Henry and Josh at 9-Hole walk us through stretching a 12.4″ barreled 5.45×39 AK without a floated barrel through the practical accuracy course. They cleaned it to 500 yards nailed and a third round impact at 650. Optic suite is an EOTech with a magnifier. As someone who just found an elusive 13″ 5.45 and ordered it, so I can have my ‘AK-12 at home’ properly, this showing of potential made me quite happy.
What range would you consider effective on an 11-13 inch rifle? Especially running a reflex style optic?
Largely from third hand anecdotal experience and the limits of our own applied knowledge and skills we tend to under estimate how well a rifle can do. We assign values we think are correct, based upon things we think we know, because we think they are reliably sourced. Then someone real worlds our thinking with some well sourced and found hard data and thinking needs to change.
The Mythical ‘300’ Limit
The 300 yard/meter ‘rule’ is no such rule. It is an analytical average that has been simplified from a number of sources into sadly oversimplified fuddlore. It started with the Allies examinations of combat distances after the 2nd World War and was further bolstered from data and choices in the conflicts since then. Vietnam, the Gulf War, GWOT, and plenty of non-US involved conflicts have continued to bolster ‘300’ as the number. But it is the number in the hands of most average users and that average is weighted, more mode than mean, by being the most common range we see as the limit.
In short, shooters (not rifles) are usually only effective out to 300 yards/meters. The human factor tends to be the most limiting factor. Within that human factor must be factored the proficiency of the people, much of our data on a lot of different firearms comes from observing very poorly trained users of the firearms. Again mode, not median. What is the most common limit?
Then ask what are the proficient limits?
The AK may be so easy a conscript (or child) can “use it” in the sense of making it function in vaguely the correct direction. Proficient use, operation in the hands of someone who knows the idiosyncrasies of the machine is different. Knowing not to put pressure on the handguard because it will flex the barrel in the case of the 105 here or conventional M4 or M16 rifles shows through with an entirely different envelope of efficacy. Bracketing all users and then bracketing just proficient users will yield two very different sets of data. The effective range and control efficiency, probably your two most important factors, will tally out very differently between these two groups of users.
Unfortunately trying to bracket ‘proficient’ users as a benchmark is incredibly difficult, especially when you have groups that are titled ‘qualified’ but are not proficient. That problem is rampant within the armed forces and police forces of the US, a simplistic ‘qualification’ standard that a candidate is allowed to keep swinging at until they hit the minimum score once for a one year period. That is not proficiency, it is indemnification against liability.
Not all hope is lost. The new military qualifications and manuals on individual weapons handling are quality material written and vetted by proficient users. They can assist in making you a proficient user too. The same is true of the more challenging police qualifications. They hold you to a standard that is actually high enough to make a difference.
In looking at defensive qualifications you have to look at the factors that go into combat shooting. Not just hitting a target, even the right sized targets, but doing so to a reactive time standard for the distance is important. On demand performance. Almost more important (not quite, but almost) is the ability to fix your gun if it goes down. This includes reloads, soft stoppages, and hard stoppages. A qualification should, ideally, test all of these to a reasonable standard and with a high enough round count to produce data without being overly fatiguing or absurd. Rounds cost money though, and organizations count money more than the intangibles of structured learning that only show through in really bad circumstances. Shooting proficiency is extremely, vitally, life and death important, but it is also “rarely” important so it takes a lower seat with bean counters. This is more true if bean counters who have never been on the sharp end are left in charge, there is never a way that ammo looks like an in the black/green expenditure on a spread sheet.
Instructors will care that you are proficient, the accountant will only care that you are ‘qualified’.
In conclusion,
The rifle will do what you ask it to and you can probably ask more than you think.
Over the past weekend, I have had the opportunity to get to know the Mitchell Defense “Rat Dog” PCC. There are a lot of interesting features to this SBR and I got a chance to take a deeper dive into it.
Before we get to the gun, let’s first take a look at Mitchell Defense as a company. Mitchell Defense was founded in 2019 after Nathan Mitchell, a former Corpsman in the U.S. Navy, noticed there was an area of the market that was left underserved. That is where he began working towards the company’s three pillars. Accuracy, Durability, and Reliability. That is exactly what they have achieved.
The Rat Dog is an interesting PCC as it gives you the feel of a regular AR SBR but all the fun of shooting a 9mm round through it. The gun itself is relatively light, coming in at 5.8 pounds; this beats its Sig counterpart the MPX, which comes in at 6.1 pounds. Going by the rule of thumb that the lighter the gun the higher the barrel lift on recoil, the Rat Dog makes an exception to this rule. The recoil is consistent allowing for more lead and tighter groupings thrown down range faster.
One of the exemplary out of the box aspects of the Rat Dog is the Timney AR PCC Two Stage Trigger . I was skeptical of the trigger at first glance as I was expecting just a stock MIL-spec trigger, and triggers for 5.56 AR rifles don’t always mesh with a PCC. Much to my surprise the Timney AR PCC Two Stage Trigger was smoother than a hot knife through butter allowing for a consistent straight pull each time. The Timney Trigger is smoother than most stock AR-15s I have shot which goes against the stigma that PCC needs a lot of work right out of the box.
I was able to test out the Rat Dog’s durability in wet and sandy conditions. Out of 200 rounds, there were zero jams and only one dud round, but the ammo is to blame for that. The Rat Dog seemed to have no issues in the cold rain and cycled just as smoothly as if it had been shooting in warm and dry conditions. The real test of the Rat Dog was after it was dropped in the wet sand. The PCC held up extremely well as the sand did not cause any problems for the next 100 rounds. The best part was once I returned home to clean the gun there was a lack of gunk and sand built up inside, meaning the tight fitment of the gun as a whole held up and did its job. Dirt stayed out.
Speaking of doing its job the barrel of the Rat Dog comes in at an 8.3-inch barrel made out of 4150 Chrome moly vanadium steel with a 1:10 twist. The barrel did its thing in the cold conditions while passing a few hundred rounds through it. There seemed to be no change as the barrel heated up in the grouping from 50 yards out, something that could be even more noticeable in the cold. The barrel also comes suppressor ready for those who enjoy that option, 1/2×28 or tri-lug.
Let’s talk about the practical application of the Rat Dog PCC. The Rat Dog offers increased range out of a 9mm round due to its longer barrel and increasing the stability of being able to shoot with both hands and a shoulder as compared to a conventional pistol in the same caliber. In terms of training in a controlled range or shoothouse, the Rat Dog excels in this category. It takes standard Glock pattern magazines, allowing versatility for the user with round counts. Being 9mm it can be shot in more places and spaces safely than a 5.56x45mm carbine. The light weight and length of the Rat Dog also make it the perfect indoor PCC, it allows for quick off-hand switches and moves well in narrow spaces. The Rat Dog also makes a fun gun to shoot outdoors as it can hold a plenty of accuracy, grouping nicely at 50 yards even after a few mag fulls. I would give the Rat Dog a 9.0 out of 10, overall all versatility, ease of use, and plenty of fun practicality mixed in. The only minor complaint is the design doesn’t allow for an easy last round bolt lock, only a manual one, so it reloads more like an MP5 than an AR.
The last question of Mitchell Defense’s final quality control check before leaving the factory is “Would I trust this rifle with my life?” They clearly answered yes, I agree.
I blame Caleb Giddings and Taurus. The Judge Home Defender broke my dislike of .410 revolvers. Extending the barrel to 13 inches gave it more of a .410 advantage. The design of the Home Defender welcomes accessories, and I began to think about how I would outfit it for a home defense situation. Adding a light and red dot was obvious, and I even added a side saddle because it is kind of a shotgun. It’s also a revolver, and that’s where I ran into the Maxfire Speed Loader.
The Maxfire Speed Loaders aren’t your traditional speed loader. They don’t have a mechanical function like the HKS or Safariland-style speed loaders. Instead, they utilize a soft polymer material that’s similar to a speed strip. The Judge frame doesn’t really support the use of speed loaders. The Judge is a big gun that’s built on a compact frame.
You might not know this, but the Judge is built on a compact frame that was used for the Taurus 450, a compact, five-shot .45 Colt revolver. Taurus built .44 Special, .45 Colt, and even a.41 Magnum snub nose on this same frame. The compact frame means the cylinder sits too close to the frame to load the revolver with a speed loader.
