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.
If you’re like me, you follow lots of reputable firearm instructors, schools, and competition shooters on social media. It’s one of the best ways to curate your social media and get something out of it. If you follow high-level shooters on social media, they often share tidbits of valuable information. It can be firearm-based, gear-based, or training-based. An excellent follow on Facebook is Sentinel Concepts. One of his latest posts showed him using a ladder with a simple comment that ladders are a simple range item that offers a lot of options.
Sentinel Concepts is run by Steve Fisher, one of the premier firearm instructors with a multi-discipline focus. After seeing his post, I grabbed a ladder and headed to the range to give it a try and see how useful a ladder can be for training purposes.
Why The Ladder
Logistics win wars, and that includes your war on training. Most of us have a ladder already. It’s not exactly an item that’s tough to find or borrow. It can be tossed in your truck, and you aren’t risking breaking something like a VTAC Barrier on your way to the range. They stand up by themselves and are often quite tall. Ladders simplify logistics for many of us, and it’s easy to see why they are a great selection for range use.
Using the Ladder
How do we use a ladder? I imagine there are numerous ways to use a ladder in your firearm’s training. It comes down to how much you know about firearm training and how far your imagination can take you! If we start from the basics, a ladder makes a pretty decent stabilized shooting position. Add a bag, and you have what’s basically a tripod for standing long-range shots.
Shooters can look at the ladder as a simulated barrier. This includes something as simple as practicing shooting around the ladder. You can also use the various steps to simulate various levels of cover. You can practice shooting ‘over’ cover by aiming through the various step slots. This is a good bit of fun and can be quite challenging.
A six-foot ladder is perfect for this role. If you practice shooting through various slots, you can practice at a variety of heights.
Some levels will be easy, namely levels that allow you to stand tall and form a good kneeling position, but middle and lower-level slots force you into uncomfortable positions. Shooting through the lower level creates a fairly interesting situation in finding the right position to get it done, especially if you treat the width of the ladder as a limit to your cover.
The Best Way To Get To The Top
If you need the best way to climb a ladder, then maybe check out a class with Sentinel Concepts. Steve Fisher’s classes vary quite a bit, with rifle, shotgun, and handgun classes available. Heck, there is even a defensive PCC class. I don’t know if ladders are included in every class, but you’re still bound to get some great training. If you want to follow his Facebook for more tactical tips, check it out here, and for classes, check out the website.
[Editor’s Note: It’s also way safer and cheaper to hit a ladder if you mess up your bore height than something like your car hood or truck bed. Just saying.]
In case no one has noticed, we are literally in the darkest season of the year here in the Northern Hemisphere. It won’t start getting lighter again until well after the Solstice on Dec 21st. Daylight is in short supply and frankly we should all be acting like it.
Yet, I saw this notice on my FB feed from Shenandoah National Park. They state, and I quote, “Park rescue teams respond to hundreds of visitors who are seemingly trapped in the dark every year … carry a light source other than your cellphone.”
Wow – just, wow. I mean, I know that many tourists are complete morons, but to not even have a source of light on you if you set out on a trail at 4pm? Or even 2pm if it’s cloudy or raining or snowing or things take longer than you expect? Or how about just keeping a light in your daypack just in case? This is Darwin carrying out his mission apparently, because some people ( Like, the aforementioned Hundreds) never got the memo.
Christmas is coming and this is perfect season to stock up on handheld or head-mounted lighting. If not for yourself, then for the less well-prepared in your family. It might save someone’s life – or at least save calling for park rescue. And don’t forget extra batteries.
A few examples of the lights I personally have available include three from StreamLight.
Super bright headlamp.Even a keychain light is better than nothing.
There are even a few garden variety Evereadys floating around the house. And frankly, virtually every daypack I own – whether for strolling or hunting – has a couple flashlights in them all the time for just-in-case.
Flashlights come in a huge variety of features and price points, including rechargeables, so don’t let a tight budget stop you from being prepared for darkness. A flashlight doesn’t have to cost a fortune or last for 20 years – it only needs to last long enough to get you out of a tight spot. It may be a few bucks to save your life or that of someone you love. Be prepared – it’s fricken DARK out there!
