Pistol Basics: The B-8 Bonanza Drill

By

-

April 22, 2024

Following my interest in the Super Tes t, a staple of NRA B-8-based training drills involving the pressure of a shot timer, I decided to try my hand at another, more challenging drill that focuses on the B-8 target this month. Specifically, the Justified Defensive Concept s’ B-8 Bonanza drill. Justified Defensive Concepts instructor Tim Chandler posted about this drill on FB, and I’ve wanted to give it a go since I saw it.

B-8 Bonanza Points And Scoring

Like the Super Test, this drill also has a 300-point aggregate score and involves 30 rounds of ammunition. The drill is broken down into three different portions, each with ten round strings of fire that have different par times. The B-8 Bonanza’s par times consist of 30 seconds for the first string, 20 seconds for the second string, and 10 seconds for the final string. One loses 10 seconds of time with each successive string, which really raises mental stress and pressure to perform. And here’s the real kicker: all three strings must be fired from a distance of 25 yards.

But wait, there’s more! Only impacts inside the B-8’s 8-ring (or higher) count—basically the repair center of the target. Impacts outside of the scoring area incur a penalty of -10 points. Chandler calls this “zero or hero” scoring.

A passing score is 270, similar to other 300-point aggregate drills. However, with this drill’s par time constraints and distance, that’s a hard 270 to attain. The B-8 Bonanza is shot from the ready position, so “draw to first shot” isn’t a factor against the par time. The B-8 Bonanza isn’t about a sub-second draw. Rather, it is about shooting consistently under immense pressure with very tight time margins. If you can do both, that’s pretty cool too!

Though the B-8 Bonanza is primarily intended to be shot with modern pistols using slide-mounted reflex sights, I don’t see why it also couldn’t be done with iron sights. It would definitely be a handicap, but it would also be an awesome flex to pull off.

Attempting The B-8 Bonanza With A 4.5 Inch Standard Walther PDP

To attempt the B-8 Bonanza drill, I picked my “backup” Walther PD P, a full-size pistol with a 4.5-inch barrel from the original 2021 production run. This particular Walther PDP has the older style slide cut (V1) that has since been replaced with the “improved” V2 cut.

I picked up this gun used, so its true round count is unknown to me. I had to source an aftermarket optics plate for it and went with a Forward Controls Desig n RMR plate that FCD sells for the V1 PDP cut (at a discount, no less).

The FCD is currently holding one of Holosun’s most affordable dots, the HS407A3X2. Palmetto State was routinely putting these on sale for $180 last year. The primary difference between the regular HS407/507s is that this one lacks solar cell charging panels. For the price I paid, I don’t mind it living on a backup pistol.

After a couple of hundred rounds, the mounting screws have still not budged, and the Forward Controls Design unit has yet to shake loose. Given that this is a V1 PDP, I just wanted to specifically mention that I have yet to encounter any issues with the optic becoming loose.

I’m also running the extra-large backstrap on this gun to see how it compares against the medium unit on my 5” workhorse polymer-framed PDP. So far, I am leaning towards the medium backstrap.

Shooting The B-8 Bonanza

I started by verifying that my dot’s zero was correct for 25 yards and the specific ammo I was using. Then, I proceeded to paste a clean B-8 to the target backer. I set the par time for 30 seconds and let it rip. Frankly, 30 seconds is actually a long time, but that didn’t matter.

I psyched myself out for the drill and finished the first string in 18.24 seconds. Not only did I leave nearly 12 whole seconds (or almost half of the allotted time) on the table, but I also dropped at least 2-3 shots. Knowing this, I knew I blew my chance for a perfect score almost immediately, but I kept driving on.

Although I was trying to get my anxiety in check, the following string of 20 seconds was much the same way. I let my anxiety get the best of me still and left almost 9 seconds on the table yet again. My second string’s total time was 11.36 seconds, and I also dropped more points.

Still trying to keep my head in the game, my third string went off the rails, too. I completed it in 6.49 seconds and dropped at least 40 or 50 points, as half of them didn’t land in the repair center. I ran this drill only once, and I was relatively cold, save for the untimed 10-shot combination warm-up and zero verification.

The B-8 Bonanza is not for the faint of heart.

The B-8 Bonanza’s Training Wheels: The Half-Nanza and Builder-Nanza

To mitigate some of the “overhead cost” of shooting up 30 rounds for each attempt, Tim Chandler also uses a variation of the B-8 Bonanza, which he calls the “Half-Nanza.”

The Half-Nanza divides everything by two except the distance. It’s still shot at 25 yards on a B-8 target, but the round count, the par time, and scoring are halved. Even with this reduction, the shooter still has the same amount of time per shot to make par time. Chandler told me that he has been using the Half-Nanza with great success in his Justified Defensive Concepts coursework lately.

Last but not least, he has one other variation of this exercise for newer students—the Builder-Nanza. This version works exactly the same as the Half-Nanza, but it’s shot at 15 yards, with the idea of warming up newer shooters to take further shots. At 30 rounds per run, doing the full B-8 Bonanza drill requires 60% of a 50-round cartridge box, and that can tally up fairly quickly.

For the sake of this writing, I bit the bullet and attempted the full B-8 Bonanza, pass or fail. And it’s not like posting a score of “300” will solve all the other problems in my life.

The Takeaway

Chandler himself will tell you that the reason he conducts this drill in his coursework is to help teach his students effective trigger management, as he believes there are three approaches to a trigger pull: quick, careful and precise. Although I flunked the B-8 Bonanza on this attempt, I really liked this drill for several reasons. First, it’s very easy to set up and conduct. All that is needed is a B-8 repair cente r, a handgun, a shot timer, and 25 yards of space. Second, all shooting is done from that 25-yard distance. Even if one’s skill might be lacking, it’s still very productive to routinely shoot at this distance and take away its “far away” mysticism.

