deer all season, skipping smaller but legal bucks in hopes of taking this big 8-point. Like a movie, I got him on the last night of the general gun season, right as the sunset.
As I got into the gun world, I never got into bolt action rifles very much, yet even I knew that Post 64 Winchesters were abominations. I heard all about how Winchester ruined the rifles and how they were worth nothing. Eventually, out of curiosity, I date-checked my Dad’s. He was born in 63, so it could have fallen both ways. His Model 70 was a post-64 model, and to me, it didn’t seem like that bad of a rifle.
Were the Winchester Post 64 rifles really pieces of crap?
History of the Model 70
Winchester created the Model 70 in 1936! The gun was based on the Model 54, which was based on the Mauser 98-type action. The rifles were built in New Haven, Connecticut, and became extremely popular quite quickly. They became known for their accuracy, smooth, controlled feed design, and rugged action. In many ways, they laid the blueprint for the next generation of sporting bolt-action rifles.
(PRE64 Winchester)
The Model 70 served in at least three wars as a sniper rifle. This includes World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam. It was the firearm of choice for Carlos Hathcock, who hunted VC throughout the Vietnam War and racked up 93 confirmed kills.
To this day, the old Winchester wouldn’t be out of date in the deer blind. That’s staying power. It’s rare that a weapon can last almost a hundred years and still be a very viable choice for hunting. It is not just viable but competitive with the current crop of bolt-action rifles. In 1999, the rifle was declared by Shooting Times, the Bolt Action rifle of the Century. It also went by the name the Riflemen’s Rifle.
1964 Comes Kicking
1964 was a big year. LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, the Surgeon General declared smoking hazardous to your health, and Winchester redesigned Model 70. Progress can often be the great killer of great guns. Winchester, in particular, has been struck twice by this so-called progress. The Model 70 and the Model 12 shotguns were both victims of progress.
Rock Island Auction
Winchester was feeling the pressure from more modern, easier-to-produce designs. Remington, in particular, had the 700, which was designed to be mass-produced. Winchester needed to simplify the design and make their famed rifle quicker and easier to produce. This led to the post-64 changes that are often so derided.
Change Is Coming
The Pre 64 models utilized a controlled round feed design, which comes from the gun’s Mauser heritage. This design has a Muaser-type non-rotating claw extractor. This extractor captures the rim of the cartridge as it is fed from the magazine into the chamber. This results in a weapon with super-positive extraction
The Post 64 examples of the Model 70 swapped to a push feed design. A push-feed system uses a spring-loaded extractor that grips the rim only when the bolt is fully closed. The problem often cited is less positive extraction. In the event of a stuck casing the extractor is more likely to break or slip off and leave the case in the chamber.
Lot Search
The benefits are easier production of the extractor system and, ultimately, easier production of the bolt design. This cuts costs altogether and makes the rifle easier to produce. This allowed the company to keep up with the costs of Remington’s 700s.
Other changes to the Model 70 included a one-piece stamped trigger guard and floor plate, a slight redesign of the stock, and the use of impressed checkering rather than cut checkering. These changes were not popular with Model 70 enthusiasts. Jack O’Connor, the man who often championed the Model 70 in .270, said:
“I was informed by Winchester brass that the Model 70 was being redesigned. I told them that I was glad to get the information so I could lay in four or five more before they loused the rifle up.”
Was It Really That bad
Lots of people like to point out the flaws of the Model 70 and the Jack O’Connor quote but leave out what he later said about post-64 rifles.
“Actually the post-1964 Model 70 is not a bad rifle in spite of the fact that rifle aficionados have never taken it to their bosoms the way they did its predecessor. It is a stronger action than the pre-1964. The head of the bolt encloses the head of the case. It has a small, neat hook extractor, which is adequate. With this extractor the cartridge is not as surely controlled as it is with the Mauser-type extractor. However, the new model seldom gives feeding problems.”
The changes not only simplified the rifle but admittedly made the action stronger all around. That allows for some very powerful cartridges to occupy the chamber without concern for durability. The Model 70 my father has is a fine rifle. It’s lightweight and accurate, and the action feeds smoothly and easily. Perhaps with improvements in ammunition and casings, ammo is more reliable and less likely to rupture, rendering some of the benefits of the pre-64 system mute.
I don’t think the pre-64 Model 70s are all that bad. I think there was some hype and resistance, but the rifles still seem quite solid and reliable. They can certainly still chase whitetail.
In a post-World War II world, there was a flurry of attempts to better modernize the American fighting man. Lessons were learned, and some radical concepts were given at least a chance to flourish. While many weren’t adopted, the typically conservative U.S. Army was willing and funded enough to allow some Ordnance officers to experiment and create some fairly interesting weapons. That brings us to Benicia Arsenal, a U.S. Army Ordnance facility in beautiful Suisun Bay. Here, warrant officer Loren Cook designed a weapon known as the Cook Automatic Rifle.
From the BAR to the CAR
The Browning Automatic Rifle was the standard squad support weapon designed to have rifle-like power and range and effectively suppress targets. It became an integral part of the rifle squad as maneuver warfare took over. Soldiers in the base-of-fire teams laid down suppressive fire with the BAR to allow their assault elements to move. These weapons were highly effective, but they had their faults.
The BAR was a great big gun. The M1918 was 47 inches long. It’s nearly the size of a 1st grader. Imagine trying to use that anywhere but the relatively open fields of Europe! Imagine trying to fight in the urban environments that the G.I.s found themselves in across Europe or the jungles of the Pacific! It would be a handful of a gun. I cleared rooms with an M16A4 and hated it. Imagine a bigger, heavier, full auto only .30-06!
The BAR was a big gun, but in the 1940s, it was still an important one. Warrant Officer Cook saw the potential of the BAR as a bullpup. He created the Cook Automatic Rifle to trim the bulk of the BAR and make it more accessible for the fighting man. The Cook Automatic rifle made a number of changes to the BAR, namely, making it a bullpup rifle.
The Cook Automatic Rifle In Color
Obviously, the bullpup configuration required a very short stock at the rear of the gun and a fairly long trigger linkage to get the gun to go bang. The wooden handguard was eliminated and its place was a wood vertical foregrip. Another vertical grip was used for the dominant hand to fire the weapon. It appears that the charging handle was also moved to the right side of the gun and positioned right above the trigger.
The right-side charging handle makes sense. In the 1940s, the Army assumed everyone was right-handed. A left-side charging handle would have the shooter’s support hand coming back and hitting them in the face to operate the rifle.
The sights were moved as needed and appeared to be folding sights, although it’s somewhat difficult to say for sure. There are no existing Cook Automatic Rifles to examine and inspect. WO Cook used an 18-inch barrel rather than a 24-inch barrel. The Colt Monitor also utilized an 18-inch barrel. The total overall length of the Cook Automatic Rifle was 30 inches. Almost a foot and a half was trimmed from the BAR, and ultimately, a 30-inch rifle is shorter than an M4 with the stock extended.
One of the biggest differences is the gun’s operation. Instead of being an open bolt gun, it was converted to a closed bolt. The closed bolt design provides a more reliable and accurate option. It doesn’t cool as fast and is more complicated, but ultimately, it is a good alternative option. In tasks like ambushes, the superior reliability of the closed bolt system allows the CAR to fire the first shot reliably.