This week I give my full After Action Review of the @darkangelmedical Trauma Medicine class. Kerry does an amazing job of making this dense and technical curriculum approachable for the layperson. Not to mention he’s just entertaining as all hell. I wish he could have stuck around for beers after, but sadly he had to jump right back on the road home. Both his coursework and kits are top tier. The class is relatable and engaging. The time just flies by. I cannot recommend it enough. You’re significantly more likely to need these skills than the sub-second draw or “jailbait splits”. Blood belongs in the body. It’s science!
A good friend of mine has recently transitioned from corrections into on-the-street law enforcement. In the great state of Florida, he serves as a deputy with our Sheriff’s department and is going through all the basic training required by our state. This includes the various firearm qualifications. He’d shot the handgun qual yearly but was still apprehensive. It’s a new job, and he didn’t just want to pass, but to excel. We went to the range and shot our way through the Florida police handgun qual.
Since I hate wasting lead because lead is money, I figured let’s shoot the qual and discuss it. How does Florida rank within the world of police quals? Are our standards high? Tough to meet and realistic? There was only one way to find out. Let’s grab some lead and targets, hit the range, and find out.
The Florida Police Handgun Qual – Supplies Needed
The qual isn’t too demanding on your ammo supply. You’ll need at least 40 rounds of ammunition. The Florida Police Handgun qual demands a handgun, and our county issues 9mm SIG P320s. I used a SIG P320 and grabbed a tactical belt with a duty-style holster. You’ll need at least two magazines. Also, it’s a timed shoot, so bring your shot timer.
The Florida Police Handgun qual calls for either a B-21E target or a Pride Enterprise Target. This is a pretty big target. The qual scores by hits to the silhouette, so you can use nearly any man-sized target, like an FBI Q Target, the Sage Dynamic Targets, or whatever else you could ever want. You only need one.
Let’s Hit the Range
With 40 rounds, two mags, and a gun, I hit the range with my friend and some hope in our hearts. The course calls for a range of at least 15 yards. Once our targets were set up, we took turns working our way through each qual.
Stage 1 – One to Three Yards
At this range, we are in the target’s face. We’ll be using a close retention technique. At the sound of your timer, you’ll draw and fire two rounds in four seconds from a close retention position. You can shoot anywhere from one to three yards.
You’ll do this drill twice.
Stage 2 – Three Yard Line
We’ll start this stage of the Florida Police Handgun qual with our weapons at the ready, with both hands on the gun. At the sound of the timer, you fire two rounds in one second.
Repeat this drill one more time before moving on.
Stage 3 – Seven Yard Line
We’ll start with the gun holstered. At the beep, draw and fire two rounds in four seconds. Keep the gun out and ready.
The next string is firing two rounds in four seconds.
The final string repeats the last, and you fire two rounds in four seconds.
Stage 4 – Seven Yard Line
Start with your weapon holstered at the seven-yard line. We will draw and fire three rounds in five seconds. We’ll repeat this drill one more time before moving on.
Stage 5 – Seven Yard Line
For this stage of the Florida Police Handgun qual, we’ll start with the gun holstered. At the beep, you’ll draw and fire 12 rounds into the threat and then conduct a reload in 45 seconds.
Stage 6 – Fifteen Yard Line
For our last stage, we’ll move back to the 15-yard line. At the beep, you’ll draw and fire six rounds. You have thirty seconds. After that, we are done!
My Thoughts on the Florida Police Handgun Qual
My friend passed without a problem. The minimum passing score is 32 out of 40, and he passed before ever getting to the final stage. He should have because the course of fire is very, very easy. The times are too generous, way too generous, and the accuracy standard is a massive target.
It’s not much of a challenge, especially with a duty holster and duty-sized gun. I think it could use tighter times and stricter accuracy standards. Plus, it’s short and could be a bit longer, both in round count and range. Why not go out to 50 yards? I’m not a police officer, but I think it should be a bit more challenging for our boys in blue. However, it’s fun to shoot, especially for beginners.