To clarify, go to a public handgun line and see how many shooters post targets that far out. It’s rare. But 25 is just a number, nothing more, nothing less.

Third and perhaps the most important reason—this isn’t an easy drill. It’s probably an intermediate to advanced drill, and acing it requires absolute mental focus alongside mastery of handgun fundamentals. However, those intermediate to advanced shooters can get a lot out of it. For example, I dropped shots and points because I allowed myself to mentally stress about the time constraints, even when there was no reason to.

I think the B-8 Bonanza is a good shooting drill that also tempers the mind, which is crucial given the importance of the mental aspect in shooting. Another way this drill is valuable to those who work it is the confidence-building it can provide. Scoring a 270 is no small feat, even with a dotted pistol that has a nice trigger.

Beretta APX Carry 9mm Pistol (Part 2)

By

P.E. Fitch

-

April 21, 2024

Continued From Part 1:

The Beretta APX Carry is Beretta’s first-generation ultra-compact 9mm, which rounded out the APX famil y with a “slim” EDC option. In Part 1, I wrote about the pistol and some of its features in general. Part 2 is a continuation of my thoughts about the Beretta APX’s trigger and what it’s like to shoot it.

The Original APX Carry’s Trigger

Although the Beretta APX Carry uses a striker-fired action, its trigger is peculiar. It resembles a double-action revolver trigger instead of the typical striker-fired semi-auto trigger. This means that shooters will either love or hate the trigger. It depends on their philosophy concerning defensive handgun triggers.

Describing the Beretta APX Carry as an 8-shot flat semi-auto revolver would sound very strange, but it would be an apt description. As far as the longer “double-action” feeling trigger is concerned, these break in the low 7-lb range. And they’re not too bad. The way it feels and breaks actually reminded me of the Ruger LCR.

It’s worth mentioning that there is an entire school of thought devoted to having a slightly longer and/or heavier trigger pull on a defensive firearm. Specifically, it helps to prevent any surprise accidental trigger breaks or negligent discharges with fatal outcomes. This is precisely why TDA (traditional double action) pistols or guns with longer trigger pulls until the shot breaks are still popular amongst certain elements of defensive-minded concealed carriers.

HK’s popular LEM (Law Enforcement Modified), with its longer pull, is a good example of what I’m talking about. This is why I don’t think its trigger necessarily seems out of place, given the gun’s primary mission.

Shooting The Beretta APX Carry

The results of shooting 10-shot groups at 10 yards to get a baseline level of accuracy, freestyle, with the Beretta APX Carry. Using the sight picture I drew above on the target, my impacts were roughly 2″ low which means that the gun shoots to the sights at 10 yards. (Rounds will impact the middle of the square when the front sight’s white dot is superimposed over it).

As previously mentioned in Part 1, this specific APX Carry has seen numerous rounds since it first entered the family. For this write-up, I grabbed what I had on hand. This consisted of 115-grain FMJ Fiocchi Range Dynamics, 124-grain JHP Nosler AS P, and six loose rounds of my previously mentioned 147-grain reloads that I was able to scrounge up.

It’s a pity I didn’t have any full-power 147-grain factory rounds, such as Federal’s 147-grain HSTs, on hand for my informal 10-yard accuracy test.

This test consisted of taking ten careful shots at 10 yards to group the pistol (freestyle). I understand that different 9mm loads will print lower or higher than the gun’s true point of aim. So, I sketched out some black 2”x2” squares on a piece of cardboard and placed it 10 yards away.

The Beretta APX Carry uses a “center-hold” sight picture. However, I shot these black squares using a careful and precise 6 o’clock hold, holding the top edge of the front sight against the bottom edge of the black square.

APX Carry Performance

APX Carry sight picture with a hand-drawn diagram of my hold

As you can see from the pictures, the pistol had a real affinity for the 124-grain Nosler ASP JHP loads. Because of my 6 o’clock hold, the core of that Nosler 10-shot group was approximately 2” low. There’s no doubt that I’d punch the black square had I aimed with a center hold.

My 10-shot Fiocchi group was not as tight as the Nosler group, but the core of those shots also printed roughly 2” low in the same spot. Although not precise, we can deduce that the gun “shoots to its sights” at 10 yards with standard velocity factory ammo.

I shot the third square with those loose six rounds of my handloads for fun. Not to mention, I had already taken the time to set this up for the other two loads. Keeping in mind that these are marginally loaded and subsonic out of full-size pistols, the shots at least printed under the area of their square.

It’s my experience that heavier 147-grain bullets tend to print more consistently when there’s a stouter propellant charge behind them. Interestingly enough, the Beretta APX Carry has never had an issue cycling these underpowered handloads.

The Takeaway

I am satisfied with the APX Carry’s accuracy from both of my 10 yard 10-shot groups using two types of factory ammo. Frankly, this gun has been kept under lubricated. However, even though it’s not seen a substantial quantity of rounds, it remains a very reliable pistol. The top-heavy slide does seem to provide a dampening effect against some of the harsher ultra-compact pistol recoil.

Originally, I thought I wouldn’t mind its revolver-esque trigger all too much, but after shooting it for accuracy, I changed my mind. It could be that I’m too used to shooting standard striker-fired triggers. More specifically, mastering the longer trigger pull can be tricky, exactly the same way as it would on a snub revolve r. Likewise, it adds a slight degree of difficulty on top of already being a smaller gun, which can be harder to master.