What Happened to the Cook Automatic Rifle
Cook wanted the U.S. Government to give his gun a proper trial, but the Army wasn’t interested. This actually upset Cook enough that he contacted Congress, but they deferred to the Army. There is a rumor I can’t confirm that Cook ended up leaving the Army after his design was denied.
Would the CAR have made much of a difference? Even if trialed and adopted, it’s unlikely that it would have made a big difference in Korea. By Vietnam, the BAR was serving in very small numbers, and the goal was to replace the BAR (and other weapons) with the M14. It’s unlikely the weapon would have served for very long.
If you’ve been paying attention to the Israeli-Hamas conflict, you’ve likely seen what the internet has deemed the Israeli Chef’s hat. The Chef’s hat adorns the helmets of Israeli soldiers, particularly troops that seem to be a bit far from the fighting and typically on various guard duties outside of Gaza. The Chef’s hat actually has a name, and it’s the Mitznefet. It’s nothing new. Israeli forces have worn Mitznefets for years, although a company called Agilite is now producing a modern multicam version of the old-school headwear.
The History of the Mitznefet
The name Mitznefet comes from the word that describes a priestly turban or religious-style headdress. The Mitznefet was worn by the High Priest of Israel during his service in the Tabernacle at the Temple of Jerusalem. The priestly turban was larger and differently designed than other religious turbans, and the top was said to resemble a flower.
The Chef’s hat was adopted by the Israelis in 1994, but the use of similar items predates that. Israeli soldiers had been improvising their own camouflage head wraps for years at this point. They would cut up camouflage netting, burlap sacks, and more to try and break up the telltale shape of a helmet. It’s not exactly an uncommon practice amongst soldiers to utilize some form of camouflage to break up their profile.
The unofficial head covering eventually became official, and the IDF officially adopted the Mitznefet. This new head covering had a Chef’s hat look that became quite famous amongst Israeli troops. Helmet covers aren’t new, but the Israeli Mitznefet is so oversized compared to most that it’s caught the attention of a number of curious viewers.
The helmet cover can also be worn without a helmet and helps break up the profile of the wearer while not keeping their bucket in place. Another benefit is that the head cover can be moved from side to side to provide a break in sun exposure. The deserts of Israel are well known for their harsh sunshine.
The Modern Mitznefet
The old-school models feature two sides. One is designed to be used in green environments, and the other is for arid desert environments. The older models were replaced in 2013 by tactical gear company Agilite. The new model is a multi-cam design that embraces the modern camouflage of warfare. Multicam is, without a doubt, the most popular camouflage worn today, and it is nearly universal.
Agilite
While the covers come out of Israel, they aren’t restricted to just Israel. In fact, they’ve been used in other big wars across the world. Ukraine purchased Mitznefets in 2015 for its soldiers. The two countries have a working relationship. Ukraine purchased some very cool 5.45 Tavors from Israel. Those might be the rarest Tavors out there.
Polish forces have also purchased small numbers of the Agilite Mitznefet. A similar headdress was worn by Hamas fighters. It seems to be quite popular in that part of the world and must be popular for a reason.
Agilite
A lot of the troops in Gaza don’t seem to be wearing them. The urban environments make them a little less handy. Plus, I’d imagine they’d get stuck on nearly everything in an urban environment.
If you want your own, Agilite will happily sell you one of the more modern Mitznefet here. Personally, I don’t see how well they work with night vision attached to your helmet, but maybe I’m wrong.
When I was a young whipper snapper in the Marine Corps, we joked that we got the Army’s leftovers. That was 2008 through 2013, and in a little more than a decade, that’s completely changed. In terms of equipment and gear, the modern Marine rifleman is like looking at a spec ops guy. Your average Marine grunt is rocking the latest and greatest gear, and I applaud the USMC for it. As a gun website, we are going to take a look at the modern Marine Corps rifle, the M27.
The Modern Marine Rifle – The M27
The Marine Corps originally adopted the M27 to replace the M249 SAW. They wanted an automatic rifle to replace the hefty and aging complement of SAWs. The idea was suppression by precision rather than volume of fire. Machine gunners would still be attached to rifle platoons and could provide platoon-level support with volume of fire. Riflemen could decrease their load with the M27 and more precise suppressive fire. The M27 is named after 2/7, the infantry unit that originally tested the rifles.
That was the idea. Then, the Marine Corps pulled a sneaky move and essentially just made the M27 the main combat rifle of their fighting forces. Combat arms guys ditched the M16 and M4s for the M27. What’s the big deal? Well, the M27 is an HK 416 with a 16.5-inch barrel. It’s more accurate and reliable than the M4, and the Marines adored them. At one point, a grunt famously remarked he’d request mast if they gave him a SAW again.
The M27 offered a gas piston gun that was better suited for more sustained automatic fire than the old Stoner designs. Gas piston guns also tend to work better with shorter-barreled guns and suppressors. As the Marine Corps adopted the M27, they saw a need for a slightly shorter barrel option.
The first guys who needed the shorter guns were the Recon Marines. The Recon Weapons Kit offered an 11-inch barrel version of the M27. A few RWKs have leaked to the line companies, and they aren’t necessarily rare amongst general infantry. The M27 offers Marines an upgraded rifle to make the famed Corps of Riflemen even deadlier.
Rifle Accessories
That rifle isn’t a barren weapon relying on iron sights. It’s a very modern weapon with modern accessories. For the average infantryman, this rifle is extremely modern and well-equipped.
Trijicon VCOG 1-8X
Originally, the M27 utilized the SDO, a beefy 3.5X ACOG. On top of the SDO sat a Trijicon RMR for close-range use. That optic is still in service but is on its way out. In its place is an LPVO, specifically the beefy Trijicon 1-8X. The VCOG is designed to be extremely durable and well-made, which is a must-have for an optic being handed to 18-year-old riflemen.
The VCOG is an FFP optic with a super slick and usable reticle for both close and long-range engagements. The optic reticle is illuminated and provides aiming points for both drop and windage. It’s a cheat code for accurate shooting at a multitude of ranges.
I remember the old-timers complaining about us having ACOGs. So, following that tradition, should I yell at the whipper snappers about their LPVO?
KAC NT-4 Suppressor
Every rifleman is now equipped with a suppressor, specifically the rock-solid and well-proven NT-4. The Knight’s Armory NT-4 is an older design, and while it’s not the most modern or lightest, it is extremely well-made and designed to last. Much like the VCOG, it needs to be tough for the average rifleman to avoid breaking it.
The USMC found that suppressed rifles make it easier to establish and maintain command and control. Suppressors will also make it tougher to locate troop positions accurately and reduce recoil as well as muzzle flash. Seeing grunts armed with cans brings a tear to my eye.
P-MAG Gen 3
The Marine Corps and P-MAGs have had an on-again, off-again relationship. When I deployed to Afghanistan, everyone loved their P-MAGs. On my second pump, we were told to stop using them because they didn’t work in the M27. Keep in mind, at this point, my unit didn’t have any M27s yet, but the Marine Corps isn’t always a place for common sense.
Magpul brought out the P-MAG Gen 3 magazines, and all was forgiven. The P-MAGs were a massive improvement over the old aluminum magazines, and it shows. These polymer magazines are designed for rugged use and are super reliable. Everything about the Gen 3 magazines has been tweaked to refine them for reliable feeding. They are currently the best magazine option on the market.
