Advertisement

Shotgun Rifle Sights Need a Comeback

As a disciple of the gauge, I’ve experimented with quite a few different sighting systems for shotguns. The basics like beads and ghost rings, as well as red dots and even a 1X prism optic at one point. If we take optics out of the conversation, what’s the best set of sights for a shotgun? Ghost rings are popular, and bead sights are extremely popular, but one sighting system that has sadly taken a backseat to both is barrel-mounted rifle sights.

Rifle sights on a shotgun were quite popular back in the day. Police forces commonly used them when Ithaca 37s were popular. They were a frequent addition to hunting shotguns, specifically shortish-barreled shotguns like the Winchester Model 12 and 1200/1300, as well as the aforementioned Ithaca Deerslayer. Mossberg and Remington both used to make various models with rifle-type sights.

Then all of a sudden, they seemingly disappeared. Finding a modern production shotgun with a barrel-mounted set of rifle sights isn’t easy. Hell, it might not be possible. I think that’s a shame.

What are Barrel Mounted Rifle Sights?

These sighting systems place an open rear sight near the rear of the barrel and a rifle-style front sight. Why are they called rifle sights when they are technically shotgun sights? Well, the design comes from Safari-style rifles that placed nearly identical sights on the barrel for rapid and accurate shooting of dangerous game.

Shotguns picked up on the same sights for basically the same reason. You could argue for a rear sight placed on the receiver for a longer sight radius, but the forward-mounted rear sight has some benefits. It’s faster and easier to see on the barrel. Also, it likely made production easier. You make the same receiver with different barrels rather than make different receivers.

The Benefits of Rifle Sights (On Shotguns)

I recently got my hands on an Ithaca Deerslayer and a Model 1300 with rifle sights and did a little testing against beads and ghost ring sights. I had curiosity about why these sights seemingly disappeared from the market and assumed they were something used by hunters and no one else, specifically, those guys using slugs. Most slug gun shooters I know have now turned wholeheartedly into low-power optics.

After banging out a variety of birdshot, buckshot, and slugs, I was pleasantly surprised by how capable and handy rifle sights on a shotgun were. They were extremely fast when needed and could be quite precise as well. The argument between a bead and ghost rings is speed versus precision, but why can’t you have both?

Rifle sights on shotguns seemed to offer me the best of both worlds. I could ignore the rear sight entirely and find the front sight, as if it was a bead, and let loose with speed. If I needed to slow things down, I precisely set the front sight between the rear sight and let the round fly.

What About Dots?

We can’t ignore optics, and in a world where Scalarworks Sync mounts exist and red dots are common, why wouldn’t we use a dot? Red dots, much like rifle sights, are both fast and precise and the clear best option for shotguns. However, why not both?

19 CharlieTactical

The barrel-mounted sights occupy no receiver space, which means you can use a red dot and barrel-mounted irons with no logistic issues. Plus, the irons will likely co-witness without issue depending on your mount height and attachment design. On a Sync mount or similar, there certainly aren’t going to be any issues.

Sighting In

Sights on shotguns, especially tactical shotguns, are important. If you’re busting clays, a bead works, but for a defensive shotgun, you might need to be a bit more picky. It’s a shame that rifle sights have seemingly disappeared on modern shotguns. Now to have that sort of setup, you’ll need a gunsmith who can make it happen.

It’s unlikely we’ll see a rifle sight comeback, but I’ll keep my hopes up. Slightly.

AWB: Unpopular

AWB support dropping
Photo Credit: FPC Twitter

The anti-gun lobby pushing so many Assault Weapons Bans (AWBs) today has always seemingly operated under the apparent presumption that they are not only working to save lives, but that the majority of Americans are on their side. A favorite poll of theirs says 80% of Americans support universal background checks, and they mention that at every opportunity. When support fails to materialize in the form of a federal bill to enact such a scheme, they trot out their usual list of boogeymen, and claim that the NRA or GOP subverts the will of the voters, and is the only thing standing in the way of their AWB and background check-fueled utopia.

Do you believe that? Do you believe that the NRA has accomplished anything in the last decade, let alone subverted the will of 80% of the American public? Even at their pre-scandal, post 94 AWB peak, the NRA’s lobbying expenditures were around $5million annually, spread among 35 lobbyists, though the average was closer to $3.5mil, and 24. Meanwhile during the same period, FedEx –the package shipping giant that remembers where I live about 30% of the time– maxed out at 66 lobbyists wielding over $25million, with an average closer to $12million.