If one isn’t careful about keeping the correct amount of tension with their support hand, there is a propensity to drop the shot when trying to pull the trigger all the way back to break the shot. This can be observed with both my Nosler and Fiocchi groups, as each has two holes beneath the rest of the group. This is precisely how I came to drop those shots. Of course, the cure for this phenomenon is practice and repetition.

Conclusion

In Part 1, I pointed out how I thought the gun was a little large for its size, given its capacity. This is partially driven by the fact that it feeds off true single-stack magazines, and besides the pseudo-revolver trigger, that’s its other drawback. On the flip side, the APX Carry’s grip is very nice and slim and that’s probably my favorite aspect about it.

As an older model that’s now discontinued, it won’t be sold in shops as a new item. But for the right price, the Beretta APX Carry can still make for a viable three-inch ultra-compact 9mm.

Mondragón rifle – The First Semi-Auto Combat Rifle

By

Travis Pike

-

April 21, 2024

The M 1 Garand gets credit for being the first successful semi-auto combat rifle. That’s only partially true. Sure, the M1 Garand was widely successful, but General Manuel Mondragón, a Mexican General and Arms designer, beat Garand by about 30 years. Mexico adopted the Mondragón Model 1908 in 1904, making it one of the earliest semi-auto rifles ever adopted by a military force.

The Mondragón and the Mexican Revolution

If you’re familiar with Mexican history, you might know that 1908 was a turbulent time in Mexico, and by 1910, the country was in full revolution. The combat that spread across the country meant that the Mondragón Model 1908 would get a baptism by fire. The Mondragón became the first semi-auto rifl e fielded by the military and used in combat.

Mexico contracted with SI G, yep, that SIG, to produce the rifle. By the time the revolution started, the Swiss factories had only produced 400 rifles. The revolution saw these rifles disbursed for testing, but the Mexican military wasn’t impressed. The rifles had a high failure rate that has been blamed on the poor quality of ammo issued by the Mexican military.

In 1910, each rifle cost 160 Swiss Francs. Converted to dollars and adjusted to inflation, the Mexican military spent around 5,500 dollars per rifle. That’s not chump change by any means. The failure rate and the cost resulted in Mexico canceling the rest of the order. The 400 rifles they had were seemingly spread around to the Army, and why and where they went was somewhat lost to time.

Rumors circulated that the soldiers tasked with assassinating Pancho Villa carried the Mondragón rifles. That might explain how seven soldiers were able to fire 40 rounds so quickly and kill Pancho Villa and four others.

Onto Germany

In 1914, the Great War was in its infancy. The German Empire purchased the remaining M1908 rifles from SIG to arm themselves as much as possible. The number of rifles is unclear, although some estimates assume roughly 4,000 were sold to the German Empire. In testing, the German Army found the rifles too susceptible to fouling and failure in trench life.

The rifles were turned over to the Imperial German Flying Corps. Before plane-mounted machine guns, there was less mud in a plane, and rapid-firing, easy-handling offensive armament was needed. Bolt action rifles and pistols simply weren’t enough. The M1908 Mondragón was designated the Aviator’s Self-loading Carbine, Model 1915. The Germans strapped a new 30-round drum to the gun to improve its firepower.

Once the Germans figured out synchronization gear and machine guns, the Mondragón rifles were given to the German Navy. After World War 1, an effort was made to convert the rifles to 8mm Mausers, but it never panned out.

Inside the Mondragón

The Mondragón is a long-stroke gas piston rifle with a rotating bolt. It’s very similar to the Garand. The long-stroke gas pistons run underneath the barrel, and an op rod connects the piston to the bolt. This rifle chambered the 7x57mm Mauser cartridge, which was standard for Mexico at the time.

Troops fed the Mondragón rifle with stripper clips, and the fixed magazine held ten rounds. It’s worth noting that while the magazine was fixed, it could be removed and replaced with a detachable magazine variant. There were ten- and twenty-round magazines, as well as the German 30-round drum and the Swiss 12-round magazine.

Another interesting feature was the ability for users to convert the rifle to a straight-pull bolt action design. A lever allowed the shooter to block the gas system, and a latch on the bolt detached the bolt from the OP rod. This created an interesting backup option for manual operation.

Overall, the Mondragón Model 1908 wasn’t a massive success, but it does wear the crown of the first semi-auto combat rifle. The unique history of the rifle is fascinating. From Switzerland to Mexico to Imperial Germany, the rifle certainly saw some sights.

Gunday Brunch 145: Hunting

By

Keith Finch

-

April 21, 2024

On this episode, we join the boys in the middle of a semi-heated debate about hunting. You’ll like this one!

The Navy, a Rifle, a Blunder, and Social Media

By

Travis Pike

-

April 20, 2024

On April 9th, 2024, the United States Nav y posted a photo that might make you question the small arms training of Naval personnel. To their credit, only a small section of sailors are gunfighters, but man, I don’t see how this one made it to the Instagram of the US Navy. The picture portrays a sailor shooting an M4 rifle in a training environment.

So what’s the problem? Well, as many commenters were quick to point out, the Trijico n VCOG was mounted backward on the rifle. The VCOG is an LPVO and doesn’t quite work when mounted backward.

Additionally, the optics lens cover is in place, and eagle-eyed viewers might notice the M4’s rail is not properly retained by the delta ring. We can also dig into the chicken wing position and the seemingly bizarre placement of a vertical foregrip and how the sailor is using the vertical grip.

The sailor shooting the rifle certainly looks a mess, but is it a real problem?