Break Out The Rattle Can
Another interesting aspect of the Marine’s new rifles is the fact they are rattle-canning them. I don’t just mean Force Recon or MARSOC, but grunts are now seemingly allowed to camouflage their rifles. I’m sure it’s dependent on the environment they’ll be deployed to, but it’s interesting to see the process is now allowed and encouraged. Wearing all that camo while carrying a big black rifle never made much sense.
Beyond the Rifle
The Marine Corps has also revamped its entire rifle training process. It’s become more combat-oriented and includes a brand new qualification known as the ARQ. The ARQ requires its own article to explain, but it’s quite well thought out. The Marine Corps force modernization process has delivered some fantastic results in the field of small arms. I think the USMC is on the right path and finally keeping up with the times rather than lagging behind it.
Have you ever wondered what happens when you mix a semi-automatic pistol with a single-action revolver? If so, you’ll be happy to know it’s been done before. In fact, it was done and patented in 1898. The pistol was released in 1901 and was appropriately named the Mannlicher M1901. This was one of the earliest semi-auto pistols ever produced and is, without a doubt, one of the most interesting looking. It’s downright elegant in its design.
Early semi-auto pistols are incredibly interesting and often have a very steampunk appeal to them. The Mannlicher M1901 is no different. Its fascinating design blended an automatic loading system with what’s essentially the lock work of a single-action revolver. While many of the features would be ridiculously out of date by today’s standards, the weapon was ahead of its time in 1901.
The History of the Mannlicher M1901
The pistol was designed by Ferdinand von Mannlicher. Mannlicher was already a very successful arm’s designer. He came from an upper-class family and could afford the education required for his success. These days, his name is often applied to a specific stock design where the handguard comes all the way to the end of the barrel. But he’s known for much more than that. He invented the en-bloc clip, a working rotary magazine, and is likely the inventor of the first semi-auto rifle.
His area of expertise was repeating firearms as a whole. von Mannlicher’s arms were sold to numerous countries, including the Austro-Hungarian military, the Greek Military, and the Argentinian military.
His first semi-auto pistol, the Mannlicher 1894, was a bit of a mess. It was a blow-forward pistol that was fairly novel and also very unsuccessful. Springfield Armory tested the pistol and found it to be quite unreliable. Mannlicher went back to the drawing board and produced a patent in 1898 for what would become the M1900.
The M1900 and the M1901 are nearly identical. Mannlicher partnered with Steyr and made small improvements to the M1900, which became the Mannlicher M1901. Since the M1901 was more successful, it’s the better subject of conversation. There is also an M1905 model that is based on the M1901 model.
The original chambered a novel 8mm cartridge, but it was found to be lacking. In its place came the 7.63 Mannlicher. This was a straight-case cartridge that propelled an 86-grain bullet at 1,000 feet per second. It’s not much hotter than a .32 ACP cartridge. In Germany, this cartridge was called the 7.65 Mannlicher to avoid confusion with the 7.63 Mauser.
Inside the M1901
The M1901 is ostensibly a delayed blowback pistol. A lever is held in place by a spring that moves to unlock the slide. While it’s technically a delayed blowback pistol, it functions as a straight blowback design. Much like the Savage M1907 delay mechanism, it doesn’t seem to cause much, if any, delay. The lockwork is hidden under the left panel, and inside, it’s identical to many single-action revolvers. The design works historically, so it’s easy to see why it was used and adopted. Plus, a single-action trigger is always nice to have. A simple hammer safety can be levered in place to prevent discharges.
The weapon does have a moving slide that functions around a fixed barrel. The recoil spring sits below the barrel but is separate from the barrel. As the weapon fires, the breechblock recoils, and the slide rails travel rearward in the receiver guides. The slide rails are combined by a crossbeam, and that crossbeam is what compresses the recoil spring and what the recoil spring pushes against.
The operation is very simple and reportedly quite reliable. The weapon’s odd grip houses an integral, non-removable eight-round magazine. The slide locks to the rear of the gun and allows the user to reload the gun via stripper clips. Theoretically, a shooter could reload with single rounds, but it seems much less intuitive. The slide does not close instantly when the weapon is charged, but a slight rearward pull will release the slide and chamber a cartridge.
Invaluable
When the user needs to unload the Mannlicher M1901, the user will hold the slide open and then press the magazine unload lever. This allows the rounds to be discharged from the magazine without the operation of the slide.
Hot To Trot
With a working pistol, a major manufacturer, and a new cartridge, Mannlicher and Steyr went shopping for sales. The Austrian Pistol Trials of 1904-1905 proved to be the testing ground for the Mannlicher. Details of the trials are tough to find, but we do know that the Mannlicher M1901 lost to the Dreyse M1907. The Dreyse did offer a removable magazine and chambered the much more common .32 ACP cartridge.
IMFDB
The Mannlicher M1901 didn’t languish too long. The military of Argentina adopted the pistol. The military variant adopted by Argentina was known as the Mannlicher M1905. They purchased 10,000 of the pistols over several years. Small numbers were also acquired by Paraguay, but it’s not clear how many.
Compared to its contemporaries, it was quickly outclassed. Guns like the Luger offered a more powerful round with similar recoil characteristics. Plus, detachable magazines were seen as a superior option. This led to slow sales of the pistol, even amongst the civilian populace. Sadly, the gun faded away, taking its elegant nature and simple design with it.
Sometimes, you stumble across something that is just so dang cool you can’t help but be impressed. I was searching for moon clips for my S&W M1917 and somehow typed Ruger M1917. Call it a brain fart, but it leads me to a custom revolver company known as Bowen Classic Arms. The search Ruger M1917 shouldn’t result in anything, but here we are with a custom firearm from Bowen Classic Arms called the M1917 Redhawk. This isn’t a review or a paid advertisement. It’s a custom gun highlight that I can’t help but put on display.
Who Is Bowen Classic Arms?
That’s the right question to ask, but am I the right person to answer? Here is who Bowen says they are:
BOWEN CLASSIC ARMS CORPORATION, located in the rolling countryside of East Tennessee in the shadow of the Great Smoky Mountains, is one of America’s pre-eminent custom handgun making firms. Founded by Hamilton S. Bowen, the company is recognized the world over for the exceptional style and execution of its revolver work.
Hamilton Bowen has been producing custom revolvers for over 30 years. He’s made a name for himself and his work by producing not only well-made but creative firearms. The revolver industry isn’t like the Glock, AR, or even the bolt gun world. There aren’t a ton of custom modifications you can make. If you want to work on revolvers, you have to be able to make your parts as you go.
If Bowen Classic Arms had a theme, it would mix modern twists with classic designs. These designs might be single-action Army revolvers of various calibers and modern updates. Or, as you’ll see, the M1917 Redhawk.
The M1917 Redhawk
The M1917 revolvers were designed to supplement the M1911 during World War 1. Both Colt and S&W produced these guns for Doughboys heading overseas. These were big, fighting revolvers that chambered the 45 ACP cartridge and used moon clips for extraction and ejection. These guns served in both World Wars, Korea, and even Vietnam in special duty roles. They were special-purpose guns that were robust and famed for their design.
Revolver, Smith & Wesson US M1917. AF*69017M.