The Maxfire Difference
The Maxfire Speedloader is built for the Judge and addresses the issues with the compact frame of the Judge. This speed loader is shaped to be thinner at the side that faces the frame. Unlike other speed loaders, this specific Maxfire speed loader has to be oriented in a very specific way to load the revolver properly. The rounds sit at slightly different heights, and the tallest rounds go in part of the cylinder that is furthest from the frame of the revolver.
The Maxfire speed loader holds the rounds by the rim with a slight protrusion, much like a speed strip. These protrusions hold the rounds but allow them to peel away from the speed loader when pressure is applied. It’s very simple, and while it’s not fancy like a Safariland or HKS, it works wonderfully with a gun like the Judge, where a speed loader simply doesn’t work.
Loading the Judge
The Juge famously fires both .45 Colt and .410, but Maxfire advises you to only use these loaders with .45 Colt. I practiced with both .45 Colt and .410 shotshells, and I could see why Maxfire advises you to use only .45 Colt. With that said, it’s not hard to use the .410 shells with the speed loader. They fit into the loader without a problem, but getting the shells off the loader and into the cylinder is a little tricky.
The shells break away from the speed loader fine, but they don’t drop into the cylinder easily. Polymer .410 shells don’t slide smoothly into the cylinder like the brass cases of .45 Colt shells. After using the loader, you may have to press an individual shell or two into the cylinder. The differences in each shell make some fit tighter and some fit looser.
With the .45 Colt rounds, this isn’t an issue. Gravity pulls the hefty .45 Colt rounds into the cylinders without a problem. With practice, you can really quickly load the cylinder with five .45 Colt rounds.
Using the Maxfire
This speed loader uses an index ring to allow you to hold the device with an index finger. In fact, you can hold the loader while gripping the gun. If you load the cylinder, you don’t have to drop the Maxfire to get back to shooting. With the rounds properly oriented, you slide the rounds into the cylinder and then pull the Maxfire sideways. You aren’t peeling the rounds out like a speed strip, and you aren’t pulling it up or down.
Just pull it sideways, and it releases the rounds into the chamber. If you attempt to peel the Maxfire away, the rounds tend to pop out of the cylinder, leaving you short a round. Pull away from the gun to the side, and it works without a problem. I will admit it’s not as fast as a dedicated speed loader.
It’s faster than a speed strip, and as far as I can tell, it’s the only speed loader made for the Judge that works. You can use .410 if you aren’t in a hurry, but it works best with .45 Colt. Best yet, it costs a mere 15 bucks or so and you get two per package. Leaving one loaded with .45 Colt and one with .410 might be the way to go with the Taurus Home Defender.
Maxfire makes a ton of speed loaders for a variety of revolvers. This includes J-frames, which are notoriously tough to load with a speed loader. Check them out here.
In this episode, the boys provide a handy resource for gun people to give to non-gun people so that those non-gun people can get cool gifts for the gun people.
While the AR-10 and AR-15 constitute the most recognizable pattern of the ArmaLites, the old Irish tune actually mostly refers to the later 18 and 180 models. I find this particularly entertaining, as a man of Irish heritage, because ultimately that is the design that has won the world over.
Nearly every modern service rifle of the western militaries is an AR-18 variant if it isn’t an AR-15 variant. Sometimes its a compatible hybrid of the two, like the MCX SPEAR LT and BRN-180. Speaking of the BRN and others, that 180 market dominance gets even more pronounced when we look at rifles that are largely commercial offerings.
9-Hole shows that as basic as this latter 20th century 5.56 rifle is, it was a stand up carbine of the era and very much the progenitor of the modern rifle design.
The L403A1, along with the NGSW's XM7, are continuing a trend.
Our rifles have gotten shorter. For a minute there they went a bit too short in certain calibers (7.5″ 5.56 is wild, ladies and gents), but nowadays a 16″ barreled 5.56x45mm NATO rifle is… long.
Sixteen inches of rifled barrel is RECCE, DMR, “Precision” even if the barrel can hold up to the name, and our general use carbines have shortened. We’ve even found ways to keep these shorter and shorter guns Title I under the NFA with creative muzzling for we in the normal purchasing pool.
Why?
Doors.
That is a gross oversimplification, but an accurate one.
Doors, meaning urban, suburban, and rural dwelling spaces, are an unavoidable consideration when it comes to setting up a modern fighting carbine. Even in uniformed conventional conflict, you will go into tight spaces eventually. As much as feasible, your rifle shouldn’t get in your way.
That brings us back to doors. The modern doorway is 36″ wide, give or take. That is the US Standard. That’s pretty close to universal because adult sized people don’t vary too much dimensionally, we have very well defined averages and standards for living and transit spaces.
It is no coincidence that the XM7 is 36″ with it suppressor. The L403A1 is a similar length with its 13.7″ barrel and compact suppressor attached. The MK18 and CQBR line of carbines ran a 6.5″ NT4 suppressor and were, you guessed it, about 36″ long with that on. Most modern infantry carbines across modern militaries are averaging around this length, often either with or without a suppressor being the closest to 36″ based upon whether the rifle is envisioned to run with or without the suppressor for ‘normal’ operation.
See the M4A1, M27, HK417F/A7/A8, C8A3, SCAR-L MK2, XM7, MK17, and so forth.
But my muzzle velocity?
We’ve been tuning our ammo for the shorter barrels too, while doing it no harm in the longer guns (mostly… looking at you M855A1), all-in-all we’re nicely adapting to the reality that size matters. It matters because we humans take up and live within a recognizable space. Just like the width of modern train tracks was determined by cart wheels and a pair of horses long long ago, the width of a door accommodates our convenience because we have an adult size range that is only rarely inappropriate. Sizing our equipment to work within these common narrow points in our environments is logical. There is too big, there is too small, and we’re finding that keeping our carbines 26-36 inches in overall length is just right.
The IDF has been doing this since the TAVOR SAR introduction at the turn of the century and US users have modified our bullpups to accommodate suppressors in many cases without exceeding that 36 mark. European militaries envisioned APC and mechanized heavy combat in urban spaces and bullpups were often adopted (FAMAS, L85, AUG) to accommodate. As AR-15’s and conventional rifle peers have shortened, the need for a bullpup to fit these spaces has been shelved partially or totally by many of these militaries. Not all, the bullpup still has strong characteristics and I doubt we ever see its retirement. There are several strong modern iterations and I would bet the 2020’s will see one or two more.
All things balanced as we learn and grow
You can track the ‘Goldilocks’ barrel length range of the year on modern guns through the real world trial and error of operational forces. Kevin Owens, if I recall correctly, has an anecdote about firing his MK18 in lowlight or dark conditions but missing its suppressor and having a hail of angry bees (bullets) sent his way in return. Muzzle signature lesson of the real world at war.
Short AR’s aren’t new, Colt introduced them very early. But the thinking, implementation, and augmentation of them has modernized with the advances in quality optics and suppressors. That paired with the real world realized advantages has shifted modern though processes when it comes to equipping someone for a modern fight.
We’ve learned things about what we can do with ammunition to balance its performance and still hit certain must have minimums. We’ve found these shorter rifles can still reach out when they have to, especially with optics, and that our modern optical suites allow someone with a general purpose carbine to effectively cover that 300 meter ‘most combat occurs’ envelope more efficiently than ever without having a cumbersomely long weapon. The XM7 is looking to stretch that envelope to 1,000 meters, mechanically at least.
The last decades substantial strides in performance and form on these systems, especially ancillary optics and suppressors, has allowed us to cut some barrel length back and make the rifles run better than ever. Stacking incremental improvements.
While not all that different at a basic level, and even with the reduced muzzle velocity, a modern SBR running an LPVO is much better equipped for a fight that could shift from close spaces to 300 meters plus ranges than the M16A1 ever was.
The Lucky Number: 13
Thirteen inches seems to be the magic number, give or take. The X95 default is 13″, the MK17 usually 13″, the XM7 is 13″, the L403A1 is 13.7″ although I am reliably told they wanted 12.5 (reportedly the rail would be just too short to accommodate a program mandated NV/Thermal optic, highly believable), The HK417A2 is 13″, MARS-H Battle Rifle is 13.5″ and so on. Those last two join the XM7 and MK17 as battle rifles that, while meeting that size envelope, can command some space.