Give it a try and see if you can qualify to protect the orange groves and swamps of Florida.
Who says art museums are lame? On a recent vacation to Chicago, my wife and I saw their massive art museum. She is artistically inclined and was quite excited to see this massive museum. They had an arms and armor section that spiced it up for me, especially when I ran across a few flintlock revolvers. I have probably heard of flintlock revolvers before, but seeing them was quite interesting and sent me on a quest to learn a bit more. I guess the museum did its job.
Flintlock rifles and handguns were a bit of a game changer. They were a good bit simpler than wheellock and matchlock firearms and could be fired faster than either. They became the dominant arm of most military forces rather quickly. While they may have been faster than the competition, they still had to deal with the impatience of one man trying to kill another. How can you make flintlock faster?
Adding a second barrel was an option, but that made the weapon fairly heavy with the benefit of one more shot. Adding a cylinder gave you multiple shots without the weight. However, that didn’t discount multiple barrels altogether, and flintlock pistols in the pepperbox format were known to exist. However, we are going to stick to revolving flintlocks with a more traditional cylinder and single-barrel format.
The World of Flintlock Revolvers
The earliest revolving flintlock appears to have been produced in Germany. This 9-shot revolver was built for and carried by Norwegian General George von Reichwein and currently sits in the Maihaugen Museum in Norway. It’s believed to have been produced in the late 1500s. The weapon appears to be fairly complicated. Each chamber has its own frizzen and pan. The cylinder had to be rotated manually for each shot.
(CapnBall)
Most flintlock revolvers were designed similarly to this model. The brace of lock mechanisms and frizzen made them complicated weapons with something sticking out to grab everything. Good luck with trying to holster this beast.
There had been numerous other designs. The Russians made some at Tula, and the French had there, as did the British. They all used various-sized cylinders and means, but the most impressive comes from Elisha Collier, an American living in London. These are largely considered to be the best flintlock revolvers. Collier improved upon an action conceived by one Artemis Wheeler, who had worked with prior to moving to London.
The Collier Guns
These guns were svelte designs that reportedly worked well. The cylinders had to be manually rotated, but the Collier revolving flintlocks did self-prime. When you cocked the hammer, a small compartment released gunpowder into the pan.
Collier built handguns, rifles, and shotguns with his revolving design. Most held five rounds, and some even included built-in bayonets. One of the big selling features was that Collier’s only had one lock and one frizzen. Most flintlock revolvers had a separate lock and frizzen for each chamber. The Collier/Wheeler design was simpler and more robust.
(Met Museum)
The rebated cylinders locked into the barrel, and this did several things. First, it ensured the cylinder was indexed properly with the barrel. Second, it made sure the cylinder would lock in place. This action also formed a gas shield that protected the user’s arm when they were configured into rifles and shotguns and likely helped prevent chain fires. The Collier cylinders had to be pressed downward and could then be manually rotated.
Rock Island Auctions
These robust guns were very well respected but not made in great numbers.
The Problem With Flintlock Revolvers
The Collier Revolving Flintlocks were produced in small numbers. It’s likely that only 300 or so were produced. Collier did sell 50 to the British military, and those were sent to India. The Collier flintlocks had just as many problems as every other flintlock revolver. Namely being very expensive to produce and sell. Plus, they couldn’t be mass-produced, and it took skilled hands to create these weapons. Plus, it was a bit fragile.
For that reason, military forces didn’t buy them, and only the lauded gentry could afford them. The Collier design inspired Samuel Colt, and he directly credited the Collier flintlock revolvers he saw overseas for his revolving weapons. Revolving flintlocks never made it very far, but they did serve to be an inspiration to Samuel Colt, which traces to the modern era of the revolver. Flintlock revolvers were a bit too early for their own good.
This next letter comes from The Westfield News, via MassLive.
I must wonder what people think a ‘freedom’ is, because evidence suggests that people want their freedoms to be any ‘thing or concept they like’ and put little further thought into the requirements of a true freedom. This ‘liked thing’ is a far cry from the conceptual and physical freedoms they have as natural creatures, persons of reason, or freedoms that can be backed, and violations of them redressed, by the force of law. This mental disconnect between what is and what people want because they think it should be, usually without due regard to differing opinions or reality, is a serious problem of modern debate.