The Redhawk is a Ruger double-action revolver. They were the first large-bore double actions. They became famous for their meaty, tank-like design. These guns were designed to handle the most powerful .44 Magnum loads. Like the M1917, these were well-made and robust revolvers.
What Bowen Classic Arms does is take the Redhawk and give it a M1917 spin. The design incorporates a black finish and wood grips that are a throwback to the classic fighting revolver design. An M&P style fixed-sight top strap and a round, unribbed barrel really help keep the look classic, and it has that M1917 spin. To top it all off, the gun has a lanyard loop, just like the M1917s.
The caliber is the .50 Action Express. It’s a cartridge designed for the Desert Eagle, and like the M1917, the gun uses five-shot full moon clips. The Redhawk M1917 gives the gun a bit more ass than the .45 ACP. It’s a good gun for dangerous game usage and just an all-around cool revolver.
The Big Bore Beast
The Redhawk M1917 delivers on the front of mixing classic with contemporary. It’s a beautiful gun, and I am putting it on my wish list. Maybe a .45 ACP version because the price of .50 AE isn’t low. Then again, if I can afford a revolver this nice, the ammo price likely isn’t much of a concern.
Check out Bowen Classic Arms and take your turn drooling over some very beautiful revolvers.
Back to the trenches! When I set out to seek out the sidearms of World War I, I never knew how deep I had to dive. There were tons and tons of sidearms fielded by the various military forces. I reduced it to the major powers of World War I and then had to split the articles in half to separate revolvers from automatics. We covered revolvers, and now it’s time to talk about the automatic handguns of World War I.
World War I was the first major war where automatic handguns became a common sight. The war started in 1914 after an assassin killed the Archduke and his wife with a semi-auto FN M1910 .380 ACP pistol, so maybe it was only appropriate that automatic pistols would be so relevant. In 1914, we were only a decade and a half from the first semi-auto pistol with a reciprocating slide, and as a whole, we were still figuring out which semi-auto handgun operating system would become the standard.
This led to a ton of interesting and fascinating pistols occupying the trenches of World War I. Today, we are going to take a look at the automatic handguns of World War I and break them down by the major powers of the Great War. With that in mind, we are going to focus on the weapons issued by the respective military forces. There were a ton of guns privately purchased and wielded, but it’s a bit tough to track those down.
Austria-Hungary – Frommer Stop and Dreyse M1907
The Austrian-Hungarian Empire used a wide variety of automatic handguns, but the two most common were the Frommer Stop and Dreyse M1907. Both of these were rather simple pistols, and both chambered the .32 ACP cartridge. They were straight blowback pistols with single-stack magazines.
The Dreyse M1907 was an ugly but robust pistol. It was popular enough to last well into World War II. The gun was a striker-fired weapon with a seven-round magazine. One unusual feature was the fact the recoil spring is concentric and around the barrel.
IMFDB
The Frommer Stop pistol is an unusual design that lacks a traditional slide. Everything is internal to the gun, including its moving parts, which come out of the rear when it’s fired. In the quest for small, rapid-fire weapons, they converted Frommer Stop pistols to machine pistols, fitted them with 25-round magazines, and mounted them upside down on a tripod.
Germany – Mauser C96 and Luger Series
The Germans were quick to adopt semi-auto pistols and came to World War I with the previously mentioned Frommer Stop and Dreyse M1907 pistols, but also their own 9mm handguns. The most famous and common is the Luger pistol. This gun was a toggle-locked, short recoil pistol that chambered the 9mm Parabellum cartridge when used by the German army. The Germans would adopt the Luger LP08 as something of a light rifle with a longer barrel, stock, and drum magazine.
Invaluable
Another somewhat popular pistol with the German army was the Mauser C96. This was one of the earliest automatic handguns and one of the most widely produced. The Luger was slow to produce, so the German military ordered 150,000 C96 pistols in 9mm. These became known as the Red 9 Mausers.
Turkey – Mauser C96, Luger Series, and Frommer Stop
The Ottoman Empire had a smattering of automatic handguns. Their allies used the Luger and Frommer Stop pistols, so it made sense for the Ottomans to purchase them or for their allies to provide them. The Mauser C96 had long been a part of the Turkish arsenal. In fact, they were the first military contract Mauser received for the C96.
IMFDB
The Turkish C96 guns were intended for palace guards, and only 1,000 were ordered. They chambered the Mauser 7.63 cartridge and, during World War I, made their way to the troops on the ground.
United States – Colt M1911 and Colt M1903
The untied States came with the high-tech at the time Colt M1911. This .45 ACP pistol used the new short recoil action to deliver lower recoil and high reliability. Unlike blowback-operated pistols, the M1911 could fire the powerful .45 ACP cartridge. World War I played home to a ton of automatic handguns, but only the M1911 remains a viable choice for modern shooters. People like to talk about stopping power, but staying power should be a consideration as well.
(Wikimedia)
Alongside the M1911 were plenty of revolvers, as well as the Colt M1903. This pistol was issued to folks who were less likely to find themselves in a small arms fight. This included sailors of the US Navy and, eventually, pilots flying over the battlefield. This freed up M1911s for the guys on the ground and in the trenches.
Wikimedia
France – FN M1900, Ruby pistol, and Savage M1907
The French were fairly entrenched with their revolvers during the war, but a few automatic handguns made their way to French hands. The French had a big hankering for weapons, so it’s no surprise designs from Belgium, Spain, and America made their way into French hands.
(Wikimedia)
The Frogs made good use of the FN M1900, an automatic handgun with a slide, in the hands of their Trench Raiders. These soft-recoiling, fast-firing, straight blowback pistols used the .32 ACP cartridge and were renowned for their reliability. Remember, automatics were new, so a reliable model was valuable.
(Wikimedia)
The Ruby pistol was a Spanish design that was loosely based on the Colt M1903. It’s a blowback-operated .32 ACP that was known for its durability and stout nature. The French must have appreciated the nine-round magazine because they purchased anywhere from 250,000 to 300,000 Ruby pistols.
Wikimedia
Finally, the Savage M1907, another .32 ACP pistol, was adopted in large numbers by the French. These military Savage automatics featured loaded chamber indicators and lanyard loops. These guns were quite impressive for the era and were very compact. They held ten rounds in one of the earliest examples of a double-stack magazine.
United Kingdom – Colt M1903, Colt M1911, and Webley Self-Loading pistol
The British loved their revolvers but must have seen the writing on the wall and gathered an array of automatic handguns to arm their troops with. While they would continue to issue revolvers into World War II, the First World War gave the Brits the miracle of Colt. The Colt M1903 in .32 ACP and .380 ACP was purchased in two batches during the war. These small automatics were quite reliable and easy to handle. They were reportedly mainly issued to the Royal Air Force.
Wikimedia
The Brits also got the M1911, which is nuts, considering that America couldn’t produce enough of them. The British M1911 chambered the .455 Webley Automatic cartridge, and these guns were sent to the Royal Navy. They are stock standard M1911s and were high-tech for the time. Still, they were a stop-gap to get guns in British hands.
Finally, the British Webley Self-Loading Pistol was also issued in .455 Webley to the Royal Navy, as well as the Royal Horse Artillery and Royal Flying Corps. The Webley Self-Loading Pistol was a fairly modern short-recoil design. However, the pistol did face some reliability issues.