A few more close quarters leaning platforms like 11-11.5″ barrels and others continue the M4A1’s 14.5″ (like the HK416A7/A8 and SCAR-L MK2) but 13″ seems to be the new golden number. We have seen just enough reduction in length to accommodate suppressors into the space requirements we want without performance dropping below requirements at distance. Not all militaries are moving forward with suppressors as aggressively as the US, but everyone has to go through doors.
What should YOU do?
Is it time for you to ditch ye olde sixteen inch?
Embrace the SMOLness! IWI 13″ X95 OAL with suppresor ~31″
No.
As JRR Tolkien admonished us through his character of Treebeard, Fangorn of Sindarin, don’t be hasty. You don’t lightly give up a good thing for a slightly better thing wastefully.
The well worn 16″ and 14.5″ pinned guns still hunt just fine. Ditching a rifle you have time and trust in to chase a moderately more optimally sized one so you don’t get stuck in a doorway is silly.
You don’t drop a working a gun for no reason. We go through this in IWI Academy all the time, you don’t ditch a working gun. You don’t ‘transition to pistol’ without a reason and you don’t ditch a working rifle for a likely NFA (although certain 13.7’s are pinned) carbine just because it is the bleeding edge of cool.
Where you look to make the change and optimize is when you were going to make a change and/or an upgrade anyway.
You’re on the market for a new gun? Think your home defense carbine could benefit from being a little shorter? Buy that 12.5″ instead of another 16″ this time. Looking to update your agency’s cruiser rifles and you recall just how much a pain in the ass it is to take a 6920 in and out of the car? Time to go short. Saw that video where the pursuit car with two cops had the partner firing the AR inside the car and it was clearly world shatteringly loud? Short and suppressed.
Upgrade your equipment personally and professionally when the resource bandwidth is available. But there is no need to rush that spend if you have a good resource in hand.
However, new owners can look at these latest and greatest options afresh and benefit most by picking them from the onset. Picking an option with modern optimizations for modern spaces should absolutely be on that considerations list. You aren’t replacing an item you have in hand already, because you don’t have one yet, so there is no overlap ‘waste’ in your resource outlay.
What do I mean?
I mean that someone like myself, and all other firearm owners who have a reasonably modern rifle and optic suite, gain far less by purchasing or building that 12.5″ SBR with LPVO and offset dot than a consumer who doesn’t have a rifle yet.
If I have either of these here below, even the “old” M4 with old profile barrel, ACOG, and a couple generations old Surefire light, and even as my only rifle…
Then going to this with its 1-10x FFP Zoom, offset sealed red dot sight, floated CHF 12.5″ barrel, A5 buffer system, and on, and on, and so forth, doesn’t net me much gain. Arguably the gain is purely theoretical, other than the shorter gun is easier to move around inside with when one of my cans are on it.
That was one of the characteristics I was going for so success. Gun accomplishes goals. But if you’re thinking about it in terms of what I gained from the M4 it is incremental, from the URG-I style one its an even smaller increment.
Those previously invested costs and capabilities of older system stack against the new one. Think of it like spending $2.00 for each dollar the new system costs if the old one has that capability too, if it has most of that capability then most of the cost of the old system gets doubled into the new one, because you are buying most of it again. This doesn’t mean don’t buy if you have a rifle, it is a way of objectively mapping the cost/benefit of the new gun. If you have a threshold you have to justify, looking at you agency buyers, then this is a good way to do so along with paralleling the maintenance and partial upgrade cost options to your current inventory. IE: $X,XXX per new rifle with all these A, B, C functionalities. Then $Y,YYY per rifle to maintain what is current and not have or have reduced A, B, or C functionality over replacement units. Finally $Z,ZZZ per unit to upgrade current items and will gain D, E, and F function, but less A, B, C by this much.
If your rifle is fairly far behind the progress curve you aren’t redundantly spending nearly as much. Going from a largely stock M16A4 with a fixed power optical sight, the USMC standard until the mid 2010’s, to the SBR above changes your capabilities quite substantially. You spent money again that you had spent on the older rifle, but you gained fit and function in most or all categories you needed or preferred the rifle to fit better to.
FN-15 Military Collector’s Series M16A4 with a Meopta MeoAce, an ACOG Competitor.
But if you are starting from no rifle then every dollar you spend cannot be spent again. New owners and users benefit the most from the lessons previous owners and users have learned.
So run some numbers and go get yourself an upgrade if the math is mathin’.
The phrase sub-second draw might be one of the best ways to kick off a modern gun debate. Why debate Glock vs. 1911, 9mm vs. 45 ACP, or AK vs. AR when we can talk about something new, fresh, and performance-related? The idea behind a sub-second draw is simple. Can you get your gun out of its holster and fire an accurate shot on target in less than a second? It’s one of those skills that often makes the rounds over social media because it admittedly looks cool, and shot timers don’t lie.
Is a sub-second draw an absolute must-have for the average concealed carrier? I’ll freely admit I don’t have a definitive answer because I don’t have the experience or training to say one way or another confidently. That doesn’t mean I don’t have thoughts on the matter. I’ve only recently reached a sub-second draw where I can land an accurate shot on a B8. Admittedly, this is after plenty of warm-up and on a perfectly square range, which leads us to the first point of the conversation.
The World Isn’t a Square Range
How often, in the real world, are your hands in the optimum position for a draw? Better yet, how often are you expecting to draw? At the range, I hit the shot timer button myself and waited for the random timer to go off. In the real world, I sit down, ride in my car, hold things in my hands, and more. I’m not always in the position to pull off my sub-second draw. I admittedly still need that optimum position to get that sub-second draw. Everyone does. The sub-second draw is done in a sterile environment. The square range.
The Sub-Second Draw and Noise
When I practice my drawing, I always react to noise. I hear the shot timer. If I draw my gun in the real world, it will not be so black and white. Or beep instead of no beep. I’m more than likely reacting to a visual stimulus rather than a noise. That might delay my draw and certainly isn’t as clear as beeeeep where I know exactly what the beep means. When I react to the visual stimulus, I might still be able to achieve a sub-second draw, but will it matter by the time my OODA loop is complete? Maybe, but I might be crouching, getting behind cover, or moving, and ultimately be out of that optimum position.
The ASP Response
John Corriea and Active Self Protection make a great argument on why the sub-second draw can be handy. He shows numerous examples taken from videos of robberies, violent situations, and self-defense encounters where the threat offers up a very short window for a concealed carrier to draw and defend themselves.
ASP and John Corriea use real-life examples where a sub-second draw can be beneficial, and it involves a threat that’s already presented itself and is distracted. He provided plenty of examples of the situation where a sub-second draw could put a threat on the ground.
The Benefits of the Sub-Second Draw
Admittedly, if you practice to get a sub-second draw onto an accurate target, you’ll be practicing a lot. Like a ton. If you reach the ability to get a sub-second draw, then you’re pretty competent at drawing, presenting, aiming, and firing on the fly. Those are all valuable skills to have. Even if you aren’t in an optimum position, you will be faster on the draw if you have all the practice required to make a sub-second draw. The sub-second isn’t the goal per se, it is a product of being efficient on the draw.
Practicing a fast draw can be a part of your dry fire routine. It doesn’t need anything beyond a shot timer. In fact, you could choose a free app with a par time setting and get plenty of good practice. I use the Mantis Laser Academy daily, and it’s helped improve my drawing tremendously. Since it can be done dry and it’s fun, it will keep you training.
I think the only problem you’ll have is if you only practice drawing and shooting. If you’re not practicing movement, precision at range, weird positions, long strings on controlled fire, and the seemingly endless other skills that gunfighters use. If you get stuck in that positive feedback loop of a fast draw, you might neglect other valuable aspects of training.
Being Versatile
I think being able to draw in less than a second can be very valuable. Where I think the downside comes in is when you only practice that one skill from an optimum position on a square range. According to social media, it might seem to be the only skill you need, but I think the real world begs to differ. Be versatile, and aim to excel at every complimentary skill as much as you aim to excel at your draw. (Real talk, it looks slick on the ‘gram doe.)
The best thing about this industry is that there is a little something for everyone. In fact, you can almost find anything at any price point these days. Guns are getting cheaper, and it’s been a downward trend since Glock introduced the Glock 17. With that in mind, let’s look at the year 2023 and some of the best budget blasters we got this year. As it comes to a close, I doubt we’ll see too much new stuff, so let’s bring on the latest and greatest.