The Modern Navy

Admittedly, I think maybe someone should review the photos the Navy posts to ensure they are always looking professional and productive. There is something to be said for a well-trained Public Information Officer. However, as fun as it is to point out the flaws of the sailor and the rifle, we should also point out that small arms aren’t that important in the Navy.

I have friends who are sailors, and their experience at boot camp didn’t even involve shooting a rifle. It could have changed, but when they went through they were trained on the handgun and shotgun. Rifle shooting wasn’t a concern and isn’t for the big Navy. These guys control nuclear submarines and guns, the projectiles of which are measured in inches rather than millimeters. Don’t forget the jets, torpedoes, and more.

If I were to put you, a random internet commenter, in charge of firing those weapons, would you look professional in doing so? Or would you be a mess?

But The Rifle

Why exactly is that rifle in that configuration? I’d hazard to guess the VCOG was mounted backward to fit into the racks in which these rifles are stored. These racks were likely initially designed for carry-handle M16s/M4s, not for LPVO-equipped rifles. As Marines, we had to remove all sorts of accessories before we turned out rifles so they could fit in the racks.

Why the delta ring is messed up is beyond me. The sailor firing the rifle has a set of scrambled eggs on his ball cap. This indicates he’s an O-5 or higher. It turns out he’s the ship’s commanding officer.

The Navy never had the best chicken wings.

This might be one of the few times he’s ever handled a rifle in his career. This might have been a fun opportunity for him to do so. Maybe he was just there for the photo op and didn’t realize what was wrong, or he just wanted to throw some lead into the ocean for fun for a quick second.

If I had to guess, the lower enlisted running the exercise may have been a bit intimidated by the officer. They didn’t make the corrections right away out of fear. He is their commanding officer. Officers and enlisted in the Navy are very separate cultures, at least compared to how officers and enlisted Marines interact.

Maybe the guys running the ‘range’ hadn’t flipped the optic over just yet. The simple fact of the matter is that using an M4 isn’t his job. He’s not a gunfighter. He does have a very demanding job that likely has him making very important decisions in high-stress environments almost daily. We might not be in some massive open conflict, but being in charge of what’s likely a large number of sailors at sea isn’t easy.

Unfortunate Timing

That officer is likely highly skilled at his job, and his job isn’t shooting rifles. Having room for rifle training isn’t on his dance card. Is it an unfortunate photo to be posted to social media? Yes, likely so. But is it a reflection of the readiness of the United States Navy? I don’t think so. Those guys work their tails off in all manner of tasks. So, maybe we can let this one slip.

Review: The USMC Squad Common Optic (SCO) – Trijicon VCOG 1-8 MRAD

By

Keith Finch

-

April 20, 2024

If I had to sum up the US Marine’s Squad Common Optic (SCO) in a single phrase, the modern idiom ‘Absolute Unit’ would probably suffice. The VCOG 1-6x and 1-8x optic lines, designed and produced by Trijico n, are some of the most robust rifle optic s on the market. Built to mirror the legendary durability of the ACOG while offering the superior optical versatility of an LPVO, the VCOG cemented a continued legacy for Trijicon when the Marine Corp s picked the 1-8x MRAD variant to start replacing their aging RCO ACOGs, equipping the ground combat forces first and foremost.

“Heavy is good. Heavy is reliable.”

This quote from Guy Ritchie’s ‘Snatch’ accurately sums up both the H&K M27 and the VCOGs that now top them. They aren’t light weapon systems. While they are also a far cry from something like a Browning BAR (just shy of 20lbs), or a M249 Para SAW (just under 16lbs), there is a whole list of lighter rifles than the M27 HK416 variant and the VCOG+PEQ15 optic suite.

Coming in at about 13.5 lbs loaded, it isn’t light, but it isn’t absurdly heavy, either. It weighs what it needs to weigh to do what it needs to do with the components as designed. There are plenty of ways to shave weight in future PIPs on the system, too.

The VCOG in isolation is the same way, and you avoid getting any measurement gimmicks where a company is gleefully bragging about the optic’s weight without any mount. For a good comparison, a Vortex Razor III in an AUS mount from Reptilia (a very viable military-grade optic setup) comes in only 5 oz lighter. Those 5 oz are well used in the VCOG.

Forged

One of the greatest ‘weaknesses’ of the variable optics selection is the number of parts involved in making them. Each moving part and mechanism adds a location where things can go wrong, like on the exterior, where water and debris could enter the scope. Those same points of interaction also represent the spots where parts are most likely to fail or take damage. They are the most sensitive to impacts and ingress.

Trijicon forges the body and base of the VCOG SC O from 7075-T6 and machines out the precise interactive surfaces from there. This is combined with their assembly methods and attention to detail to produce a variable optic with the ACOGs level of durability. That is a tall order, some might say a Herculean task.

The additional complexity necessary in variable optics to support the difference in illumination and the erector usually means that variable optics are more delicate by necessity. The more complex the device, the more difficult maintaining the durability becomes.

As the illustrative example, standards for immersion and water resistance are lower on the military variable optics than on their ACOG, Aimpoint, and EOTech optical peers. This is because those three optics are simpler to build, have fewer moving parts, and can be better proofed and armored against the environment, thanks to that simplicity.

Trijicon looked at the impossible and said, “Eh, let’s try it anyway.”

Try it, the company did. Succeeded, too—at least more so than its peers. Most military variable optics are rated for surface-level water emersion. For example, they can get wet, rain won’t harm them as long as the caps are all on snug, getting dunked in the water crossing a river won’t fry them if the caps are snug, etc. However, the VOCG can go 20 meters down—66ft.