A recent opinion piece (“America’s Rifle Fetish Is Destroying its Freedom,” The Republican, Nov. 2) by Jamelle Bouie describes a dystopian American society in which the possession of guns has become a fetish and one gun in particular, the AR-15 assault rifle, has become iconic.
Mr. Bouie poses this question: “How free are you really when you know a trip to the grocery store or a morning in prayer or a day at school or a night at the movies can end in your death at the hands of a gun?”
Was life better in the past when it was at the tip of a sword? Are we disregarding that you are far more likely to be killed by a vehicle on any of those aforementioned trips than by a gunman? What should you fear?
Serious question, is the threat of death to any of us for who, or what, or where we happen to be greater now than before the advent of the assault rifle? I’ll answer that, life is objectively better and safer today. Life has become safer since the rise of modern firearms, but the state of absolute or near absolute safety doesn’t exist. It didn’t then and it does not now.
Absolute safety is impossible. Near absolute safety looks nothing like absolute safety, and reasonable safety looks even less like the utopian dream of absolute safety. Absolute safety from something like ‘gun violence’ is an unachievable delusion of the modern pseudo-progressives, people that like to declare preferred states of existence to be human rights.
This question is particularly relevant, considering the 597 mass shootings this year. (at the time of the letter)
Follow up question for that ‘particularly relevant’ statement, how many of those ‘mass shootings’ resulted in 4 deaths or more? Answer, 38 out 630 (as of 12/4/23 GVA), and this has sadly been a record year in that particular metric.
But that isn’t the point. My point is that mass shootings are not mass killings and mass shootings are down as mass killings are up. So which is the metric?
Media constantly and purposely blur the line between those two terms because 630 events is far more compelling than 38, even as that is a record number. The events themselves are wildly different in causation. We are talking about such a broad set of motivations for violent events as to be nearly meaningless when trying to track causation.
Now, do we want to compare that 630 to the GVA’s undercounted defensive gun uses, at only 1,102? Or do we use the more likely CDC posted minimum of 60,000 incidents (to a max 1.5 Million defensive uses annually)? Do those 60,000 defensive uses annually weigh against the 38 significant negative outcomes? Or is that any negative outcome you dislike enough or is scary enough should be outweigh any positive outcomes?
Let’s play that game. Let’s say only half of the 60,000 DGU’s would have resulted in death or serious injury. Are an additional 30,000 people dead or maimed worth the laws and their dubious efficacy? Let’s go further down the absurdity line, the only 1,102 DGU’s confirmed by GVA. We’ll say these were all lethal preventions of at least one person, so one life saved. Is whatever gun control magic pill you’re thinking of worth killing those 1,102 people?
“But, Keith, he’s talking about assault rifles. It isn’t the same…”
I am aware it ‘isn’t the same’, but if we’re going to jump down the straw man hyperbolic hole then let’s do it. Most mass shootings happen with handguns, most crimes happen with handguns, most of the mass murders on GVA’s list occurred with handguns, not ‘assault rifles’. So if your gun violence prevention magic bullshit law works to absolute perfection, so AR’s and their ilk are gone totally, and the future killers mysteriously do not choose to use the most common weapon for mass shootings, we save how many people?
Now let’s put some reality on this nonsense, how many do we condemn to die because they didn’t have their rifle, or their magazine is permanently stuck in their gun, or the background check wasn’t universal enough and it denied them but the murderer didn’t get the memo? How many is an acceptable amount to legislate away? How many weapons can we expect to ‘get off the streets’ when, even in the states where gun control is most popular, compliance with bans is so abysmal it is a joke? Illinois is currently sitting at a less than 1% registration rate for their assault weapons.
Now, I’m not saying every one of the FOID card holders in Illinois also owns an AR-15, but it is the most popular rifle in the United States so I bet it is greater than 1%.
How do you make your magic bullshit work? Genuinely curious.