Russian Empire – Colt M1911, FN Model 1903
The Russians were revolver guys for decades, and the Nagant revolvers were their main go-to. However, as the war cranked up, the Russians began to get their hands on whatever they could. Russia contracted with Colt to purchase 51,000 pistols between 1916 and 1917. These were standard Colt M1911s in .45 ACP.
The Russians also used the FN Model 1903. It’s a Browning design, but it was not a Colt M1903 for the European market. This was a full-sized firearm chambering the 9x20mmSR Browning cartridge. This was a blowback pistol, and at the time, this specific cartridge was the most powerful cartridge a blowback weapon could safely fire. These guns are marked with crossed Mosin Nagant and were awarded to officers at the Imperial Nicholas Military Academy.
Automatic Handguns in World War I
World War I was in no way the first war to see automatic handguns shine. However, it was a massive and horrendous war, and it likely helped inspire and influence the small arms decisions of military forces across the world.
The Recover Tactical 20/20 presents a very interesting system. There are several Glock to Subgun-style kits out there. The Roni kits are the most famous, but these chassis-type designs have their downsides and faults. The Recover Tactical 20/20 presents a similar system that’s a bit more minimalist and streamlined compared to alternative kits and essentially makes your handgun into a PDW-type braced pistol. I’ve been testing the RT 20/20 for a bit now as part of my PDW project.
I’ve been using it with the Glock 19, but recently came across an adapter kit to allow your Glock 43, Glock 43X, or Glock 48 to sit inside an RT 20/20 standard kit. These tiny, slimline Glocks were entirely too small for the original RT 20/20. I didn’t think much about this conversion at first, but eventually, the thought crept into the forefront of my mind. My PDW project is all about concealed weapons, so why not give it a try? I placed my order and got my Glock 43X ready for duty.
The RT 20/20 G43X Conversion Kit
The G43X/48 conversion kit is made up of two basic parts. Actually, three if you count the charging handle, but that’s not exclusive to the conversion kit. There is a piece that clamshells around the front of the gun and a small insert that is attached to the rear of the gun and held in place by the RT 20/20. It takes about five minutes to swap, attach the parts, and get the kit properly installed into the RT 20/20.
It looks like it shouldn’t fit. The RT 20/20 is clearly meant for double-stack 9mm pistols. Yet, with these couple of additions, the G43X drops into the device. I manually attempted to move the gun back and forth, and there were no issues. It remained rock solid and tight inside the chassis system, and I had more than enough grip to grab it.
I could still use the sights of the Glock 43X and get low enough to see the device and design easily. It’s surprising how well it seems to work. It also shrinks the size and weight of the RT 20/20. This ultra-small design seems to be perfect for the PDW project I’m currently working on. My big fear would be the movement of the gun inside the chassis.
To the Range
I’m using the Recover Tactical optic mount instead of other sighting options. It’s a bit easier to use and mounts the optic a bit higher than the sights. However, the optic remains stationary instead of reciprocating on a slide. I zeroed the optic to the G43X with some ease, but that’s a different subject.
What’s important is that the G43X remained locked tight into the frame of the RT 20/20. It didn’t budge or move even a little bit under recoil. After a quick zero, I ran a few basic drills, namely the Bill Drill, to test the overall fit of the gun and security under rapid fire. Six rounds fired in less than two seconds should be a nice shake-up. I conducted the drill five times and saw zero disruption from the gun. The zero remained solid and didn’t slip, either.
I shot the setup quite a bit as part of my PDW project. I went back to 25 and later even fifty yards. The setup remained accurate enough that it reached 50 yards to land mostly chest shots into an IPSC target. I folded the brace and found the system easy to shoot with the brace collapsed and locked in place.
It performs as adequately as the RT 20/20 with a Glock 19 or Glock 17 installed. I’m impressed it works so well.
What’s the Point?
If you only have a Glock 43, 43X, or 48, you now have a brace option. That’s one reason this exists. Second, it shrinks the RT 20/20 and, most importantly, lightens it up a little bit. For my purposes, this turned out to be a fairly solid addition to the RT 20/20 system. It’s not for everyone. I do think a dedicated slimline model of the 20/20 would be preferable, which would likely cut even more bulk and weight.
For now, the product works. It works reliably, allows for excellent accuracy, and functions with the brace extended and folded. It works as advertised, and I’m impressed.
Today the boys are back, and they’re talking about what they did 10 years ago in their shooting vs what they’re doing today? What bad habits do you still have? What have you changed?
Armed Minnesotans protect businesses in their neighborhood from rioting looters
I haven’t done a good fisking in awhile, I’ve been busy. But thankfully the Guardian has provided something so shockingly and stupidly inflammatory that I’m dusting off the old keyboard. I haven’t seen such selective use of inference and misunderstanding technicalities to support a position in a long time.
So, let’s dive in. Guardian article, in Bold and responses thusly.
Large numbers of Americans who have bought guns over the past four years or who regularly carry their loaded weapons in public are willing to engage in political violence, even to the extent of shooting a perceived opponent, a new mega-survey has found.
Ooooh, a mega-survey. That’s so much extra survey. But if you know anything about survey data for large populations, a well-chosen 1,000 people can provide statistically significant data. Likewise, any chosen amount can say pretty much whatever you want them to say if you ask the questions right. Therefore a “mega” survey of 13,000 is just so you can say its a mega-survey. It’s a branding play to lend credence. I doubt the institution that did the survey, UC Davis, called it that. I get the feeling that this has been added by the media for dramatic flair.
Precisely what we need in our empirical data, drama. More fun that way.
The study of almost 13,000 Americans, drawn from across the US and weighted for demographics, provides alarming evidence of the openness of certain types of gun owners to the idea – and possibly the practice – of violence as a political act.
Alright, alarming, they say. Let us go quantify alarming, certain types (feels prejudiced), and the vagueness of ‘idea’ and ‘practice’.
The risk of violent behavior rose dramatically, the researchers found, with certain subsets of gun owners.
Which?
In particular, Americans who have bought their weapons since the disruptions of COVID in 2020 and those who often or always carry guns in public expressed high levels of susceptibility to political violence. A similar, though less marked, trend was visible among owners of assault-style rifles of the sort used frequently in mass shootings.
Oh. My. Gawd… People who chose to buy guns after witnessing some of the most widespread local political violence in recent memory, and the failure of the state to protect them from the mostly peaceful political violence, are ‘susceptible’ to it? Shocking.
Funny they do not mention how many of those new gun owners actually lean more politically left, or at least decidedly moderate, and aren’t otherwise the ‘nuts’ being very loudly ‘not mentioned’ aloud.
The study, Firearm Ownership and Support for Political Violence in the United States, was conducted by the violence prevention research program at the University of California, Davis. Its findings will ring alarm bells at an already exceptionally tense time for the country.
No they don’t, they should ring ‘Duh’ buzzers for this clownish lack of connecting the dots. 2020 was a summer that convinced a lot of people that the government wouldn’t do anything to stop them if they wanted to burn their jurisdictions down. At least a certain ‘subset’ of jurisdictions with a certain ‘subset’ of politicians running them.
See, I can infer, too. You readers know exactly who I’m talking about. The type of DAs, Mayors, and Police Chiefs I am referring to come to mind rather quickly. For many of you they even have specific names.