Now, to be fair, the ACOG can go 100 meters (328ft). But given that most other ‘military grade’ variable optics are rated for 1 meter of immersion for 30 minutes (IPX7), with a few IPX8 ratings for specific greater depths and times, the VCOG stands alone for the moment.

Nothing about the VCOG is fragile. It maintains the overbuilt, nigh indestructibility, of its ACOG predecessor in an era when users were largely ready to conclude that we had to give that up.

My time with VCOGs

When Trijicon originally produced the VCOG line, I was intrigued. I hadn’t yet jumped down the LPVO rabbit hole the way I have now, where they are my go-to optic. But my use of the ACOG made me naturally inclined to like it.

I was…underwhelmed…by my first use of them. The 1-6 “Donut of Death” reticles that mimicked the TA11s we’d been using on the M249s were…off. The reticle design didn’t translate well to a front focal plane variable scope, and it suffered from the illumination limitations common to that focal plane, at least at the time. It was (and is) expensive, with its main trick being durability far beyond what I needed in an optic.

As such, I did myself a disservice and didn’t look at the MOA or MRAD reticles. That was my mistake. Where the horseshoe BDC “Donut” reticle was not well suited to FFP variable applications—being very thick to be useful at 1x, it obscures the target quite a bit—the MIL and MOA reticles handle the challenge of scaling superbly.

MRAD Reticle

The MRAD reticle design was much friendlier when it came to the considerations of target obstruction and useability with the illumination on or off. The USMC also got wise to training their shooters smarter, even though it is a little harder, and using the milliradians in place of a Bullet Drop Compensator (BDC).

The MRAD reticle in the VCOG SCO can go on any rifle, any caliber, and all the shooter needs to do is relearn/verify the holds. Print them out and stick them in their scope cover or shoot them on the range and live verify.

My suggestion is to learn them, shoot them live—even if you use an app to guess the initial ones—and verify the raw data. Even in military applications where ammunition is pretty well controlled, live data is best.

Live Data – Play in the Mud

I don’t do field exercises anymore, but I do teach and attend classes and shoot the odd competition here and there. G reen Ops LPVO, reviewed nicely here by Paul in West Virginia, sounded splendid.

…at the end of March…

…with a bunch of wind, freezing rain, and mud…

Did I mention I don’t do field exercises anymore? I thought I did, but the spicy nostalgia is acting up for some reason…

Seriously though, courses and competitions are good places to verify gear. Pick one suited to the gear you are testing, and go shoot a few hundred rounds. I headed to the range with two carbines and two military optics, the SIG S-VPS and Trijcon SCO.

Taking on an LPVO Course

LPVO courses aren’t about the carbines. They are about optics. LPVO optics are more complex, as has been stated, and unlike a dot or a fixed prism with a BDC, they require about as much learning time as the rifle they are on. It is a near equally complex part of the rifle system to learn and manage. Taking the proper time to do that leaves you with a rifle/optic combination that can likely shoot further, quicker, and with a far greater hit probability than you are used to.

LPVOs are about information. They inform the user with a better sight picture and the increased ability to select their holds more accurately and observe their influence on the target. At the same time, we must avoid thinking of them as “precision” rifle scopes. Their role is still that of the red dot and the prism, to get a fast and effective sight picture and begin making hits in as short a window as possible.

The VCOG SCO handled this hybrid of purposes superbly.

VCOG SCO on the IWI Carmel, Peacemaker WV Green Ops LPVO

Additional Understandings

Let me take a detour to talk about controls for a minute. A user must understand the control scheme of their rifle in order to run it efficiently, which extends to the LPVO. Adjustments, Illumination, Magnification, and Reticle are your core points on the LPVO, just as Charging Controls, Magazine Controls, Safety Manipulation, and Trigger Manipulation are on the carbine.

Control the machine, get it to do what you need it to, and read the information it is telling you—optic and rifle. The complexity is again in that the optic now does a lot more, it isn’t essentially fixed like red dots or prisms are.

At the Green Ops class, we started this data gathering and understanding prone and at known distances. The target array in the picture above goes from 120 to 470 yards and with a variety of shapes and sizes. Odd target shape is a good approximation of an obscured target by cover or terrain. We used magnification, holds for distance and wind, and found out what our ammunition, rifles, and trigger fingers could do. Even the little 11.5″ MCX with the S-VPS hit 470 with 55gr without trying too hard.

These optics do magnify capability (see what I did there?), but the shooter needs to understand the complexity of the more complicated pair.

Live and Off-Hand

Once you have data, you get out of the prone.

We hit a different range, ran around, and shot off-hand at targets from 115 to 400 yards. The goal was to reinforce that these optics are ‘fighting’ scopes. They enhance what the rifle could do with a red dot or prism. They don’t turn it into a precision rifle. Get on the rifle and send the shot, correct if you miss and send it again.

VCOG SCO – Recommended, not ‘Needed’

Do you need a Trijicon VCOG? No.

Do I recommend it? Yes. After shooting with it, I am keeping it, and it is only the second LPVO I am likely to purchase more than one of if I need an optic. The first is the Razor III.

The VCOG SCO is meant to be a mobile optic, and it accomplishes this purpose to great effect. Yes, even though it is heavy. The large control surface of the magnification dial allows for needed magnification changes without the probability of moving it inadvertently.

The reticle doesn’t interfere with the sight picture, with the segmented ring aligning close quick shots and the MRAD crosshair giving precise, quick holds. The glass provides the crisp, rich sight picture needed to find and fire on the target.

The Larue mount and power source AA keep the VCOG SCO a field manageable item. There is no requirement for an armorer’s bench, levels, or a torque wrench. It is an entirely by hand manageable optic. This toolless/tool-limited design philosophy pushes the VCOG SCO to the forefront of my recommendations for when you have field-specific requirements.