Even during lean years, Federal Express was outspending the NRA by a factor of more than 2. If the NRA can forestall another federal AWB, and sideline a national universal background check requirement indefinitely, by lobbying congress with such paltry offerings, one has to wonder what sort of Tom Clancy shit FedEx is doing with that budget and army of lobbyists.

Perhaps more people are waking up to the lie of AWBs, background checks, and the war on guns in general. Plenty of people have realized that the war on drugs was a racist, classist, politically motivated nightmare started to suppress opposition to the Vietnam war, and the Civil Rights movement. Whatever the intent of the drug war, the net result was that drugs won, and America imprisoned more people than China for nonviolent crimes. It seems that a war on drugs can only produce a similar result, regardless of what “80% of Americans” may, or may not agree on.

Thankfully, those numbers are coming down. As this Monmouth poll shows, support for AWBs at least is slipping. Those are however, as they say, rookie numbers, and we know we can do better than that.

Remington Rolling Block Pistols

The Remington Rolling block design was a right time, right place design. The Civil War had just ended, and the market was looking to metallic cartridges and their benefits. The Rolling Block design offered a stout, very strong, and simple system. It could be loaded quickly and could stomach the powerful post-Civil War rifle cartridges. When smokeless became the standard, this system still proved rugged enough to keep up. While they were adopted by numerous military forces and conversion were made to muskets, the first military order wasn’t for rifles. It was for Rolling Block pistols.

When Remington designed the Rolling Block system, they didn’t just apply it to rifles, but they also produced several pistol variants. In 1866 the US Navy ordered 5,000 .50 Caliber rimfire rolling block pistols. Shortly after, they purchased an order of rolling block carbines. The Army later purchased small numbers of Rolling Block pistols, and Remington produced several variants. While they never achieved popularity, they are an interesting piece of history.

The Rolling Block Pistols – Why

Metallic cartridge pistols were tricky in this era. Rollin White and S&W held the patent of revolvers loaded through the cylinder and guarded it with a great jealousy. Metallic cartridge revolvers were the sole dominion of S&W, and Remington couldn’t produce any without a different design. It seemed easy to look at the Rolling Block rifle design and produce a metallic cartridge pistol from it.

Admittedly you could create a rather capable pistol with a potent and powerful caliber. The main problem obviously was the fact it was a single-shot weapon. Revolvers had killed the idea of successful single-shot pistols decades before. Even so, the Rolling Block pistols were fairly affordable at between 15 and 20 dollars apiece.

Rolling Block pistols did have a number of benefits. They were very robust, and when compared to a revolver, not much could go wrong. In this era, there were issues with early cartridge cases expanding and exploding due to weak points. The Rolling Block pistols fully encapsulated the round, so this wasn’t a problem either. They were also very accurate guns. The Rolling Block designs have always received praise for their accuracy.

Still, these guns were never super successful in any military or police use.

Variations of the Rolling Block Pistols

1865 Navy Pistol

The first Rolling Block pistol. It featured a sheath trigger and a barrel length of 8.5 inches. The gun weighed 2.2 pounds and fired the .50 rimfire Navy pistol cartridge.

1867 Navy Pistol

The sheath trigger wasn’t very popular, and centerfire ammo was becoming popular. The 1867 Navy pistol came in both .50 Centerfire Navy Pistol and .22 rimfire. The barrel was trimmed to seven inches, and the gun weighed two pounds. Some 1865s were converted to 1867s.

1871 Army Pistol

The 1871 Army model featured an improved action design which became the standard for Rolling Block pistols in 1871. Remington made the action more compact and pistol-like. A spur was added to the frame for a better grip. While originally chambers din .50 Remington Centerfire, the custom shop would chamber it in anything from .50 centerfire to .22 rimfire if ordered. Barrel lengths varied from 11.75 to 8 inches and typically weighed around 2.2 pounds.

The 1891/1901 Target Pistols

The 1891 and 1901 target pistols are nearly identical. The 1901 models featured improved target sights and different and more advanced checkering. The Target pistol variants were really where these guns excelled. They were very accurate and worked well for bull’s eye shooting. The calibers varied widely from .22 Rimfire to .44 S&W Russian.