Second Amendment devotees lecture us about the freedom to own a gun. However, one freedom they do not speak about is freedom from fear that you might be shot to death with neither rhyme nor reason.
We have nohumanrighttobefreefrom ‘fear‘.
Fear is the word we use to describe the collection of survivalemotions and instincts that help us process risk, you can’t legislate those. If we could, we’d make anxiety illegal tomorrow as a constitutional amendment and the country would be oh so much healthier. No such human right exists. It cannot exist. What you choose to assign or not assign risk to is up to you to manage. If that assigned risk and the actual risk happen to be drastically different, that is entirely a you problem.
Should people who use firearms for defense have to trade their real safety becauseofafirearm (60,000 incidents a year, minimum, according to CDC) into victimization so that you can feel safe from as mass shooting?
Not be safe, feel safe.
In 1941, with the United States and the world at war, President Franklin Roosevelt identified freedom from fear as one of the “four freedoms” that people throughout the world should be able to enjoy. In 1933, in the depths of the Great Depression, Roosevelt warned Americans, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” A victim of polio, Roosevelt knew something about fear. He went on to speak of how fear “paralyzes.” He understood that fear can incapacitate us and render us powerless. He understood that the main purpose of government was to provide safety and security for its citizens. In other words, to free us from fear.
Under those auspices Roosevelt imprisoned 112,000 people, many of whom lost everything they had owned. 70,000 of them were US citizens, all of whom were never charged with disloyalty, and there was no appeal process to recover anything that the government caused them to lose by relocating them on the off chance they might be a spy for the Imperial Japanese. This is by the US Government’s own admission, so how much worse is the reality?
In 1988, 47 years later, the US government finally apologized and provided $20,000 cash payments to each incarcerated person. That is the equivalent of about 16 months average salary in the US at the time, for the total loss of all their property, 47 years later. Freedom from fear, indeed.
So no, not ‘in other words’. The four ‘freedoms’ are really only two, the other two are progressive talking points that garner votes. The freedom from ‘want’? What a utopian pipe dream that is, to not need to produce to survive. I would bet 70,000 Americans of a certain heritage ‘wanted’ quite a bit around 1945 when they were let out of their “relocation”, and what they got was $425.43 per year they had to wait after 47 years of waiting.
In all of human and natural history animals and people alike have had to produce to survive. We cannot simply exist and be sustained. We live in the best of times thus far when it comes to producing efficiently, and thriving thusly, but we cannot do that without wanting to and working to fulfill those wants and needs. That want always carries a risk of failure, we might fail to produce, we might make a mistake, that mistake might be fatal. We have no freedom to be free of ‘want’.
Likewise the government does not exist to ‘free us from fear’, what an absurd notion.
The government exists as an organized generalized force of the people. It will not, cannot, and should not perfectly execute the individual wills of all people. Not all those wills are created equal in value for the rest of the people. But all those people have certain rights, inalienable by government or other people, that the government can ensure a response to if they are violated by one person or another. Also, hopefully, if the government does it. But that outcome may be a far cry from satisfactory, see above.
This is not a freedom from fear, it is a promise of force on your behalf under certain conditions. It is also a promise that the government cannot use certain force against you, at least without you being able to take it to court afterwards and hold them accountable to their ruleset. You should fear your government in a healthy manner, and it should fear you. That is the respect of two bodies with the ability to truly influence each other.
In 1651, political philosopher Thomas Hobbes described a state of perpetual fear. He called it the “state of nature.” In this state, men enjoyed absolute freedom. However, freedom came at a price. There were no governments or laws to constrain men from freely exercising their passions and appetites (anger, aggression, envy, greed, ambition, lust). Without restraints, the state of nature was a state of war between man and his fellow man. Consequently, men lived in continual fear that someone would take away their lives, their liberty, and their property.
How is that different under today’s societal structures? A man can still take my life, my liberty, my property, and so can (and have) the governments we’ve instituted for that matter, and the only recourse I have against that with any assurance under my control is force. Force, in other words, meaning the ability to bring violence to bare on my own behalf. I may lose, but it is one of the only true freedoms I possess.