The Razor III remains my favorite LPVO. However, the VCOG SCO is now my ‘recommended’ LPVO. When I recommend something, I attempt to blend all the factors of efficacy, simplicity, and reliability into a weighted preference.

Final Thoughts

The two factors that may disqualify it from consideration for any given individual or group are going to remain cost and weight. But if I was handed the requirement of ‘LPVO: Simple, Durable, ‘ the VCOG SCO would be the selection. The extra weight removes a tremendous amount of ‘armorer level’ requirements for mounting, leveling, and maintaining the optic. Likewise, it is well suited for unforgiving work environments. Those are too often overlooked features when it comes to optic selection, especially at an agency or unit level.

In a future generation of the sight, I would like to see if Trijicon can save weight and open up space by shortening it. An optic with the length of the NX8 or PLXc and the VCOGs layout, intuitive simplicity, and durable construction would be an excellent place to further the line.

Power Station and Electric Pot for Emergencies

By

Dr LateBloomer

-

April 19, 2024

As you have heard from me before, when preparing for grid-down emergencies, having back-ups to your back-ups is essential for dealing with the unexpected. One thing many people don’t think about is—what if I am stuck in an enclosed space and cannot safely use any of the combustion cooking methods that I had planned for? The solution for that type of problem is having a charged-up portable electric power station and low-wattage hot pot on hand.

Preparing for Emergencies with a Power Station and Electric Pot

These “power stations”—rechargeable super-batteries, really—used to be prohibitively expensive. But with advancing technology, there are more choices than ever that won’t break the budget of a careful saver. It used to be that you would expect to pay about a dollar per watt-hour. This means a 500-watt unit would cost you around $500. But prices are coming down with new brands and higher wattages coming on the market.

My particular model is a Jackery 1000 from a few years ago. However, there are many other companies now with faster charging options and lower prices.

The other technological advances that work hand-in-glove with this are electric appliances with lower-wattage options marketed specifically for camping/RV-ing. Most common household appliances have a much higher power draw than you can get from a budget power station. So, the niche for lower-wattage options is there and being filled.

Electric Pot Options

If you have all day to heat/cook your meal, there are slow cooker “oven” options like RoadPr o and HotLogi c. They used to be mostly for truckers to use in the cigarette outlet of their vehicles. But there is a 12 volt outlet on most power stations, so the wider public is using them now as well.

However, if you need your food or water boiling within a few minutes there are low-wattage electric hotpots all over the internet now. Mine is a 2-quart Dezi n, which I got from Amazon a couple of months ago. It has a low setting at 300 watts and a high setting at 600 watts, both of which are in the range for my 1000-watt power station. My model also came with a handy steamer basket.

I tested this combo in my kitchen a month ago. To bring 2 quarts of water to a full rolling boil on the “high” setting took 18 minutes. I didn’t think that was bad at all.

Now that I’ve given the background allow me to share my story of how this equipment saved me from wet misery on a recent weekend excursion.

The Story

Some of you may know that I am a histor y nerd, particularly about the 18th century. However, I have never had the time to do costuming, reenacting, or anything of that sort, before my retirement last year. Thus, after hand-sewing linen and wool all winter, I attended my first event last weekend. Since the event was close to home, I did not “encamp” as I didn’t have the proper equipment.

Nonetheless, attendees were asked to bring a period-appropriate covered dish to the “fort feast” on the first evening. No problem I thought, I’ll bring green beans and potatoes (from my dehydrated stash), prep ahead, refrigerate, and just reheat in cast iron over someone’s cook fire on the day.

Yeah, about that. Did I mention that there was periodic torrential rain, tornado watches, and a small stream flooding the first night and day? Weather like that is kind of hard on 18th-century campfires—and the cooks. There were hearths going inside the log buildings, but space and coals at those were at a premium, considering we were feeding over 100 people. So what did I do?

I hid in my car and used 21st-century technology!

I stayed warm and dry in my car by using technology!

First, I boiled 2 quarts of water to dump into the lidded cast iron to heat it up. Similar to how the English pre-heated the teapot. Then, I boiled the refrigerated pre-cooked beans and taters in two runs (I had four quarts and only a 2-quart pot), dumped the water out of the hot Dutch oven, and filled it with veggies. I then, oh so innocently, sauntered from the parking lot to the fort in the drizzle with my kettle of hot veggies.

The “Fort Feast”, which I ate out of a wooden bowl.

Final Thoughts

I know that in the interest of “living history,” I should have just suffered, but heck with that when I had another option. And that is exactly the point. This setup gives you options when fire, from whatever source, is not possible or safe. This works during a power outage at home, as well as during a downpour when camping with the kids.

I ran this 2-quart pot three times to get what I needed and still only used 35% of my available charge. If you were careful, you could probably feed your family for a couple of days on a single 1000-watt charge. Then, recharge the power station when the sun comes back out or while driving your car. This would work well for a car bug-out too as it wouldn’t produce any smoke.

The power station and hotpot option is undoubtedly the most expensive choice when planning for emergencies. But if you are an apartment dweller with an electric stove, other than a candle stove, it may be one of your only options for a grid-down emergency.

As for my experience, I have zero guilt. My daughter put it best, “Mom, if 18th-century people had that technology, they would totally have used it too!”

The Original Beretta APX Carry

By

P.E. Fitch

-

April 19, 2024

The first generation Beretta APX Carry is a single-stack striker-fired polymer-framed ultra-compact pistol chambered for 9mm Luger with a three-inch barrel. It uses the same (scaled down) action and design cues as its bigger counterpart, the first-generatio n duty-sized 9mm Luger Beretta APX.