Rolling On

The Rolling Block handguns were never popular, and the advent of revolvers prevented them from ever being more than an interesting piece of history. It’s interesting the US Military purchased the first Rolling Block pistols, but they never went much further than that. Arguably they made some interesting stock pistols from these guns, which would be fairly effective short carbines, but there wasn’t much need at the time for such a weapon. Rolling blocks are still cool, and I’d love to find a .22 caliber Rolling Block pistol.

Boost Your Glock 48 Barrel Performance with Faxon

Glock 48 owners seeking enhanced accuracy and performance can now upgrade their firearms with Faxon’s precision-engineered Match Series barrels. Let’s discuss the benefits of upgrading and determine whether investing in a Faxon barrel is truly worthwhile.

Faxon Match Series: Precision Engineered for Glock G48

Faxon has meticulously designed the Match Series pistol barrels for the Glock G48, using stress-relieved 416-R stainless steel and in-house machining. The barrels are coated with either black Nitride or PVD to improve lubricity, barrel life, and surface wear resistance.

Glock 48 Barrel

Featuring conventional rifling, these barrels accommodate a wider variety of ammunition, including cast lead. They fit seamlessly into factory-spec slides without requiring a gunsmith for installation. Faxon barrels ensure a more consistent and tighter lockup than OEM barrels due to their better-than-factory tolerances.

Glock 48 Barrel Specifications:

  • Handgun Type: Glock G48
  • Barrel Caliber: 9mm
  • Barrel Material: Stress Relieved 416-R Stainless Steel
  • Barrel Twist: 1:10
  • Muzzle Thread: 1/2X28
  • Crown: 11-degree Target Crown
  • Rifling Type: Conventional

Advantages of the Faxon Glock 48 Barrel

Improved Accuracy

The Faxon Match Series Glock 48 barrels offer superior accuracy compared to stock Glock 48 barrels, thanks to its 1:10 traditional rifling, smoother and more consistent bore, and 11-degree target crown.

An 11-degree target crown provides a flatter surface area for gases to dissipate more quickly and evenly, ensuring minimal disturbance to the bullet’s flight. As a result, at 25 yards, groups can be ¼ inch to 2 inches tighter with a match-grade barrel.

Increased Reliability

The optimized chamber in the Faxon barrel ensures reliable feeding and extraction, minimizing the chances of malfunction, especially in high-stress situations.

Better Recoil Management

Faxon Match Series barrels help reduce recoil, enabling faster and more accurate follow-up shots. This is beneficial for competitive shooters or those looking to improve shooting speed and accuracy.

Customizable Options

Faxon Match Series barrels are available in various finishes, lengths, and threading options. Their threaded barrel option allows for the attachment of suppressors or compensators, further enhancing versatility.

Glock 48 Barrel

Faxon also offers the EXOS compensator, designed to work seamlessly with their threaded barrels.

Stock Glock Barresl vs. Faxon Match Series Glock 48 Barrel

While the stock Glock barrel is a reliable option, the Faxon Match Series Glock 48 barrel offers superior performance in accuracy, reliability, and recoil management. However, it comes at a higher cost.

For serious shooters looking to enhance their Glock 48 barrel performance and willing to invest a bit extra, Faxon barrels are worth considering. 

Glock 48 Barrel

Browse Faxon’s G48 options here, or read more about Faxon’s Glock replacement barrel options

The P32 – An Underrated Influence

I’d argue the best centerfire pistol KelTec makes is the P32. It’s easily the most innovative, and honestly, it’s my favorite pocket pistol. I know many of you likely grit your teeth when you hear KelTec pistols, and they have had some quality assurance problems, but they have the p32 figured out. They’ve been producing the gun since 1999, and it served as the blueprint for the modern pocket pistol. 

As I type, this one sits in my pocket in a Desantis holster. It’s my convenience carry gun. I typically carry a SIG P365XL, but on occasions when even that is too big, I carry the KelTec. It’s an older Gen 1 model, but it still runs like a typewriter. I regret never purchasing the extended baseplate for one extra round, but the past is the past. 

Pocket pistols have been around since guns have existed. Weapons like the muff pistols of the Flintlock era are arguably pocket pistols. Colt made the M1903 Pocket Hammerless, and the Savage M1907 was advertised for concealed carry. While the concept has been around for decades, KelTec formed the first modern pocket pistol with the P32. 

Why Made the P32 Different 

Prior to the P32, guns like the Seecamp existed, as did the AMT Backup, which were arguably very small pocket guns. The AMT model had various reliability issues, and the Seecamp wasn’t for everyone. Both of these guns are all metal, and while the Seecamp is well-made, it’s expensive and often hard to find. 