Ruger Security-380
The Ruger Security-380 was an underappreciated reveal at SHOT Show 2023. I think Ruger isn’t marketing it right for the platform. The Security-380 ACP falls into that category of handgun that the EZ series from S&W enters and what the Walther CCP has been doing for years. It’s designed to be a compact-sized .380 ACP with very little recoil, and excellent capacity.
It’s a literack model, so it doesn’t need much strength to operate. It can hold 15 rounds of .380 ACP, and that makes it a great modern option for home defense-minded, recoil-sensitive shooters. It’s also available for less than 300 bucks right now at retailers like Academy. My biggest problem with this gun is the fact Ruger doesn’t make an optic’s ready model.
Extar EP-9 Carbine
The Extar series of budget friendly large format pistols have proven that direct-to-consumer sales are completely possible and make for a more efficient firearm. You could put all of Extar’s firearms on this list, but the Extar EP-9 Carbine is the latest and greatest. The EP-9 carbine features a 16-inch barrel, your typical carbine stock.
It uses Glock magazines and it’s AR-like, but not really. When we go to a straight blowback system we can throw off some of the chains of the AR design and get a little more creative with everything. The one downside to me is the reciprocating charging handle. It’s close to the optic’s rail and gives you the SCAR treatment with optics mounts.
Anderson Dissipator AM15
Anderson makes lots and lots of budget-grade AR-15-type carbines. What they did this year surprised me. They released a real Dissipator. A lot of the Dissipators being produced use a carbine or at best mid-length gas system with a false FSB gas block. The Dissipator AM15 uses a true rifle-length gas system.
These rifles retail for around 500 bucks and tend to be pretty solid budget blasters. I’d suggest getting a complete Anderson rifle versus parts and piecing one out or doing some kind of 80 percent lower build. This tends to ensure everything is a bit more in-spec. Low recoil, a smooth shooter, and a carbine-length barrel is tough to beat.
Palmetto State Armory Rock 5.7x28mm
I keep thinking that eventually, the price of 5.7x28mm will come down with all the various handguns coming out. I’m not always right, but I still have hope for it. A lot of 5.7x28mm handguns are expensive, but PSA has introduced the budget-friendly Rock, and sells for less than 500 dollars. The Rock gives you a budget blaster way to get into 5.7, so you can save money to buy ammo.
(PSA)
The pistol comes in optics-ready variants, and of course, it has a rail. We also get Glock-compatible sights and a nice 23-round magazine. What’s not to love? Of course, you have to pay the piper for ammo, but that’s not always a bad thing.
Beretta Ultima A300 Patrol
Last, but not least is the Ultima A300 Patrol. It’s probably the best gun on the list, but it’s also the least budget friendly. The Beretta Ultima A300 Patrol is the cheapest Beretta tactical shotgun you can buy. It’s less than a grand but offers you a proven gas-operated design from a masterclass of a company.
The Beretta Ultima A300 Patrol isn’t cheap but comes with basically everything you need to rock and roll. It’s got an M-LOK handguard, it’s optic’s ready and has hook and loop for attaching a modern side saddle. Ghost ring sights, an adjustable stock, and more. It’s one of the most affordable tactical shotguns that still checks the high-end box.
Budget Blasters
Who doesn’t like saving a buck or two? High-end firearms are quite nice, but sometimes you need to save a little money. When the time comes the industry provides with handguns, rifles, and shotguns. There are plenty of budget blasters to go around, and with Christmas around the corner maybe it’s time to narrow down your wish list.
They saying goes, “You can’t buy skill/performance/result.” However, that isn’t entirely true. Rather it is an oversimplification of the process of developing skills and using proper gear in what is, for all practical purposes, a martial art. Shooting is a martial art, if you treat it like a martial art then both the skill and gear start to make more sense in context.
So can you buy performance? Yes. Not your performance, but you can buy a range of expected performance within proficient operation. Your gear will do what you direct it to, as well as you direct it, until it reaches its performance limit.
What is a Performance Limit?
You will hear this generalized as ‘quality’, and that is not a bad generalization. ‘Quality’ gear will be very difficult to make exceed its maximum performance limit and cause a failure. Failures will be rare and in many instances predictable based on how long or often the gear is used and maintained.
Example: Inexpensive AR-15 offerings often fire 30 rounds of 5.56 roughly as well as the top priced brands, especially within that 100 yard envelope most shooting is done. Where differences start to show is when we start hitting high round counts and the less expensive brands exceed their ‘as assembled’ performance limits. We can also see them start to part way on results at the ends of effective range and in less that awesome weather or outdoor conditions.
Now you can take steps on some of these, like swapping buffers, staking proper parts that are skipped to save costs at the factory, and critically inspecting the rifle prior to use and fixing faults. The now worked on AR will likely perform closer to the higher quality offering for longer. But it won’t match it. It can’t. The materials and assembly quality will not hold up. However if you never, or never have to, strain equipment to or beyond its performance limit, it will not fail.
So the question becomes how forgiving do you want that performance limit to be? The next questions are which specific items in your purchasing will give you that performance envelope?
Buy gear to a quality level that you cannot reasonably exceed and you will avoid repeatedly buying gear that fails. Your bargin parts bin gun is only “jUst az gewD” as a quality offering in performance envelopes that challenge neither gun. Your dollar store screw driver set will do low demand jobs just as well as a premium one, until you need to stress it to the level the premium one was actually designed for and the dollar store one never was.
The Law of Diminishing Returns
The title image shows two of my carbines, my SCAR 16 and my URG-I M4gery (it isn’t a clone, but its close enough performance and parts wise). [Older pics below]
URG-I M4(Gery)SCAR16, modded
Both of these rifles are 5.56 NATO, 1:7 twist CHF barrel, 14.5″ barrel length, duty/fighting grade rifles. Both are sporting white light and 10x LPVO optic suites. Both have upgraded premium triggers, internal, and external feature sets to match my preferences. Both are ready to run a high quality suppressor.
One is twice the price of the other.
Does that $2:1 spend offer me enough increased performance to justify the cost on its own?
No. The law of diminishing returns comes for us hardest at the cutting edge of performance, especially in well developed fields.
By most objective measures the roughly $5,000 shelf price my URG-I M4gery will do everything that my roughly $10,000 (yes, I added it up) off the shelf then modded SCAR 16 will. We aren’t talking a ‘budget’ build, we’re talking high quality internals, optics, and ancillaries.
So why get a SCAR? Who can ‘justify’ a SCAR, or [insert premium brand], when [objectively good performance brand] can fulfill all the requirements for less money?
Easy answer: Your preferences do matter.
I love the SCAR, it is objectively a fantastic rifle and subjectively my favorite for a number of reasons. Subjective enjoyment is why I can justify the price, parts, and work I did to get mine the way I want it. Don’t discount your tastes when selecting gear, that is an important factor. But it cannot be an influence that overrides your adherence to performance requirements. Requirement trump preferences.
“Mission Drives Gear” or Performance Requirements and Limitations Provide Your Selection Options
Budget > Needs > Wants.
You have an amount to spend. You probably have a preferred and a limit to the amount you will spend. You therefore have a budget for this gear item. It that budget does not yet match that gear item’s needs, you do not have the budget yet. I cannot emphasize enough that buying a substandard item to fulfill a need is substantially more detrimental than waiting, can cost you more in the long term, and can be hazardous if the quality is low enough compared to the needed specifications.
Now that isn’t saying don’t buy a less expensive item, a place holder, an inexpensive test, etc. The most expensive or most featured item also may not be the one that meets your final performance requirements.
If you are looking at getting into LPVOs but don’t ‘know your feelings’ on them yet, buying something like the SLX 1-6 Nova from Primary Arms is a inexpensive way to test and evaluate the concept rather than going all in on a S-VPS T6T or a Razor II-E for four times the price in the same focal plane and magnification range. Once you determine that gear selection has value as a concept, then you can buy for the full set of performance requirements if they are more demanding than the proof of concept item was. They may not be.
Once all the needs are met by an item, or selection of items, you than you can start selecting wants in addition to the needs until you feel comfortable with all three parts of the selection process. This maintains its importance for agency/organization buyers most strongly.