Like its bigger brother, the Beretta APX Carry also has those unique evenly-spaced protruding ribs throughout its slide. This slide serration arrangement is perhaps this handgun’s most distinctive feature—physically and visually. Although they worked quite well, these ribs were phased out for the second-generation of the APX family. In addition to being the dedicated go-to ultra-compact option inside the APX family, the original Beretta APX Carry is also the older Beretta Nano’s successor.

These days, the original APX Carry has been supplanted by the APX A1 Carry, but both are fundamentally similar. However, there are some tweaks and cosmetic differences between the two, namely the omission of the “original” slide ribs and the addition of an optics-ready slide. The trigger on the A1 Carry is also said to have a shorter and lighter length of pull. To be clear, this write-up is about the original APX Carry.

As a writer, I cover all manner of handguns that sell across different price points. I can’t help but notice that APX pistols appear to be some of the most competitively priced striker options currently available in the US Market. Especially considering that Beretta is a m ajor and storied gun manufacturer.

I originally came across the APX Carry by chance after a close family member impulse-bought one for approximately $350 retail in early 2021. I never paid it too much mind, but after plinking with it this morning, I took a more critical look at it.

Beretta APX Carry First Impressions

I don’t hide the fact that I’m not necessarily the biggest fa n of “slimline” handguns in general, but they’re present in the environment and are worth discussin g. Despite their shortcomings, their form factors and ease of carry are undeniable. Overall, the Beretta APX Carry is a decent pistol with a great fit and finish. For its price point, it doesn’t feel cheap either.

Though this particular specimen doesn’t get shot extensively, it has been nothing but reliable since it entered the family. It has cycled a myriad of factory 115-grain and 124-grain loads, including CCI, Winchester, and Fiocchi. Moreover, the gun hasn’t had any issue cycling my subsonic 147-grain handloads consisting of a 147-gr plated Xtreme bullet over 3.3 grains of HP-38. I estimate its lifetime round count to be conservatively around 300 rounds.

The original Beretta APX Carry “feels” as if it should have a higher capacity for its size since other slim 9mm carry guns like the Sig Sauer P365 series or even the Taurus GX4 series have really upped the ante on “clown-car” pistol capacity. In fairness, those models use a staggered column magazine while the APX Carry feeds off a true single-stack magazine.

I find that the APX Carry most resembles the original Smith & Wesson M&P Shield due to its similar height, length, width, dimensions, and round capacity. The Walther PPS M2 is also reminiscent, as this Walther handgun feeds off a single-stack magazine and is only slightly bigger than the APX Carry.

Beretta APX Carry Features

Beretta APX Carry Front Sight — Close-up showing the front sight and how it fits over the slide.

The Beretta APX Carry takes its style cues from the original standard Beretta APX duty pistol. It has the same grip angle and texturing style, not to mention the signature ribbed slide. However, its grip is quite thin and doesn’t accept interchangeable backstraps.

Like the rest of the APX family, this ultra-compact pistol uses a modular chassis similar to the Sig-Sauer P250 and P320. The encased trigger group also bears the gun’s serial number, which allows users to easily drop the unit into a frame of a different color or style to mix and match.

Beretta did a good job, including an iron-sight set consisting of a plain-and-serrated rear sight with a standard white dot up front. For a no-frills set, this combination is very hard to argue against. The only peculiarity about the front sight is that it doesn’t utilize a traditional dovetail. It has a narrow channel that lets the sight blade slide in or out from the muzzle side of the slide and is held in place by a set screw.

I wish I had the requisite trigger time with it to disclose whether this alternative sight channel is as secure as the standard horizontal dovetails found on most pistols.

Recoil Mitigation

The Beretta APX Carry weighs approximately 20 ounces, which is in line with steel-framed snub revolvers and other semi-autos in this category. Its slide seems top-heavy, and my hunch is that this gun was probably designed with a heavier slide to help dampen the harsh recoil from the combination of a three-inch barrel and the 9mm cartridge, as these types of guns don’t have the smoothest recoil impulses. Subjectively, the APX Carry does feel a little less harsh during recoil, and I’m curious as to whether that’s a result of a beefier slide.

Beretta APX Carry Magazines

Two single-stack 9mm magazines are included with the gun—an 8-round unit with a chunky extended base pad and a 6-round unit with a more compact base pad. The former’s base pad actually makes for a very comfortable firing grip and allows me to fit all three firing-hand fingers on the front strap with no issues. However, the base pad on the 6-round magazine is a little less roomy but still provides a welcome ledge for the pinky finger nonetheless.

Interestingly, the total length of the front strap with the 8-round magazine and its base pad end up being equivalent to the front straps of some compact or even full-size pistols. Personally, the last three fingers of my hand sit exactly as they do on a Beretta 92 front strap.

Part 2 (coming soon) of this write-up covers my thoughts on the Beretta APX Carry’s trigger and my remarks after shooting it.

Why the STEN Gun

By

Travis Pike

-

April 18, 2024

There are two things in this world made from a series of tubes: the internet and the Sten gun. Almost everything about the Sten gun is tubular. The barrel, obviously, but also the receiver and the majority of the stock. It’s the definition of a tube gun, aka the toob. The Sten is the British forces’ iconic World War I I submachine gun.

Sten should actually be spelled STEN because it’s an acronym. The S and T stand for Reginald Shepherd and Harold Turpin, the gun’s creators. What does the EN stand for? Well, that’s up in the air. Some claim it’s Enfield, but Enfield didn’t develop the gun. Other sources claim the EN stands for England, which might be the more credible entry into the argument.