With seven months to go to the presidential rematch between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, the US is not only in the early stages of what promises to be a fiery election, but the prevalence of gun ownership as well as mass gun rampages are also running at all-time highs. A country awash with weapons and facing a fraught political clash, which both sides are portraying as an existential fight for the future of America, poses extreme challenges for law enforcement.
*Sigh*
Alright… let’s unpack that. Yes, this election is looking to be “2020: 2, elderly incoherent yelling at cloud boogaloo.” But I get a much more exhausted sense from this election than the last. We’re so much more tired of it, but it’s the selection we got because, of course, it is. Yes, gun ownership is higher now than last year, and the year before, and the year before that, and so forth.
Threats of bans, threats of riots, threats of crime, threats that are all very visible in real-time alongside a government that seems to be sitting on their thumbs arguing about recognition days and blaming the other team for every woe ever has left a very deflated and annoyed populace who, I remind you, was told they were on their own in 2020.
The economy was brought to a screeching halt, and people were handed about ~$2,500 each over about a year to make up for losses of 10-15x times that in prohibited income, mostly in the tighter service economies and lower-income households. But funny enough that’s enough for a few Glocks or one and an AR-15. I bought a bed.
You mean the government paid for this? On purpose!?!
No, I don’t ascribe them that much forethought. But they certainly are not taking any accountability for the post-stimi-bucks consequences. Did you know the average time-to-crime for a gun dropped dramatically for guns bought during the pandemic? Weird. People bought a lot of ‘comfort’ items with the extra money because they had either covered the other 90-95% deficit in other ways or were so short on money it wasn’t going to matter anyway.
Fun fact: When the government says the cops aren’t coming because they might get sick, owning a gun feels a lot more comfortable.
Since Trump announced his candidacy in November 2022, he has taken his inflammatory rhetoric to a new level. He has recast his supporters who have been jailed for the violent attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 as “hostages” and promised to pardon many of them.
That… just sounds like Trump. The man has never met an event he won’t try and cast for his advantage or his current opponent’s detriment. It doesn’t matter if they were friends prior or will be friends again next week after whatever wild and crazy thing was said. That’s just Trump.
At the same time, gun purchases have soared since the start of the pandemic. Last year the US endured a record number of mass shootings.
Actually, we didn’t.
Mass shootings, that broadly and wildly inclusive, therefore nearly useless term, were between 2021 and 2022’s in number, 2nd highest year. While mass killings were at a record 40.
Why doesn’t my tone read as more concerned about that? Total number of deaths and injuries are the lowest of the last four complete years. Lowest since the pandemic, the lockdowns, and the riots. So, no, I am not going to take my social barometer from the statistical outlier events, where a single death or injury can be reclassified without accounting for motive at all.
I will look at total deaths and injuries. Those are both down significantly. Hopefully, they will keep going down, regardless of the election, as the nation chills out back to the 2010s of Obama and, yes, Trump-era civility. Hopefully, we’ll drop even further than that by the time we’re out of the decade.
Like or hate the politics of either past president, or both, but I want that chill ‘things are working pretty well’ vibe back. I also want my $20 to not feel like a $5, but inflation has killed that nicely.
The authors of the study draw conclusions from their findings that will give federal and state officials pause. It is plausible, they say, that recent gun purchasers may be “arming up for anticipated civil conflict. Our findings strongly suggest that large numbers of armed individuals who are at least potentially willing to engage in political violence are in public places across the US every day.”
What an alarmist way to say that people who carry guns for protection, and who have absolutely seen significant political violence here and abroad, might consider using their guns under some nebulously defined circumstances. Of course they would, the number one reason for buying a firearm for decades has been protection. A significant, though exaggerated by the media, threat people think about is a violent political extremist or extremist group attacking them as a perceived enemy.
I don’t own and carry firearms to defend against only apolitical violence. They are for any emergency that requires a use of force response to increase my odds of avoiding death or injury, and protect anyone I am charged with protecting.
Participants in the UC Davis survey were asked whether they believed that violence was justified in the pursuit of a range of specific political objectives. About 39% of gun owners said yes, compared with 30% of non-owners.
So the supermajority, under some definitions (60% or more, three-fifths), of survey respondents, both armed and otherwise, said violence was not justifiable in politics, and about 1/3 of both groups say it is. Are we then surprised that gun owners, usually people who are more socially conscious of violence, make up a greater portion of the minority who are? We also are not given the parameters of ‘justified for political goals.’
Keep in mind that our government is absolutely in continuous use of violence, or the threat of it, for political and economic goals. Violence is a currency. No, you do not have to like that fact.
That differential is moderate. But the gap becomes far more serious when the same question is put to subsets of gun owners.
Enlighten me.
About 42% of owners of assault-type rifles said political violence could be justified, rising to 44% of recent gun purchasers, and a staggering 56% of those who always or nearly always carry loaded guns in public.
People who buy fighting-style firearms are more likely to be willing to… fight in a justified way? For a cause they consider morally important? Shocking.
Let’s survey US service members and non-service member civilians and see which group is more likely to consider violence in service to their country (politics) justifiable.
The answer will not shock you. Odd how people whose job it is to literally fight for their country will see more reasons and be more willing to fight for their country. Often under more circumstances that they can see as justifiable than non-service members. They also tend to be more geo-politically aware, more informed on what the use of force in any given conflict would look like, aware of the risks, and so forth. But weird how they are much more likely to consider political violence justifiable… just in an ‘abroad’ sense under government direction.
The extent to which those subgroups said they were prepared to go in actually carrying out political violence was even more stark. The survey takers were asked to imagine they were in a situation in which political violence was perceived as justified.
Perceived AS JUSTIFIED. Are we forgetting that justifiable homicide is a legal term? ‘Justified’ implies having the support of law or society after review. It might only be ‘justified’ in their own minds. But asking someone to believe in its justification means that they are imagining a scenario, right or wrongly, that they believe will be vindicated under review.
What did people say…
In that scenario, 16.5% of gun owners who carried loaded firearms in public in the 12 months before the survey was conducted said they would go as far as to shoot someone. The proportion was also high among Americans who had bought weapons since 2020 (8.9%) and owners of assault-style rifles (7.9%), compared with those who do not possess guns at all (3.3%).
So… an overwhelming super majority of gun owners who own fighting-style firearms say they won’t shoot people under justifiable circumstances, and that is indicative of a problem? This seems, to me at least, to indicate an overwhelming sense on the subject of justifiable use of violence.
“Recent purchasers and always- or nearly-always-carriers were more willing to kill to advance political objectives,” the researchers conclude.
J U S T I F I A B L E political objectives, why do we now keep skipping that very important word?
The political mindset of the gun-owning subgroups is also skewed to more extreme positions lending themselves to political violence. Asked whether they believed that the US would erupt in civil war within the next few years, 29% of public gun carriers said yes, with the same answer given by 22% of recent purchasers and 20% of assault-type rifle owners, compared with only 13% of non-owners.
Once again, a group more socially aware of violence thinks it is more likely than a group less socially aware of violence. All groups have super majorities who believe the big violent thing (civil war) won’t happen. But let’s pick on the largest minority opinion, which also happens to coincide with the group logically most socially aware of violence (firearm carriers). And let’s point out that their percentage is the largest while also not mentioning it is still in the category of the super minority.