The P32 redefined pocket pistols in the same way that Glock redefined duty pistols. They used heavy doses of polymer. This had several benefits. First, the reduction in weight ensured the P32 weighed only 6.6 ounces. Polymer frames also reduced the price and made mass production easy. 

The P32 used a smooth frame and slide to ensure easy carry. It fits right into a pocket without complaint. The little gun used a DAO trigger system and fed from a single stack magazine. As the name implies, it’s also a .32 ACP handgun. Pocket pistol aficionados know that is odd because modern pocket pistols use the .380 ACP. KelTec did make the cleverly named P3AT, but the P32 predates it. Surprisingly the gun used a locked breech and short recoil operation rather than direct blowback. 

.32 ACP vs. .380 ACP

In 1999 both calibers were far from common. Neither was super popular at the time, and 32 ACP made as much sense as .380 ACP. From a pocket-sized pistol, the .32 ACP makes way more sense than the .380 ACP. It really is silly that we decided to make the .380 ACP our caliber of choice for pocket pistols. 

This could be its own entire article. I’d sum it up by saying the reason we used .380 ACP over .32 ACP is the same reason people still cling to .45 ACP. It’s just slightly bigger, and in the American mind, bigger is better. 

Pocket pistols makes more sense when using .32 ACP due to the substantially lower recoil, the extra magazine capacity, and the ease of shooting. It has about half the recoil energy of the .380. 

Who KelTec Inspired 

Look at any modern pocket pistol, and you can see KelTec’s influence. Ruger’s LCP, S&W Bodyguard.380 ACP, the Beretta PICO, and many more used KelTec’s influence as a guide. Hell, Glock seems to be the only one who made a proper .380 ACP that was a little bigger and broke the pocket pistol mold. 

KelTec might be a lot of things, but they are certainly creative and innovative. From PCCs and Pocket Pistols to bullpup shotguns, they certainly make waves. The P32 might have been a little wave, but it’s one worth mentioning. 

Gunday Brunch 100: Fun Range Stories

You’ve heard the bad. Now it’s time for the good. The boys share their best and most fun range stories. Training and range days are usually fun, which is why the oddball behaviors stand out in contrast so starkly. When you have a good day it makes for a wonderful positive experience. It’s easy to get bogged down in the oddball negatives because the positives are the expected result.

What’s yours?

The Revenant Corps Discreet Stabber

With summer around the corner, many of us are likely planning to bring our loved ones to all sorts of vacation hot spots. Zoos, theme parks, water parks, and the like are prime times for summer vacation. Most are considered nonpermissive when it comes to weaponry. A local theme park/water park near me even enforce this rule with metal detectors. I’m not one to remain unarmed for long, so I sought a solution and found one from a company called Revenant Corps. 

To be clear, I’m not advocating anyone violate the law. Don’t try to sneak weapons into legally prohibited places. However, if there is no legal restraint to keep me from carrying something, then I’m carrying something, anything, to give me a self-defense advantage. No one will know unless my life is on the line, and I’ll take the ban to preserve my life. Revenant Corps is a fairly small company providing fairly awesome products. 

They are nonpermissive environment specialists. They produce G10 tools for self-defense, and this includes traditional knives, as well as my choice of discreet self-defense tool, a Sharpie. 

The Revenant Corps Solution

Revenant Corps takes Sharpies or Sharpies looking like markers and turns them into weapons. From the outside, it looks like a marker and nothing more. Pop the cap off, and we have a pointy little piece of G10 that looks like it will dig in nice and deep in a pinch. It looks so much like a marker that my wife has picked it up more than once, popped the top off, and sighed in frustration. 

The little pocket stabber fit right into my front shirt pocket, and the clip at the top held the weapon aloft without issue. I forgot it was there for most of the day and toted it around our little local park without issue. No one is the wiser. I would have preferred something that fired a projectile or a more proper blade, but you take what you can take. 

Since we were dealing with lots of water rides and pools, the Revenant Corps marker poker is a nice design. It won’t rust or fail due to water. Plus, it’s so superbly light it can be supported by a pair of swim shorts or a simple shirt pocket. 

The disguise is a bit of a bonus as well. Let’s say my spider sense starts tingling. I can draw and prepare the marker without drawing any attention. I could uncap it, carry it like an icepick, and no one would ever know. You could be prepared to deal with a threat without making a fuss. 