Shepherd and Turpin designed the Sten to fill an immediate need of British military forces. The British Expeditionary Force in France was desperate for submachine guns, but the British had none to send. They scrambled to fill an easily predictable gap in their armaments. After World War I, it became clear that the submachine gun would be the cool new kid on the block.

The Birth of the Sten

Everyone adopted an SMG. Americans had the Thompso n, Germans had the MP-40, Russians had various PPSH guns, and the list goes on. That is until we hit the British, who declined to seriously develop a submachine gun in a post-World War I world. Out of desperation, they bought Thompsons, but they really needed a weapon they could produce quickly and cheaply. After the disaster at Dunkirk, the need grew even more.

The design started with a simple sketch for a simplified trigger design. From that sketch, the Sten gun was born. They designed this gun to be so ludicrously simple that the receiver of the tool room sample was made from the leg of a Vickers machine gun tripod. This tool room sample fired 100 rounds during a demonstration. Prototypes came and went, and the design proved viable.

Oh Hi Mk

This officially became the Sten Mk1, and shortly after improvements, it was turned into the Sten Mk1*. The Mk1 wouldn’t serve for long, but it set the standard for Sten guns. While the Sten is as British as Earl Grey tea, the Germans had a little influence on the design. The Sten gun took design cues from the British Lancaster SMG, which took cues from the German MP28. This is why the magazines are horizontal rather than vertical. Admittedly the Sten gun was slightly behind the times, but damn did it work!

Since the Brits were doing this on the cheap, the guns were fairly crude. They used stamped metal and very minor welding, which required little machining. Tiny machine shops could produce parts, and assembly was done at Enfield. Singer, as in Singer Sewing Machines, snatched the first contract for the Mk1. Over 300,000 Mk1 Stens were produced before they were designated as too complicated. The MK2 simplified the design further and made a few changes to make the guns easier to use for paratroopers.

The Mk2 ended up being the most widely produced Sten gun. While the Mk2 made some changes, it was still a Sten gun at its core. The Mk2(S) even added an integral suppressor in ‘43. Which leads us to the question, what is a Sten gun?

What is a Sten Gun?

The Brits made the Sten gun as simple as it could be. It’s an open-bolt, straight blowback-operated submachine gun with a fixed firing pin. The trigger only has one goal, which is to release the bolt. When the bolt’s released, it flies forward and fires the gun, and the gun continues to fire until the trigger is released or the gun runs out of ammo.

We don’t get a real safety on the gun. The most you get is a slot that the bolt slides into and locks. Surprisingly, the Sten had a fire selector. The Tommy wielding the gun, pressed a selector right or left to turn the gun from safe to semi-auto.

God forbid you jar the gun too hard. During the Sten gun’s service, there were numerous accidental discharges, some of which resulted in casualties. If the bolt was locked to the rear and the stock hit a surface a little too hard, the bolt could fly forward and discharge the gun.

In terms of reliability, the gun has a hit-or-miss reputation. These guns were made quickly and cheaply. They were damn near disposable. If one broke, you tossed it into a pile and grabbed another. Over their years of production, small changes were made to increase reliability and production. By 1942, Sten guns were generally considered reliable weapons.

The World of the Sten Gun

The Sten Mk2 hit the sweet spot for the Sten gun. While it was an acceptable design, there were numerous small improvements, and a variety of generations came beyond the Mk2.

The Mk3 was the second most produced Sten gun. It offered 21 fewer parts than the Mk 2. The gun was lighter, but the magwell and barrel couldn’t be removed, which made fixing the guns impossible in some cases. The Mk3 turned out to be less reliable, and they were discontinued in 1943.

The Mk4 was only ever a prototype and was aimed at bringing an integrally suppressed Sten to bear. It also featured an odd collapsing stock to make it a bit shorter. The Mk4 never advanced beyond a few prototypes.

The Mk5 provided users with a bayonet mount and a wood pistol grip and stock. This was one of the highest-quality Sten guns. There was an experimental series of Mk5 Stens with a swivel stock and periscope-style sights to shoot around corners.

Finally, we had a Mk6 which was a suppressed model of the Mk5.

After World War II

The Sten stuck around for quite some time after World War II. It served with the Brits until the 1960s, and various copies were made around the world. The simplicity of the gun made it an easy choice for military forces from Argentina to Israel. To this day, the Sten is likely off somewhere is some warzone, still showing why tube guns just work.

Musings On The Perfect Mini Shell

By

Travis Pike

-

April 18, 2024

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-defens e. 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 KelTe c shotguns and even Wincheste r shotguns, but that’s not my experience.

The adapters produced so far have been limited to Mossberg series shotgun s 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.

Was the Post ’64 Winchester Model 70 That Bad?

By

Travis Pike

-

April 17, 2024

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 Wincheste r 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.

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.

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 Mause r 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.

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.

The Cook Automatic Rifle – The Bullpup BAR

By

Travis Pike

-

April 17, 2024

In a post-World War I I 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 bullpu p 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.

The Mitznefet – The Israeli Chef’s Hat

By

Travis Pike

-

April 16, 2024

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 camouflag e 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.

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.

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.

The M27, the Marine Corps, and the Future

By

Travis Pike

-

April 16, 2024

When I was a young whipper snapper in the Marine Corp s, 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 r ifle 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 RM R 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.

The Mannlicher M1901 – An Elegant Option

By

Travis Pike

-

April 15, 2024

legacy collectibles mannlicher — Legacy Collectibles

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 Armor y 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 Stey r 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.

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.

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.