The study, published by Jama Network Open on Tuesday, was based on a survey carried out in May and June 2022. It is part of a series of peer-reviewed articles and papers from the violence prevention research program that has explored views on political violence in the US including by party affiliation and political ideology and among Republicans who support Trump’s Make America Great Again (Maga) movement.
Oh no.. this is data from the middle of 2022!? When 2021 was the worst year? We are reporting on opinions fresh from the peak of US societal discontent, pandemic, economic, riot stress, and high violence like they are reflective of 2024 attitudes? After two years of diminishing violence and newer socio-economic worries?
I’m done. Get out.
Next you’ll tell me that older citizens tend to hold onto older ways of thinking for longer than younger ones. Really earth-shattering stuff here. Go stare at the sun until the next eclipse, that will provide more useful data than this.
The research team, led by Garen Wintemute, a professor of emergency medicine at UC Davis, approaches political violence as a public health problem. They hope that their findings will act as a guide to preventive measures as federal and state officials brace themselves for what lies ahead.
I don’t blame Garen here. I would bet if I read Professor Wintemute’s report, it is much more nuanced and, therefore, boring but useful than this alarmist tripe would have me believe.
The scientists draw comfort from their finding that most Americans, whether or not they own firearms, bluntly reject political violence as an acceptable option. They say that result should give hope, as it suggests that violence prevention measures could be effective among gun owners and non-owners alike who “publicly repudiate political violence” and could “help identify, dissuade, deter, and incapacitate likely perpetrators”.
You just spent the whole article telling us how much trouble these results indicate, and now you toss it back to the researchers who are saying what I am. That, even at the height of social tensions in the US, people believed that political violence is not the answer. Even when goaded to the very edge of imagining its justifiability.
They conclude that the very extreme fringe minorities, as there is always a minority and is always a risk from any number of small extreme groups with niche motives, are the appreciable threats. We’ve known that for centuries, it is a tale as old as civilization.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent report were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on the internet is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Opinions surveyed in 2022… unbelievable.
What happens when your batteries die in your red dot, and you don’t have suppressor height sights? Are you supposed to roll over and die? Give up? Run? Is there a solution? What if you just used the box of the optic as a rear sight? Put the target in the window and just pull the trigger. Will it work? I was curious if the idea would work, how well it would work, and how far it would work. I grabbed my P365, which is equipped with a Holosun EPS, and hit the range running.
Just the Box
I planned to run a number of drills with just the box versus the dot. The first thing I did was try to shoot a simple group at five yards. I shot the first group without the optic on, aiming dead center in a rectangle roughly the size of an ISPC A-zone. I fired six rounds, and they went low and right in a very long, vertically strung group. At a mere five yards, I was pretty far off my point of aim. I popped the dot on, shot another group, and created a nice tight group dead center.
There is a very clear difference at only five yards. I tried it again at ten yards. By then, three of the rounds were off the paper, and one was out of the A-zone. One shot landed in the A-zone. That’s not quite the group I want to see at ten yards. It is just an A-zone, and at ten yards, my rounds would have very likely still hit the threat as long as I was presented with a full-sized threat.
What about longer ranges with bigger targets? I know that I wasn’t going to hit the A-Zone at 25 yards. However, at 5 yards, I could likely point-shoot my way out if I needed to. Let’s back off the 25 yards and use an entire IPSC target. At 25 yards, I ‘aimed’ as dead center as I could and let it rip. Surprisingly, I landed two out of three. Two out of three became my mantra for this range. I always hit at least two out of three, and I always hit low, but I hit.
Toss In the Timer
My heart wasn’t racing, my adrenaline wasn’t pumping, and no one was moving and shooting back, and those are factors we have to consider. With that in mind, let’s try a timer and some faster-moving drills. I went to the range and began throwing lead a little faster. I fired from the low ready and tried my hand at a Bill Drill, then a Mozambique drill. The results were not great. Without the dot and just the box, I slowed myself while trying to find it.
The muscle memory of finding the dot kept me from shooting as fast as I could. My accuracy fell apart, and my shots still landed way too low. I dumped the six rounds in a group I’d never brag about. I felt like that guy who shouts ‘combat’ accuracy about his gun. The Mozambique was more like two to the belly and one to the neck.
Using just the box of the optic works, kind of, and if you’re in a pinch, it might be a way to get out. However, be aware your point of ‘aim’ is big, and you are likely to start throwing rounds all over the place. As the range increases, it obviously gets a lot worse. My advice would be to check your batteries and invest in suppressor height sights. Using the box of the optic isn’t the most reliable option.
I can get hits on the static range, but when you factor in performance flaws due to stress and a target that’s moving and fighting back, it’s going to fall apart really quickly. You can probably train and get better, but suppressor height sights seem like a worthwhile investment.
So, how did all this get started? Why did I decide that my opinions mattered? Well, let’s start at the beginning:
There seems to be a bit of a void in the training community. There’s a ton of information out there for people who are at a “white belt” experience level. Likewise, there’s a lot of “brown belt” and ” black belt” level content available as well.
Why I Train: Filling the Gap
What I haven’t found much of is the middle ground, the “blue belts” documenting their progression and experiences. The regular guys who don’t carry guns or teach people to shoot as part of their job. The dudes who may know what the FAST test or Bill Drill are but may be hesitant to share their own performance because it’s not good enough for The ‘Gram.
The other glaringly absent element (for me, at least) is the reality of living with a firearm in professional business environments or other social circles where going armed isn’t the norm.
At best, this is enough of a shared experience that other folks can benefit from my trial & error. At worst, it’ll be a record of my training progress.
*yes, there will be a smattering of obscure pop culture references throughout my content.
In regards to training, everyone has different motivations as to why they do it. For some, it’s professional continuing education. For others, it’s what they do for fun. Certain people have had a life experience that has spotlighted the need to protect themselves.
Pondering My Motivation
I had the good fortune to spend some time chatting with Mickey Schuch of Carry Trainer at the 2019 Rangemaster Tactical Conference back in March. He asked me what my motivation was for continuing to train…and I didn’t have a good answer for him.
Driving to work the other day, I recalled a conversation I had with a good friend a few years back. During that chat, he asked, “If you were to hire someone to provide security for your family, would you pay someone with your current skill set and abilities?”
While I’m more comfortable with my present skill set than I would have been in the past, I certainly don’t feel that my abilities are at a level that would justify charging for services.
I may be the odd man out here. I’m not training to be the hero. I don’t have this scenario in my head about valiantly saving the day from a mass killer or a terrorist. I have no interest in Die Hard cosplay.
The reason that I train, and will spend my own time and money away from the family I’ve worked so hard to build, is because of exactly that—I have something to lose. My concern is that I’ll be confronted by somebody who is better than me and wants something that I’m unwilling to give.
So I work to ensure that pool of potential adversaries is as small as possible, to reduce the chances I’ll ever cross paths with one. Because “Live and let live” is a great philosophy for life, but it’s a poor defensive strategy.
World War 1 is a fascinating war for a great many reasons. One of the more interesting aspects to me as an infantryman was the transformation of warfare. The introduction of machine guns, planes, and tanks changed warfare forever. This massive war was a meat grinder, and interestingly enough, the close-quarter combat of trenches made handguns more valuable than they typically are in warfare. Handguns were small and easy to use in close quarters and offered rapid-fire capability compared to bolt guns. With that in mind, I wanted to look at handguns, specifically the revolvers of World War 1.