For individual buyers who are just buying for ourselves, want drives this selection process in a significant way. Why? Because almost everything above a certain base quality level fulfills the needs that we have.
Examples:
Need: Handgun for home defense.
You would be harder pressed to find guns today that do not have the required qualities and can mount a good flashlight in modern handgun offerings. Even optics, which are far newer, have a very well represented field. I can put a quality duty pistol, light, sight, and holster together for about $1,000 without trying too hard. $2,000 gets me nearly anything I could want. The market builds to this standard at present.
Need: Carbine w/suppressor for home defense, extended emergency defense, and high round count recreational shooting, training, competition, etc.
The requirement is more detailed but still overall generalized and fairly easily fulfilled by the vast majority of commercial AR and AR adjacent offerings, optics, lights, and suppressors. Want therefore tends to drive the selection to conclusion.
Almost everything would work, but you want a SCAR 17. You can afford a SCAR so you buy a SCAR 17. Nearly every optic will work, but you want an ACOG. You can afford an ACOG so you buy an ACOG. Repeat for a light. Repeat for a sling. Repeat for a belt and LBE. You end up with the gun you needed and wanted.
My 17 many moons ago with only a few moderately priced upgrades. I wasn’t even an every rifle must have a light adherent yet, Marines didn’t issue white light on weapons so I saw little need at the time.
Want Shapes Final Selection
It is perfectly okay to just want a rifle, a handgun, a shotgun, or an optic just because you want it. Bleeding edge performance doesn’t have to be the driving factor so long as minimum capability is met. I bought the new EOTech VUDU 1-10x mostly out of curiosity, because they released it in my favorite color (tactical dirt tanodized), and because I had an open Badger 1.70″ heigh mount I hadn’t liked on my SCAR 17 that was also in the matching color and diameter. The scope fulfills every need and general preference I have for carbine optics at present and could additionally fill in a hands on experience gap I had for anyone who might ask about the 10x VUDU specifically. I like to, when able, speak from direct experience rather than inferred experience. I inferred I would be happy with the 10x VUDU based on experience with the EXPS and the 8x VUDU and made the purchase. In the future I will be able to speak directly on the topic of the 10x VUDU.
In short, I needed a carbine optic. The new VUDU 1-10x FDE met or exceeded every need I had for a carbine optic and met the wants/preferences of being an optic I hadn’t tried on the range yet, filled a mount I had available, matched the mount’s color and matched the rifle’s color, and allowed me to free up an optic for an incoming project you will see next year that matches that project nicely.
But at the end of the day several optics (several of those several being cheaper optics) other than the FDE VUDU 1-10x could have served the role. Even were I to insist on keeping the color a tan variant, at least three good options come to mind had I just needed ‘an’ optic because the rifle didn’t have one.
Now compare those simple sentence or paragraph generalized requirements to the details of the NGSW. The NGSW-R (XM7/SPEAR) and NGSW-AR (XM250/SIG MG68) specifically. It is 48 pages and still doesn’t cover all of the criteria of the various component systems, just the instructions to the 6 competitors for their rifle and their automatic rifle.
These substantial lists of details we, as general consumers, don’t lay out for our purchases do benefit us nonetheless. The market at large meets most or all of these needed details regardless of what we buy because that market is seeking to fill these requests and those like them. We benefit from these detailed organizational submissions because these requests help drive innovation and set standards in the defensive small arms field. We get a great deal of what we would otherwise have to spell out to a manufacturer spelled out for us by these organizational demands for development in the defensive and competitive fields.
Short version, first world militaries, cops, and competitors have done the heavy T&E lifting. We browse the results at our leisure.
Buy What You Need and Want, You Can Buy Your Performance
When it comes time to change coin into wares you still cannot buy performance as an end result. However you can buy all that is required to perform. You can buy the good gear. You can buy and utilize the time to train with the gear. You can buy the instruction to push your performance with the gear. That investment of money, time, and effort can and likely will result in the performance you want. We have that down well as a science.
But you won’t get it without spending properly in all categories to get there.
Shooting proficiency isn’t owning a gun. Shooting is a martial art.
Apparently not content to let me rag on Springfield alone, for their naming conventions mostly, Sig Sauer decided to launch this Star Trekkian phaser looking blaster into the ether. The Sig Sauer P322 COMP is quite clearly an attempt at a sharp edged, fun, race-gun ready .22.
And team, I think they kinda nailed it.
For as goofy as a comp seems to me on a round as enthusiastically without recoil as a .22lr pistol, this gun does look good. It retains that comfortable grip profile it shares with the X Macro, has 25rd magazines available, and while the speed wracker charging handle thing maybe a bit wild in my opinion, my opinion includes zero steel challenge experience.
I wouldn’t be using this as a training stand in for my P365, but that is what the regular P322 is for.
I would be grabbing this for a fun learner pistol or gamer .22. I would be looking at this if I had a competitive shooter curious progeny, or someone new to firearms who will do well to shoot with the .22 for now with some control and leverage advantages.
Good job, SIG. I laughed at it and then still wanted it when I was done reading.
The Walther PDP (Performance Duty Pistol) is Walther’s modern polymer frame striker-fired 9mm flagship handgun. While nearly all striker fired pistols work off of similar delayed blowback recoil mechanisms, the PDP family as a whole has three distinct standard features from the factory that objectively sets it apart from its competitors.
1)The PDP’s pistol grip is extremely ergonomic and fits a wider variety of hand sizes well.
2)Each member of the standard PDP family Includes the Walther PDT (Performance Duty Trigger) by default. It feels like a clean breaking match trigger.
3)Walther designed the PDP to be red dot compatible from its inception, so all models are optics-ready with a deep pocket for the plate and optic.
With regards to many of the standard “go-to” striker pistol models that existed before the PDP, upgrading these guns in terms of grips, triggers or optics cuts usually costs extra. With most PDPs having a $650 real world retail price, I think the PDP seems like a fair deal. Between the cost of upgrading triggers, modifying the grips and sending the slide out for milling (if the other gun isn’t optics ready), you come out ahead with the PDP. Even though these guns were only released in 2021 and are fairly new, they do count on decent holster support from serious partners. Dark Star Gear, PHLster, Safariland, Comp-Tac and Tenicor all offer holsters to support your PDP.
SHOOTING THE WALTHER PDP
I shoot the 5-inch full-size PDP, similar to what Luke Cao used to win his division in Thailand at the 2022 IPSC World shoot. The form factor of my Full-Size 5″ PDP is comparable to my Glock 34, as it’s also full-size semi-auto with a long slide. My Glock 34 is one of my personal GOATs, but the Walther PDP’s nicer trigger and improved ergos are welcomed improvements. The gun isn’t difficult to point and present, while the addition of the lower-than-typical optic cut makes target acquisition a breeze with a mounted red dot sight.
Describing felt recoil in words is never easy because it’s so subjective and everyone’s experiences are different. Perhaps my PDP feels only marginally snappier than my Glock 34 when shooting factory 115-grain ammo [CCI Blazer] but frankly, talking about a full-size 9mm’s felt recoil is a waste of time. I want to stress how hard it can be to articulate something that every shooter perceives differently.
Rapid fire and follow up shots are very easy, and the ergonomic friendliness of the grip gives shooters good control of the PDP. With the match grade PDT trigger and a mounted dot, the only limitation to making good shots at longer distances is the shooter. I actually have a dirty little secret: this gun is so easy to shoot that I get very relaxed when shooting NRA-B8s at 25 yds. It makes me drop my guard a little, the exact same way I do with a 2011. However, the Walther PDP in hand truly provides me with a very high degree of confidence. Since much of shooting is mental, my confidence with the PDP isn’t insignificant. (I’ve also been working on my issue by doing dry-fire trigger control drills and watching the how the dot moves).
Since summertime 2023, this Walther has become my shooting workhorse. To kick off my longer term evaluation of this pistol, I took it directly out the box to train with Riley Bowman. Ever since, my 5-inch Full-Size PDP has also been the handgun I use to dry-fire and it’s my default USPSA match gun for Carry-Optics these days. Using a factory RMR-pattern mounting plate, I installed Holosun’s new HS507COMP sight. I used the PDP to review the sight itself, and which also hasn’t come off since.