Hobbes famously described this state in which there was “no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”
For that reason, men joined together to form a government for the common good (commonwealth) and the mutual protection of life, liberty, and property. Men relinquished their absolute freedom and submitted to laws that provided security and freedom from fear.
No they didn’t. Men did not relinquish it. We just, as a majority, agreed to a consequence.
We are reminded, daily in many cases, that man is still free to act as they choose. What they are not free from is consequence. They weren’t free from consequence in the so titled “state of nature” either, but it was not a consequence organized by the majority. It was instead just a risk of violence from whomever they were offending against directly.
That seems to be the great lie, the constant sticking point that nobody with this sort of worldview seems to grasp, is that making something illegal deprives man of nothing, it does not deprive them of the ability to do a thing. To take from someone, to do violence to someone, to kill someone, a law does not deprive someone of the ability to do any of those things. What a law organizes is a consequence to being caught doing them.
That is it. Government is organized force, ordered on behalf and by the majority to be projected under certain circumstances. The better ones are enjoined with more things they cannot do than things that they can. The government exists to project force en masse on behalf of the individuals it represents. Thus its primary functions are defense from foreign threat and enforcement of contracts.
Government does not free you from fear, it is a form of projecting fear. The fear of consequence.
Our government has failed to act against gun violence and has failed to free us from fear. According to several polls, Americans want a ban on assault rifles: 66% (Pew); 58% (Gallup); 67% (Statista). However, far-right Republicans in both the House and the Senate, in the name of Second Amendment freedom, block any meaningful legislation to curb gun violence.
Maybe because mob democratic rule does not make for good policy? It doesn’t matter that a ‘majority’ of Americans want to ban assault rifles in poorly worded, ill-informed, binary choice polls. This is a subject matter the vast majority of them do not understand to a level worth rendering an opinion on, you value the opinion only because it aligns with yours.
My opinion on a nuclear reaction should not be weighed with equal measure to that of a leading nuclear physicist. My thoughts, and feelings, and fears of nuclear reactions or nuclear reactors should not be weighed the same as an expert. Therefore my ‘vote’ on whether to ban nuclear energy should only be weighed as much as I understand nuclear energy. We can take as many polls about how scared people are of nuclear energy, if that fear is objectively misplaced and erroneous then it should be disregarded and the public educated. It should not be implemented blindly as a policy of the mob.
This is something that government is terrible at by the way, educating, look at the information flow surrounding COVID-19.
Certain things should be public votes, of course. These are things that effect all and can be voted on in an informed manner. But just as government’s role has limits, so do public opinions rendered on a binary vote sheet.
What we have is not freedom. What we have is a betrayal of civic responsibility. What we have is irresponsible behavior. What we have is fear of senseless, violent death.
Michael Camerota
Westfield
No Michael, what we have is an illustration that promised delusions, like that we can make natural laws bend to our will and work differently through words on a sheet of paper, sell gangbusters. We see that people would rather continue being told that X, Y, or Z politician or policy will finally fix ‘violence’ and ‘bad thing’ for good and all, even with the repeated illustrations of failure time and time again. That it is more comforting to live in the lie that if we just keep ‘working to end’ a manifestation of natural law, the ability to project force, that is better than acknowledging the limits of written law.
Written law requires consent, your consent, to be governed by it. You probably withdraw that consent multiple times, and in multiple ways, every single day. Do you speed? You have decided to withdraw your consent to be governed by a traffic law and risk the consequence. Drink and drive? Even just once, a short distance home around the corner, and you were really only buzzed not drunk so it was fine? Again, you withdrew consent and chose not to be governed by the law at that time.
Why is it so surprising that there are extreme cases of this departure from the governance of law? Why is it so surprising that because you can divest yourself from the governance of law, without immediate ill effect, that it can manifest in an extreme way like a multiple homicide too, and that divestment is only reigned in when the government or a private individual projects enough violence to counter it or the divested individual stops on their own? And why do you expect the government to solve your fear of those extremes when they cannot stop you from speeding?