Don’t get me wrong, the rise of automatics was an interesting phenomenon, but it would be entirely too much to cover both the automatics of World War 1 and the revolvers of World War 1. If you’re interested in the automatics of World War 1, I will be penning that as a separate article. The revolvers of World War 1 represented a dying military technology. Revolvers would continue to be used until World War 2, but the writing was already on the wall. The thing was, no one had supplies of automatics lying around to arm their forces.
In fact, they often didn’t even have enough modern revolvers to go around. So, it wasn’t uncommon to see a gun we’d typically associate with the old west right beside a machine gun in World War 1. We are going to dig into the revolvers used by each major power of the Central Powers and the Allies.
Austria-Hungary – Rast and Glasser M1898
The Austro-Hungarian Army was served by the Rast and Glasser Model 1898. Prior to World War 1, the Austro-Hungarian military was looking to replace the revolver with two semi-auto pistols, but there simply weren’t enough. The Rast and Glasser M1898 combined new and old features from revolvers. It was a double-action, solid frame design with a side loading gate and extractor rod.
Wikipedia
The round fired the 9mm Gasser, a now-extinct revolver round that wasn’t too far from being .38 Special. It propelled a 125.9-grain round at 790 feet per second. It’s not particularly notable, but interestingly, it made its way into Mauser C96 pistols. The Rast and Glasser M1898 is one of the less-known revolvers of World War 1 and was clearly behind the times.
Germany – M1879 Reichsrevolver
The Germans were very early adopters of automatic handguns and were ahead of the game when World War 1 jumped off. Still, with the war being so brutal and massive, they pulled out some old stock of revolvers. The Germans used over half a dozen different handguns in the war but only one revolver, the M1879 Reichsrevolver.
IMFDB
This was a single-action, solid-frame gun that loaded like a Colt with an ejection gate and ejection rod. Modern, it was not. The gun did have proper sights, more or less, and a very steampunk appeal. It fired a German 10.6x25mmR cartridge. This .41 caliber cartridge weighed 262 grains and flew 705 feet per second.
Turkey – S&W Model 3
Turkey, or, to be more accurate, the Ottoman Empire, carried the very cool S&W Model 3. To be fair, they mainly carried semi-auto handguns but had to break out the old Model 3s to supplement those automatics. The Model 3 is a neat gun that actually got around internationally quite a bit. It was a top-break revolver that made reloading quick. It was contained to a single-action design.
Rock Island Auction
The Ottoman Empire purchased the gun to be functional with the Henry 1866 rifles they already had. This meant chambering the Model 3 in .44 Rimfire, a cartridge that was long obsolete even when the Turks adopted it. This was the only production rimfire pattern Model 3. These were also likely the only rimfire revolvers of World War 1.
France – Modèle 1892, Colt M1892, and S&W M1899
The French were in a rough spot in World War 1, and they, like all other countries, weren’t prepared. They used a ton of different handguns, some due to lend-lease with allies, others they purchased, and some were donated. The official French revolver of World War 1 was the Modèle 1892 in 8mm French Ordnance. This was a modern revolver that used a double action and swing-out cylinder. The 9mm French Ordnance was roughly the equivalent of a .32 ACP cartridge.
National World War 1 Museum
As part of foreign aid and sales efforts, the French obtained Colt M1892 revolvers and S&W M1899 guns. These were also modern double-action revolvers in various .38 caliber cartridges. These guns weren’t far from the Modèle 1892 in terms of use. So, it was likely an easy switch for French troops.
Great Britain – Webley Mk IV, Mk V, and Mk VI
The British loved revolvers enough that they didn’t want to upgrade even when World War 2 came around. Don’t take their advice to heart. They also rejected the idea of adopting SMGs after WW1. The British revolvers of World War 1 were all Webley models, and all essentially the same with improvements.
Irongate Armory
The Webley Mk IV, Mk V, and MK VI were all used. The Mk V was set to be the standard, but the Brits didn’t have enough, so they stuck with the Mk IV throughout the war. These are double-action revolvers with a top-break design for quick ejection and reloading. They fired the .455 calibre Webley, making them the most powerful top-break revolvers ever.
Russia – Nagant M1895
The Russians had it rough during World War 1. Not only did they have a World War to contend with, but a Civil War and revolution. The Russians came to war with the Nagant M1895. The Nagant is a double-action revolver with a side gate loading design. It was quite out of date in World War 1. The revolver famously used a gas seal system that utilized a special round and a cylinder that moved forward to create a gas seal. It’s one of the few revolvers that can be silenced.
Wikimedia
The Nagant’s 7.62x38mmR cartridge was nearly rifle length. The round sits beneath the mouth of the cartridge, and it has a fairly unique look. The rounds weren’t known for their power. It propelled a 108-grain cartridge at 1,000 feet per second.
United States – Colt M1917 and S&W M1917 (And Tons More)
I saved the best for last, right? The M1911 was the standard handgun of this era, but the American forces didn’t have enough. They turned to S&W and Colt to produce revolvers that chambered the .45 ACP cartridge. S&W and Colt both produced M1917 revolvers that were similar but with somewhat small differences. These were popular enough to stick around until World War 2.
Invaluable
The United States contributed a ton of revolvers to World War 1. Even with M1917 production, stocks of old guns were brought out. This includes various Colt and S&W revolvers in various .38 caliber cartridges. These guns were built to last, and last they did. The United States even brought back the Colt M1873 Single Action Army so the American cowboy could right one more time.
The Revolvers of World War 1
This article just covers the major parties and their revolvers. It’s certainly not exhaustive. There were tons of revolvers used in the Great War. Logistically it was likely a nightmare, but when you need guns, you take what you can get. This was the last major conflict where revolvers were considered the norm, and it’s fascinating to observe the number of different revolvers that made it to war.
A cursory search of the internet yielded a few articles on drawing from a tucked-in shirt. Most of them are thinly veiled ads for the products that sponsored the post (article on XYZ holster company’s page). Several of them suggested that the draw stroke is “drastically different.” I haven’t found that to be the case, at least not with AIWB carry.
Drawing From Under a Tucked-In Shirt
Admittedly, I haven’t carried behind the hip in a decade, but I can’t imagine it’d be any different. I was curious to find out how much slower a tucked cover garment potentially was. Given how involved the setup always was and that the cover garment was pinched between the belt clips and the holster body, I suspected it would slow things down somewhat.
Now, unfortunately, my DryFire Mag wasn’t loud enough to register on the shot timer, even with the sensitivity dialed all the way up. So, I had to watch this back at 1/4 speed, record the start and stop times for each shot, and do the math myself. That is to say, these are not necessarily 100% accurate numbers.
That being said, my assumption is that my delay in the reaction time is roughly the same on the front and backend, registering the beep & the click. The times themselves are less important than the difference between tucked vs. untucked…or lack thereof.
I was surprised to see no appreciable difference between the two! When I think about it logically, it makes sense since there’s no real difference in the draw stroke. At least without introducing a secondary cover garment like a jacket. Now, technically, the tucked draw was faster. However, the difference was so minimal that I’m chalking it up to just being warmed up by the time that segment of the drill started.
There are ABSOLUTELY some unique considerations that come into play when you’re working with tucked shirts and dress clothes in general. But that’s going to be its own video.
Try it out for yourself, and let me know what you think! Was your experience the same as mine?