Like with nearly every other pistol I review, I attach a Surefire X300 “U-Boat” in order to use my PHLster OWB Floodlight because it’s so convenient. Other than shooting different handguns for review, my Walther PDP will remain my go-to pistol for the foreseeable future. The combination of the easy-shooting PDT trigger and the “big” competition-focused dot make this a gun that’s extremely easy to shoot. Novice or expert, this makes the Walther PDP very fun to shoot.
One of the reasons it has taken me so long to write this review is because I wanted to wait until I fired at least 1,000 meaningful rounds of ammo in practice, training and matches. Most of that ammo is my go-to 115 or 124-grain reloads loaded with 4.5-grains of HP-38 and whatever primers I have on hand. Factory-wise, I’ve primarily shot Federal, Fiocchi and CCI Blazer Aluminum/Brass (all 115-grain FMJ) and a smattering of South African PMP 124-grain FMJs. Before I get crucified, I will admit I haven’t done much with 147-grain bullets nor do I stock many of them. As a rule of thumb, European made pistols seem to do better with faster 124s and that’s what I stick to and what I also prefer to load. Lastly, there’s that factor of my personal confidence with 124-grain 9mm bullets.
THE WALTHER PDP IN DEPTH
THE GRIP AND PERFORMANCE DUTY TRIGGER
The Walther PDP’s grip has a slightly smaller circumference than a Glock or an M&P. Not surprisingly, it’s reminiscent to the grip on my Canik Rival-S, but more nuanced features. This slightly narrower circumference means it’s friendlier to shooters with smaller hands. This enables them to grip and drive the pistol more advantageously. The PDP’s backstrap has an oval profile and its uppermost portion is deeply radiused allowing the web of the firing hand to get a good grip. The middle section of the backstrap is convex to fill into the palm and help support the entire handgun.
Smaller and larger backstrap inserts are included from the factory. They’re easily replaced by drifting a roll pin and these alternative inserts keep the same oval profile. They’re just either larger or smaller. Competition oriented aftermarket inserts made of solid brass that add more weight to the gun to better absorb recoil are also available, as more than a handful of serious competitors field these guns. I’ve been shooting the PDP primarily with the standard backstrap, and I can’t decide whether I like that one or the “larger/fuller” backstrap better.
Following the oval profile, the circumference of the lowest part of the PDP’s grip tapers around the magazine well. I like this because the tapering in this area provides good real estate for the pinky finger to wrap around and support the firing hand optimally. The magwell itself isn’t belled out much at all, but interestingly I hadn’t given it much thought. Suffice to say that with over 1000 rounds through my gun, it hasn’t honestly been an issue. Like weighted brass backstrap inserts, magwells are also available for competition.
The Walther PDP’s frontstrap is long enough to offer the majority of shooters plenty of space for the fingers of their shooting hand comfortably. This same area is also fairly large so that the hand can quickly grab the gun and build a solid master grip. Thankfully, the frontstrap is free of finger-grooves. The area where the trigger guard and frontstrap meet is decently undercut. The material around the trigger guard flanges out to cradle the reversible magazine release and to alleviate the hot spot where most people’s middle finger knuckle rubs on the trigger guard. It’a a nice touch but I think this material could be slightly narrower to better access the magazine release. This hasn’t been a glaring issue for me, just a preference. There’s a ledge at the bottom of the frontstrap that also helps to leverage the shooter’s pinky pressure along with the tighter circumference described above. The left and right sides of the pistol grip have gentle undulating longitudinal finger grooves.
All-over, the PDP’s grip has medium intensity texturing that Walther calls Performance Duty Texture. It has a very distinctive tetrahedral shape which doesn’t grab and “cut” skin/surfaces the way full on metal checkering does. I find the Performance Duty Texture to be less aggressive than the default M&P 2.0 texturing, but more assertive than what’s found on a 5th generation Glock.
Besides the reversible magazine release, the Walther PDP is equipped with ambi slide stop levers. They are great to use in that they don’t take a lot of pressure to actuate, however it’s fairly easy to inadvertently maintain pressure on them with the thumb which causes the slide not to always lock back on empty. Of course an individual’s specific grip and thumb size are factors, but this seems to happen to me frequently enough to report it. It has never been an issue in USPSA matches, but when I shoot B8s on the square range the slide almost never locks back after the 10th round. It’s not something I’ve observed with other shooters, so this issue is specific to me and how I grip this Walther. That said, I’m grateful for those ambi slide stop levers because I’m left-handed and it does make the gun smoother overall.
The Performance Duty Trigger is standard in regular Walther PDP variants. Like most other striker-fired triggers, it has a bladed safety, and its face is curved. As far as striker triggers go, the PDT is very straightforward. It’s just that Walther has mechanically optimized it for a very clean break. There is no spongy feel to the break nor any ambiguity. The very crisp break feels almost like a precise, mechanical “click.” Once it reaches its breaking point, it stops moving so there is no over travel. I am extremely satisfied with this trigger and feel no need to replace it or mess with it. In fairness, Walther also sells an upgraded trigger they call their Dynamic Performance Trigger, which is a metal, flat faced trigger with a shorter travel to the breaking point. The DPT trigger has the same precise breaking “click” with no over travel and it’s standard on the competition-focused PDP SKUs, including the newly released PDP Match Steel Frame.
MOUNTING OPTICS
All PDP variants are optics-ready, and Walther will send customers a free footprint specific optics plate after buying a new pistol and filling out an online order form. Mine arrived in a little less than two weeks after submitting the form. Something to be aware of is that earlier PDPs have a different optics cut, and one needs to be careful when sourcing a PDP optics plate to ensure they receive a compatible one as they are not cross compatible. I included a photo below (courtesy of Forward Controls Design) that clearly shows the differences between the original (V1) and the current (V2) slide cut. As a matter of fact, Forward Controls Design is a great place to source an optics plate for the PDP (either version) besides Walther USA. The next photo in the gallery is a cell-phone picture I casually took of a Forward Controls Design Version1 OPF-PDP, RMR plate that we sourced for a [different] earlier 2021 built 4.5-inch PDP. Even looking at the plate shows how relatively deep the cut on the slide is. [FCD isn’t paying me for the plug, but their company is built around attention to detail and they sell well-made parts.] Because all PDP models and trims come with an optics cut, direct milling isn’t an option for this pistol. The factory optics cut is milled deep enough that taller suppressor height iron sights may not be needed (depending on the specific model of mounted dot, of course).
THE SLIDE AND FRAME
Walther PDP slides are fairly wide in order to accommodate the “Superterrain” slide serrations that are unique to these guns. These serrations are fairly large and found both towards the front and directly underneath the optics cut. The logic behind these is that while most pistols’ slide serrations are cut beneath the surface of the slide, the Superterrain serrations are cut to be flush with the outermost surface. In return, shooters get oversize and easy to grip serrations that remain flush and don’t protrude any further. In my shooting so far, I’ve got no complaints.
Even though the slide is obviously optimized for red dot shooting, the slot for the front sight and the dovetail for the rear sight are designed to accept Glock pattern iron sights. With the popularity of the latter, this means that iron sight options for any Walther PDP are plentiful.
PDP frames are available in two sizes, compact and full-size. However, both of these frames and all slide lengths (except for the PDP-F series) work off the same recoil spring assembly, which means that end users can mix and match any length slides to any size frames. Full-size frames use 18 round magazines as standard while compact frame sizes work off of 15 rounds. The PDP uses the proven double-stack magazine scheme first seen in use with the Browning Hi-Power that is still popular across a wide variety of 9mm pistols including Beretta 92s, Sig P22Xs, CZ-75s, CZ Shadow 2s, Caniks, etc. Mec-Gar, an Italian company with an excellent reputation for making quality magazines, is the OEM purveyor of Walther PDP factory magazines. For competition use, extended springs, followers and basepads are available from the aftermarket.
THE TAKEAWAY
Normally, being late to the party (as the PDP is a very recent design) makes it harder to get noticed, and naturally, the striker-polymer market pool is very full and deep. However, showing up to the party later is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it actually benefits the Walther PDP. While all major makes and models of handguns have been successfully adapted to mount reflex sights, the PDP has the benefit of having been designed around life with a dot from the start. Everything about the PDP’s design is deliberate so there was never any need to adapt or compromise. This seems to be working well for Walther, and I’m predicting that other brand new handgun designs will keep following this trend. (See the new Echelon from Springfield, case in point). Dots aren’t going anywhere and are here to stay.