Disposable Tools 

A G10 poker built into the body of a marker isn’t designed to be a real durable fighting weapon. It’s something you use to save your life and fight fiercely with. It gives you a short-term advantage you will have to turn into a victory. Don’t expect to use this tool over and over, and it will likely break after a few full-force impacts. 

The Revenant Corps G10 marker is about as low profile as a weapon can get these days. It’s undetectable without a very close inspection. With that said, it’s still a weapon. Carrying it where you are legally prohibited from carrying a weapon is still illegal. 

Revenant Corps is a small company, and if you want to show them some love, check them out here. 

Another Used Mossberg Followed Me Home

There I was, minding my own business, wandering through Big Box Outdoor Store looking at camping equipment. When suddenly I felt a tug, a pull, a call if you will, to the firearms department across the way. 

I spied in front of me a new rack. Well technically it was a “used” rack. But the presence of this rack was new. I had not seen such a pre-owned rack in said Big Box store previously. Deciding to peruse this rack just for giggles, I found what it was that had been beckoning to me like a siren from across the store.

It was a compact Mossberg 500 20 gauge. Yes, I already own a “youth model” 20 gauge 500 from a pawnshop, but this was listed a a “500c”. Maybe it’s actually the same thing – I think they are both the Bantam – but that didn’t matter to me, because I’d been looking for another short LOP 20 gauge pump for a number of months without success. After my newfound revelation about the comfort of 20 gauge over 12 gauge last summer and fall, I decided that I needed a spare in case one of the offspring decided to join me on the clays field or on a hunt.

New Mossy 500 20 gauges always seemed to be out of stock wherever I looked last year. And when I found one in a pawnshop inventory on-line, it was purchased out from under me before I could get there. I had given up my quest and decided to be content with what I already had. Apparently the universe had other plans.

This gun was in excellent shape. There were a few minor cosmetic dings to the stock, but mechanically it seemed to be fine. It cycled smoothly and I couldn’t see any rust. I purchased it on the spot. Talk about an impulse buy. Admittedly I paid more at the Big Box Store than I would have at a pawnshop. But a shotgun in the hand is worth two in the bush – or something. Before I left the store I also bought a Hiviz fiber optic magnetic front sight in case I wanted to use it for more precision work. Plus, my aging eyesight can sometimes use some help when leading a bird on a cloudy day.

A few minor dings.

I think I surprised the gun counter clerk – because an unaccompanied female with a decidedly gray ponytail asked to handle a shotgun in the rack, shouldered and cycled it several times, visually inspected the action etc. and then announced on the spot, “I’ll take it”.

In contrast, while I was waiting for my paperwork to go through there was a young couple looking at handguns for the wife, but the husband did all the talking. She spoke to her husband, but her husband was the one interacting with the clerk. She and the clerk had no direct interaction. That was a whole other world to me. There are more and more of us women out here in the firearms world every day, but an aging female making an independent purchase is still apparently a bit of an anomaly – at least at this store.

I know that writing about a used firearm doesn’t advance the profits of the company – especially on a marketing website. But what I AM doing is extolling a longstanding product line. That can say something as well, can’t it? Mossberg first produced the 500 line in 1961. A product line that has persisted for more than 60 years and is listed as the “most produced shotgun of all time” cannot be a slouch.

As a result of its success, replacement parts for the Mossberg 500 abound. Purchasing parts still benefits the company, and I did indeed get online when I got home in order to purchase additional choke tubes, as this one only came with a modified. But the gun is in such good condition that additional parts were as yet unnecessary. I’ll decide later if I want extra doo-dads like a side saddle or something, but I am exceedingly pleased with this new acquisition and I’m going to take it clays shooting this weekend.

From the length of pull on this model, to the smoothness of the pump action, to the tang-mounted ambidextrous safety, to its affordability, to the model longevity and ease of parts acquisition, the Mossberg 500 is far and away my absolute favorite shotgun line, and I’m happy to have brought another one home to my gun safe family.