The popularity of the P365 has guaranteed it will have a massive aftermarket. The P365 series has dominated the concealed carry market, and the numerous models of the gun have instituted a new level of modularity. The P365 features a proprietary rail that has been a popular option with various light manufacturers. The most popular is the Streamlight TLR-7 sub, but an unlikely competitor in the form of the Nightstick TCM-365.
At first glance, the lights are very similar. The TCM-365 looks a lot like the TLR 7 SUB but does differ inside and outside. The TCM-365 is also seemingly the most powerful of these subcompact weapon lights on the market. The TCM-365 utilizes an aluminum case with some polymer and is powered by a single CR123A battery. The TCM-365 weighs 2.25 ounces and is 2.51 inches long.
On the XL slide model, it does stretch past the end of the barrel ever so slightly. From pictures on Nightstick’s website, it seems like the light goes a bit past the standard P365’s slide and barrel. This isn’t an issue other than adding length to a compact gun.
The TCM-365 – Light it Up
What first caught my attention was the lumens of the little light. I’ll be the first to admit that lumens aren’t everything, but they are still important. The TCM-365 throws 650 lumens of bright white light outward. That’s 150 more than the TLR-7 SUB. It’s tough to squeeze extra light into such a small light. The run time is two hours on a premium-quality battery.
The candela is a very specifically listed 4,612. That’s fairly standard for a little light but is about four candela short of the TLR-7 SUB. That’s one of the problems: when you brighten up the lumens, you often sacrifice some candela. The TCM-365 is IPX-7 waterproof, so you can splash it, but don’t go swimming with it.
Run and Gun
The TCM-365 has a set of ambidextrous buttons on either side of the light. A quick press on either button results in an instant on. The buttons are nice and tactile and presented for an easy press. With this light, we have both a momentary and constant on mode. Constant on is just a press, and the light fires up. A longer press is momentary, and the light shuts off when released.
The control is programmable. You can press both buttons five times to enable a strobe mode if you like strobe modes. You can also turn the life off entirely. Hold both buttons for three seconds, and it’s off and won’t come on until you hold both buttons again for three seconds. This is great for storage and transportation to avoid killing your light.
Through the Darkness
The TCM-365 packs an interesting beam. It’s actually well-tailored for a compact, concealed-carry weapon. The center hotspot is very distinct from the corona and casts out fairly far. A TIR lens does a great job of creating a very wide beam that fills your vision with light. It casts a wide beam that’s tailored for close-quarters use. It really does a great job of filling your vision with light.
The hotspot carries itself out very well to 25 yards. At 25 yards, I feel pretty good about being able to identify a threat and deal with it. Beyond 25 yards, the beam still carries far enough to spot potential threats, but being able to determine if that target is a threat might be tough if they don’t have a long gun.
The TCM-365 activates quickly and does a great job cutting through the darkness. The beam is cooler than most and more of a white-colored light rather than a yellow light. It’s effective for sure, especially indoors. If it’s being used in the home, a parking garage, or an alley, you have quite a good bit of light to deal with a threat.
Rough and Tough
Recoil certainly isn’t an issue for the light. The mount locks the light to the gun, and it doesn’t move. It’s tough and durable enough to resist falls for up to two meters, according to Nightstick. I tested that by dropping it from head height at different angles. The only thing I achieved was getting my gun dirty. The light fired right back up and on.
The TCM-365 is a great tool to turn your carry gun into a capable home defense gun and night fighter. You can argue your carry gun doesn’t need a weapon light, and I wouldn’t argue back. To me, it’s another option. However, where this light and other P365 lights work best is if you use your carry gun for home defense. While most of us have specific guns for specific purposes, the average gun owner likely only has one gun.
Home defense guns should most certainly have a weapon light, and the TCM-365 is tough to beat if the P365 is your go-to gun.
First, the good news. Homicide in my area dropped 18% from last year which puts us at the lowest level since 1966. The six decade record is good news for Oakland and Wayne counties, and Motor City herself. Good job Detroit.
2022 was a record year for violence, as were 2020 and 2021, with the COVID-19 and George Floyd riots spike leading to nationwide strife on levels we hadn’t seen for many years. We still haven’t hit early 90’s bad, but it isn’t great. There are signs it is getting better in many ways and in most places.