In the thousand or so rounds I’ve fired through the gun I’ve really come to appreciate it. Most of my complaints are minor, and they revolve around the slide stop levers sometimes clashing with my thumbs or the shelf that cradles the bottom of the magazine catch. My other critique is that for how common Mec-Gar double stack magazines are, the retail price for PDP specific magazines seems relatively high. Overall, this has been an accurate and great-shooting pistol, and downright fun with that PDT trigger too. Whether expert or novice, I think the Walther PDP has something to offer to every shooter because it’s so easy to shoot well. Beginners can start getting comfortable and confident with their skills while seasoned shooters can mentally focus on higher level performance. Walther calls this their “do-all” handgun and I am in agreement. It’s duty-grade reliable and its standard features are frankly good enough to shoot in IDPA or USPSA bone-stock. Just mount a dot and add a shooter.
The 1980s was a fun time for shotguns, especially police and military shotguns. Rifles hadn’t edged them out and were still very popular for police use across the world. The 1980s saw the rise of shotguns that could be swapped from semi-auto to pump-action and back again. The most famous is the SPAS-12, the most successful is the Benelli M3, and the most forgotten is the Beretta M3-P.
Enter the M3-P
Beretta didn’t produce the M3-P in huge numbers, but a scan of auction websites has shown at least a few made it to the United States. The general idea behind convertible shotguns was the ability to use the weapon primarily as a semi-auto combat weapon, but the user can swap to pump action for lower power loads. Often, these low-power loads would be non-lethal. This was before the era of a dedicated non-lethal shotgun alongside a standard fighting gun.
The Beretta M3-P stands out amongst the crowd because it utilizes a box magazine. Specifically, a five-round box magazine instead of your normal tubular design. The M-3P’s use of box magazines made sense when you considered the role and intent of the shotgun. If you want a shotgun that can handle a variety of munitions, then the M3-P makes sense. You could swap magazines to swap munitions and instantly swap to a dedicated magazine for different types of ammo.
Your black mags can be buckshot, your blue ones can be slugs, your orange could be less lethal, and so on and so forth.
The M3-P Family
This was an entire family of firearms or was at least planned to be. The most common models seem to be the M3-P folding stock models. The M3-P folding stock had a barrel length that fell between 15 and 24 inches. The stock folded upwards and over the top of the shotgun where it could double as a carry handle.
There was also the Professional model with a shorter barrel and more robust sights, as well as a heat shield and a different pump design. This gun also had a folding stock. There was also a sporting version with a 24-inch barrel and a fixed stock. The Folding stock and Professional models are confirmed to have fixed chokes, but it’s unclear if the sporting model has a different choke system.
The M3-P series used a gas-operated system for semi-auto operation. A ring at the end of the forearm converted the gun to pump action. It likely disabled the gas system and unlocked the pump. The magazine release was placed in front of the trigger guard, and looking at the pictures, it looks as if the magazine is locked at the front and rocks in at the rear.
The Fate of the Forbidden Beretta
The reason why we saw so many dual-system shotguns in this era was because there was a real want for them. Police and military units desired the configurability of a semi-auto shotgun that could be used in a pump action format. The Italian police ended up choosing the Benelli M3, as did a few armed forces. The Franchi SPAS-15 series went to the Italian military. The M3-P was used by the French RAID Police Unit.
The RAID guys have a history of weird shotguns, so it’s not a giant surprise the RAID guys had the M3-P. I could do an article on RAID shotguns. The M3-P had limited success, and it seems like hardly any made it to the States. It’s likely the few that did were samples to gather interest. Either way, they tend to be rare, and fetch a pretty penny. Sadly, I don’t think I’ll ever get one in my collection.
The old .38 Special began its life way back in 1898 as a black powder round. It’s evolved and remained a popular choice for revolver carriers. The now smokeless powder round finds its way into the most modern revolvers out there, often being the choice of the snubnose connoisseur. While it was immensely popular with police forces, the cartridge never got that big military contract. However, that doesn’t mean it didn’t see its fair share of military use. Today, we dive into the .38 Special at war!
World War 1 and The .38 S&W Military & Police Model of 1905 4th Change
It’s fairly common knowledge that the United States didn’t have enough 1911s to pass out when the AEF left for Europe. To fill the gap, revolvers were put in service. While the m1911 and the 45 ACP M1917 went to the front, lots of rear-based units carried .38 Special revolvers. The .38 S&W Military and Police Model of 1905 didn’t believe in brevity but did leave quite the legacy behind it.
Rock Island Auctions
Various military units fielded the guns for duties outside of the frontline. From Military Police and guards in the United States to Naval Officers aboard ships. If you weren’t in a fighting position but warranted a handgun, you might have gotten the Model of 1905. This six-shot K-Frame revolver is just one of the many evolutions of the .38 Hand ejector model of 1899. Of course, the series would famously go on to become the Model 10.
World War 2 and the .38 Special
America didn’t do a great job of learning from past mistakes, and no one could have really prepared to fight World War 2. The scale of World War 2 is absolutely absurd and fascinating. Much like the first go around, we didn’t have enough 1911s or M1917 revolvers. They turned to Colt and S&W to fill those gaps.
Rock Island Auction
S&W provided the latest M&P Revolver with the famed V prefix. These became known as Victory models. This was another evolution of the origins. .38 Hand Ejector. These guns would be used by the United States Army and the OSS, as well as being sent en masse to allied and resistance forces. It was a K-Frame .38 Special with six shots in a robust and accurate package.
Rock Island Auction
Colt provided the Commando, and I don’t mean the uber-short AR-15. The original Colt Commando was a six-shot, .38 Special revolver that was based on the Official Police. These Colt Commandos were primarily used for guarding facilities at home, including numerous defense plants, shipyards, and the like. The Commando was a cheaper, stripped-down version of the Colt official police. Very few made it overseas.
The S&W and Colt M13 Aircrew Revolver
After World War 2, the Air Force broke out from the Army and became their own branch. They immediately felt like they needed to be special. The M1911 was too heavy for their pilots, apparently, so for the sake of ounces equal to pounds, they wanted a lightweight revolver. This became the M13 Aircrew Revolver.
Legacy Collectibles
Both Colt and S&W produced Aircrew revolvers of roughly the same design. Smith used the Model 12 as their base gun, and Colt used the Cobra. They made massive changes, which included making the frame and cylinder from aluminum. This resulted in the gun’s breaking frequently, leading to the creation of a low-powered special load. The Caliber .38 M41 round didn’t solve the problem, and the idea was scrapped.
S&W M15 K-38 Masterpiece
The S&W M15, aka the K-38 Combat Masterpiece, is a fairly fancy version of the Model 10. The gun features adjustable sights, a six-shot cylinder, and a four-inch barrel. The M15 was adopted by the United States Air Force for the Air Force Security Forces, where it served from 1962 until 1992.
Smith and Wesson
Beyond that, the M15 remained in the Air Force armory until the summer of 2022. It remained in the Armory for training K9s. The .38 Special made shooting blanks easy compared to a semi-auto pistol. The M15 is sadly gone from the Armory, ending an era of revolvers in the United States military.
Vietnam and The S&W Model 10
The Model 10 and its ancestors served in both World Wars and, much like the M1911, made its way to Vietnam. The Model 10 became the final form of the .38 Hand Ejector of 1899, and it was basically the police revolver of its era. This is a K-frame, six-shot, .38 Special revolver. Believe it or not, it was the Marines who wielded the Model 10 in Vietnam.
Smith and Wesson
They used the weapon when they served as embassy guards around the world, including in Vietnam. The State Department armed the Marines, and their weapon of choice was the Model 10. In the State Department’s brilliant planning, they issued Marines a Model 10, with five rounds and no reloads…in an active warzone. The Marines did use the Model 10s alongside their Remington 870s and Beretta Model 12s to protect the embassy from heavy machine guns, rockets, recoilless rifles, and assault rifles.
The .38 Special Went to War.
While 9mm and 45 ACP have dominated the battlefield for over a century now, the .38 Special certainly reared its head here and there. While it was never a mainstream cartridge, the round served its country well and stood up when it was needed.