Bindon Aiming Concept Vs. Occluded Shooting

MARINE CORPS BASE HAWAII – Staff Sgt. Stuart Clark, a training staff noncommissioned officer for Headquarters Battalion, observes Marines conducting Table Five as part of the unit’s annual training qualification at Kaneohe Bay Range Training Facility aboard MCB Hawaii on March 15, 2017. Headquarters Bn. is conducting the training in order to meet the Marine Corps’ requirement that every unit must complete Tables Three through Six to better prepare Marines for combat. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Isabelo Tabanguil)

If you’ve ever heard of the Bindon Aiming Concept, I bet you have the wrong impression of what it is. Most people will describe it as a means to shoot a prism or magnified optic with an illuminated reticle at ultra-close ranges. Well, that is factually incorrect. In fact, it’s impressive how many people in the industry do not understand what the Bindon Aiming Concept actually is and what occluded shooting is. Luckily, I’m a nerd with lots of ACOG experience and figured we could break it down and finally end the misunderstanding.

What’s Occluded Shooting?

Occluded shooting is what most people are describing when they say the phrase Bindon Aiming Concept. You can use occluded shooting with a magnified optic to create a fairly efficient close-range option. The less magnification, the better, and it’s why prism optics often use the technique.

When you have a fixed power optic engaging at CQB ranges can be fairly difficult with traditional aiming. Trying to use a 4X optic at seven yards isn’t easy. What you do is keep both eyes open. Look through the optic, but focus on the target. If you have an illuminated reticle, preferably a bright one, it will ‘appear’ on the target.

This method of shooting evolved from the OEG. The OEG was an early red dot that did have a set of lenses to look through. Instead, it had a glowing red dot facing the shooter. When the shooter used both eyes open, the dot appeared on the target and was a very useful close-fighting tool prior to more traditional red dots.

What’s the Bindon Aiming Concept

The Bindon Aiming Concept is designed to work with magnified optics and does use both eyes, but it is for targets at mid to long ranges. Specifically, it’s about aiming at moving targets efficiently with a magnified optic. The optic does require an illuminated reticle.

The photo will look through the magnified optic and find its target. If the target begins to move, the shooter can then use the focus of their nondominant eye to track the target outside of the magnification. An illuminated reticle is easy to see and track, and you can follow the target.

A riflescope uses a monocular view which cuts off 50% of your vision. This makes tracking a target difficult because your field of view is so limited with monocular vision.

Occluded shooting is used for close range, and the Bindon Aiming Concept is designed for distance shooting and tracking a target.

Why the Confusion?

Well, there are a few reasons. First, Glyn Bindon, the Trijicon founder, was heavily involved with the Armson OEG and the idea of occluded shooting. He didn’t invent it, but he was part of its popularity. Second, they are both two eyes opened shooting concepts. The BAC can be used with the ACOG, as well as occluded shooting.

Somewhere along the way, the Bindon Aiming Concept was applied to an entirely different technique. It’s easy to see why the confusion arose and easy to understand why so many people call occluded shooting the Bindon Aiming Concept. Both techniques are valuable to know, especially with LPVOs. Hopefully, we helped educate and illustrate the differences.

Springfield Releases The 9mm Operator

For those that demand a no-nonsense approach to their defensive grade pistol, the new Operator® 1911 in 9mm stands ready to deliver. Crafted on the solid foundation of a forged frame, slide and barrel, the Operator 1911 builds on the century-plus of service behind the gun and adds the benefit of the ever-popular 9mm round. Tactical Rack rear/tritium front sights, G10 grips, ambi safety, two 9-round magazines with bumper pads, forward cocking serrations, and more combine to make the Operator 1911 from Springfield Armory a must-have tool for self-defense.

Not double stack.

Not optic ready.

Not very ‘operator’ by the modern standards, to be frank. But I am certain it’ll shoot well with the forged frame and slide. I’m also a big fan of the grip panels. Classic Springfield naming conventions continue.

The Tisas 1911 Stingray Carry B9BA

Tisas Stingray 9mm

I’ll start off by saying that I’m far from an expert on 1911s. I owned a Series 80 Colt back when I was in college, but that’s about it.

With the burgeoning crop of 9mm 1911s coming in the scene, I figured it was worth revisiting.

I’m fortunate that a friend of mine is a rep for SDS Imports/ Tissas USA, so I was able to give him a call.

To try and keep things as unimpeachable as possible, all I said initially was “Hey, can I borrow your range-day demo gun to check out?”.

I wanted to make sure that I wasn’t getting a cherry picked review sample, and one that had some miles on it.

When I picked the pistol up, I was told that it had roughly 300 rounds on it so far, and had not been cleaned.

INITIAL IMPRESSIONS:

For a $619.99 MSRP, I wasn’t expecting anything super refined. The overall appearance was clean & consistent. No apparent defects or imperfections that I saw.