Via Ground News
But that isn’t all ways or all places.
The Hill has a honestly titled report out that details the US hit a record in mass shootings with 4 or more deaths, recording 38 in 2023. This beat last year, 36, and was the highest we know since 2006. We are on pace to have a lower number of mass shootings of 4 or more injuries than 2022 and 2021, but the number of incidents with 4 or more deaths peaked.
This is why language matters so much in reporting. Context also matters. Most of these 4 or more death events were domestic. The most significant shooting of the year was Maine where a US veteran shot 31 people, killing 18, before being found dead days later from an apparent suicide.
The issues are complex and the mass killing events, while a “record” number in a year, are still too rare to well quantify as an issue nationally. Stress is a complicated compound issue and we can’t find too many commonalities other than stress and usually a final triggering event. Mental health issues, paranoia, traumatic personal events, traumatic world events that play into biases, all of these things have at some point been the trigger or trigger combination for violence on this scale. But it is still rare.
For reference, agricultural deaths due to accidents with tractors kill more people, 241 dead (2021), than were killed in mass shootings of this 4+ scale, 197 dead (2023). Am I saying we shouldn’t look at mass shooting deaths? No, they are eminently preventable because they require a hostile motivated person or persons to occur. With fewer so motivated people we have fewer deaths. The comparison is that in accident prevention we have the same base level formula, if we mitigate the circumstances for accidents we have fewer.
The problem in both is we cannot eliminate all the the factors for the negative event. Tractors need to be able to do certain things that put people working around them at a certain level of physical risk. Comparatively people cannot be divested of their capability for hostile acts and we cannot divest them of the ability to cause harm, a partial token removal of the ability to cause harm is without value.
Let’s take a look at the ‘preventative’ measures that are currently popular in the gun control mainstream and if they would reduce or eliminate the ability of a shooter to kill four people.
Assault Weapon Ban, Partial (No Mandatory Confiscation/Buy Back)
Most proposals do not remove any currently held firearms, tens of millions are in circulation and will remain so for decades. This does not reduce the risk of death to four people
Only makes new transfers illegal. Illegal transfer status does not curb current felonious use and would be unlikely to significantly impact extreme cases like mass shootings. This does not reduce the risk of death to four people.
Magazine Capacity Limit, 10 Rifle and 15 handgun
10 round magazine of rifle ammunition is more than enough to kill four people
15 round magazine of handgun ammunition is more than enough to kill four people
Hundreds of millions of standard capacity magazines are in circulation.
Fixed magazine
Making the magazine remain affixed to the firearm does not reduce or eliminate the ability to kill four people
Universal Background Check
Every study about background checks associated with point-of-sale checks, whether commercial or private and on handguns or all guns, found no conclusive evidence that background checks have an influence on mass-shootings. Background checks therefore have no influence on the reducing harm in incidents of mass shootings where four or more deaths occur.
Many of the deadliest mass shootings in the nation have occurred with people who passed their background checks and who had no disqualifying criminal or mental health record at the time of purchase. Other incidents circumvented the background check in some trivial (simple theft) or violent (murder) manner.
The collection of studies by Rand, linked in the first bullet point, actually associate greater likelihood of a mass shooting after background checks in 4 of the 5 policies studied.
Caveat to the UBC point, the data is thin. Mass shootings are (thankfully) too rare an event to track across this causatively, but the best data we have available suggests an increase events after background checks are implemented, not a decrease.
How could that be? Because correlation isn’t causation. If you harken back to my context article taking apart the ‘Terror on Repeat’ nonsense, you’ll notice that the rise in mass shootings also correlates strongly with the rise of 24hr news cycle and then real time social media consumption. Background checks happen to have been implemented for firearms transfers in the 90’s with NICS right about the same time as the rise of the 24hr news cycle gave mass shooters their instant world stage.
So, in all likelihood, background checks are mostly a feel good measure.
That’s 2023. Hopefully we see the world continue the chilling trend, maybe faster, in 2024. Two increasingly divisive wars on the global scale and high government distrust do not make it an easy forecast.