I had a great deal of fun with the last letter, so here is another from the Portland Press Herald. This time, we examine the frustrated prose of Steven Westra.
Let us begin. Steven opens,
Among the guiding principles of the U.S. Navy is “no excuses.”
True. Among one of their most successful recruiting campaigns ever, narrated by the invigorating voice talent of Keith David, was ‘Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of All Who Threaten It.’
Invoking a professionally violent organization for one of their pithy quotes, one related to accountability as the DoD fails another massive audit, is an interesting opening to a letter decrying violence. But go on, do not let that discourage you.
I also understand the grounding principle. I’m a Marine. ‘No excuses’, so put in the work. If it fails, the failure will not be through your lack of efforts. I understand what the invocation is trying to push for, the problem is reality.
We are all exhausted by the excuses of our elected leaders]
On many things this is true, but often divided by party lines. We are told what to be upset about without context by either red team or blue team. I cannot put partisan frustrations and genuine frustrations in the same pile of dissatisfaction, there is too much variance.
[and the excuses of the Republican Party for not ending gun violence. Enough debate already about the Second Amendment, mental illness, high-capacity magazines, assault rifles, the human heart …
End.
Violence.
Recall above the comment on “If it fails…” to the Navy’s “No excuses” proverb, can we apply it here? If it failed due to lack of efforts, we can. However cannot blame politicians for not ‘ending gun violence’ like it is daylight savings time or prohibition.
We can absolutely commiserate together about the inefficiency of the government, but you cannot blame them for not doing the truly and utterly impossible. Ending violence, something present throughout all of nature and history, something nearly as universal between competitive living beings as gravity is to a planetoid, is not possible. Putting the cute ‘gun’ qualifier in front of it merely brackets a portion of the violence, it makes it no less impossible a task.
Side note: I do blame them for not getting rid of daylight savings, it’s silly and needs to be put to bed so it stops messing up our bedtimes.
It is the job of our elected leaders to protect human life as well as our constitutional rights.]
Yes, but within the limitations of law and reality. Not what laws can or should be made but the realistic physical limitations a law allows to be imposed. Congress can unanimously outlaw gravity tomorrow, it would be (and has been) as effective as outlawing violence.
Reality Check: Violence is outlawed. Hell, that is in part of how ‘outlaw’ as a descriptor came to be. Terroristic level mass violence is the most heinous breach of the violent prohibitions. Law makers can’t ‘stop’ anything, they are not engaging in any physical preventative. They have no such absolute and binding physical authority on the world. A lawmaker can print words into the federal and state legal codes and use their imperfect enforcers within law enforcement to punish some of those people who do not follow the words. They will also, during all this, punish wrongly, punish unjustly, punish incorrectly, kill people, disfigure people, and fail.
They will fail time… and time… and time again to stop the violence that is against the law. Because it cannot be stopped by some words on a page, no matter how many words or in what order they appear. An object put into motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an equal or greater outside force. That basic law of physics can be applied to human motivations and capability pretty well too. A law, words written upon a page, applies no physical restraint to anyone. It applies pressure socially on those willing to consent to adherence to it and it allows for a physical response by agents of the state at a certain level of violation.
Aside: It is interesting what becomes, politically speaking, a ‘constitutionally protected right’ and what doesn’t along political lines. The things we increasingly like to declare ‘human rights’ instead of human responsibilities is frankly tragic. Social welfare as a encompassing concept, from infrastructure to legal systems to resource assistance programs, is a human responsibility. It is not a right.
[For the precious lives of our children and grandchildren, they must say “no” to their colleagues, who wear AR-15 lapel pins, and do their job. Enough excuses already.
Steven Westra Chebeague Island
Sir. Steven. These aren’t excuses, not all of them anyway. These are real rules of the real world and sometimes real laws that you happen to disagree with. So you are debating in order to argue that the debate is over?
Let’s change the demand, Steven. You and I, together.
“Enough impossible promises from politicians for votes.”
Anyone who says they are going to ‘solve’ and unsolvable buzzword, fired.
Unelectable.
Done.
Yeeted from serious discourse.
I’m sick of hearing platitude laden plans about the ‘gun violence’ epidemic that boil down to,
“If you elect/re-elect me, I’ll try… I’ll try a thing, even more than one thing. I’ll try things that have certainly never been tried before or are demonstrably impossible. Just don’t look too hard at that last claim, please? Because you know I’m trying/going to try. I said so.” – Politician #129
I’ve said it before. I will say it again. If you truly believe that possession of firearms, just certain types or all of them it doesn’t matter, are the enabler of violence then you must abolish the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and implement a forceful and likely violent recovery of arms in the US.
That will fail. But that is the only intellectually honest position one can hold because a partial ban, a partial limit or any of these other asinine proposals are all just to make the scared, ignorant, and angry voters vote for the person who said the thing they liked about solving the thing they are scared of.
The Savage M1907 is one of the most historically underrated guns out there. When we talk about innovative handguns, we get firearms like the Colt Single Action Army, the M1911, and the Glock series, but the poor Savage M1907 never gets mentioned. To me, that’s incredible because if you looked at a modern concealed-carry firearm and compared it to the features and traits of the Savage M1907, you’d be pleasantly surprised. In fact, I almost don’t want the gun to be popular because they are still a bargain to pick up.
Let’s dig into the classic handgun by showing just how innovative it is.
The Savage M1907 and Today’s Firearms
If we were to compare the Savage Model 1907 to a modern firearm, there would be two big differences. First, the original M1907s were .32 ACP guns, and second, the gun doesn’t have modern safety features like a drop safe. (later models were produced in .380 ACP) Other than that, it’s pretty modern for being over a century old.
First off, the guns use a double-stack magazine. As far as I can tell, this was the first successful pistol to integrate a double-stack magazine in its design. That means there were 30 years between the Hi-Power and the M1907. The M1907 could hold ten rounds of 32 ACP and nine rounds of .380 ACP. Most modern compact handguns can hold at least this much ammo, albeit it’s 9mm instead of .32 ACP.
The gun also used a striker-fired design. That’s pretty nice for a weapon made in 1907. There appears to be a hammer, but that is actually a cocking lever. The user could decock the gun by manually lowering it or recock it for a second shot. Racking the slide rearward automatically cocked the gun.
The gun itself was very easy to take apart for its time period. It would be somewhat difficult by today’s standards. However, the gun had no screws, even for the grips. You might say, well, neither does my Glock. Yep, but guns like the FN M1900 did. It was an impressive feat for the time period.
While most semi-auto guns of the era used blowback operation, the Savage M1907 used a delayed blowback design with a rotating barrel. This allowed the gun to use a lighter slide. In fact, it was five ounces lighter than the Colt M1903.
The Savage M1907 At the Range
The Savage M1907 is what created my love for the .32 ACP cartridge. It’s super pleasant to shoot. The gun’s recoil, noise, and overall is best described as a burp. It just burps and barely moves. It’s super easy to shoot and immensely enjoyable. The little gun has tiny little sights. They are functional, but don’t expect to be fast.
My M1907 functions reliably and doesn’t give me any issues. I only shoot FMJs out of it, as John Moses Browning intended. I’m betting hollow points would create a fun issue with rimlock and that’s not something I want to deal with.
Accuracy is fine. The little sights do you know favors, but as the advertising said, it’s ten shots fast. The controllability of the little gun makes it easy to dump those ten rounds into a threat quickly with good accuracy.
It’s compact, but you can get a whole hand on it. The grip is nearly straight and vertical, but it’s not uncomfortable by any means. The trigger has some takeup but a light wall and crisp break. I was impressed.
Savage actively advertised the weapon for its defensive features and marketed the weapon to women in particular. For its era, it could be quite the gun. In an era where cowboy guns held six and most and were commonly carried with five or ten rounds in a magazine, they must have felt almost belt-fed.
What’s Not So Modern
The gun’s old-school ergonomics wouldn’t qualify it for the modern world. There is a somewhat awkwardly placed thumb safety. That safety doubles as a slide lock if you want to keep the gun open. The magazine release is a European heel design. It’s functional, but it isn’t fast. But hey, you have ten rounds; why would you need to reload?
My model was produced in 1919, according to serial number research. It’s not a gun I would grab given modern choices, but if I were a concealed carrier at the turn of the century, this would be my choice. It’s the micro compact of its era and really doesn’t get the credit it deserves.