The Stingray is an aluminum-framed, commander-sized 1911, with the Ed Brown Bobtail to aid in concealment.

It uses the Series 70 type design, which purportedly results in a cleaner trigger pull than the 80 Series firing pin block.

The grip safety seemed nicely tuned, requiring very little pressure to activate.

While the slide uses Novak cuts for the sights, I was told that they are intentionally undersized, so some fitting will be required if you choose to upgrade from the factory 3-dot sights.

The slide ran smoothly, with no perceived grit or binding.

The trigger had a bit of take-up before the wall, and a little creep before the sear engaged.

Because I’m not a particularly sophisticated pistolero, and I currently lack a trigger gauge, I’ll refrain from going into too much detail on the trigger, and I categorically refuse to use the trope of it “breaking like a glass rod”.

Suffice to say it felt fine, and about what I expected for a $600 carry gun.

The G10 grips felt a little fat for the rest of the gun, but I’m not sure if I’d want anything slimmer. The sunburst pattern does feel like they copied Wilson Combat’s homework a bit.

There was no front-strap checkering, but that’s easily rectified with some skateboard deck tape.

In my next article, I’ll go over my range session & final assessments.

Disclosures:

I am friends with the Tisas rep, and we shoot together occasionally.

This was not a paid review from SDS/Tisas. With that said, when I met up to return the pistol my buddy did pay for my lunch, so my compensation for this piece was technically a pastrami sandwich & a chocolate egg cream.

World War Two Firearm Quals

World War 2 saw the American rifle squad wield a very diverse set of weapons. Never before and never since have American forces sued so many different firearms. Squads and platoons had the M1 Garand, The Thompson, the M3 SMG, the M1 Carbine, the M1911, the M1919 machine gun, the BAR, and likely more I forget about. With so many firearms in service with the armed forces, they had numerous quals soldiers wielding the weapons had to pass.

I’ve been on the search for old firearms quals and have stumbled across three World War 2-era quals that shine a light on the training your average grunt would go through. Let’s take a look at the classic quals for the M1911, the M3, and M1 Carbine.

The M1911 Qual

By World War 2, the M1911 already had decades of service under its belt. It served in the First World War and was still modern for the era of WW2. The M1911 Qual is quite expansive, with six separate tables and a requirement for 80 rounds of ammunition. This qual is found in the 1940 edition of FM 23-35. Keep in mind this is the standard and not the horse riding qual.

I’ve modified the language slightly to make it easier to understand in a modern context.

Table 1 – Slow Fire – Bull’s Eye Target

Stage 1 – 15 yards – Fire five rounds Into a Bull’s Eye target. No Time Limit

Stage 2 – 25 Yards – Fire five rounds Into a Bull’s Eye target. No Time Limit

Table 2 – Rapid Fire – Bull’s Eye Target

Stage 1 – 15 yards – Fire five rounds Into a Bull’s Eye target in 11 seconds.

Stage 2 – – 25 Yards – Fire five rounds Into a Bull’s Eye target in 15 seconds.

Table 3 – Quick Fire – E Target

Stage 1 – 15 yards – Fire five rounds Into an E Type Target in 10 seconds (Repeat 1X)

Stage 2 – 25 Yards – Fire five rounds Into E Type Target in 10 seconds (Repeat 1X)

Table 4 – Slow Fire – Bull’s Eye Target

Stage 1 – 25 Yards – Fire five rounds Into a Bull’s Eye target. No Time Limit (Repeat 1X)

Table 5 – Rapid Fire – Bull’s Eye Target

Stage 1 – 15 yards – Fire five rounds Into a Bull’s Eye Target in 11 seconds (Repeat 1X)

Stage 2 – 25 Yards – Fire five rounds Into Bull’s Eye Target in 15 seconds (Repeat 1X)

Table 6 – Quick Fire – Target E

Stage -1 – 25 Yards – Fire Five shots into an E Target in 15 seconds. (Repeat 2X)

The M3 SMG Qual

Interestingly enough, the M3 SMG Qual is shorter than the M1911 qualification. Seeing as how it’s a primary arm, that’s an odd choice, but the war was raging during the adoption of the M3, so maybe they were just getting troops armed as quickly as possible. Again I’ve broken this down to be a little more readable than FM 23-41.

Table 1 – 25 Meters – E Target

Phase 1 – Fire found rounds from the standing aimed position an E Target. No time limit.

Phase 2 – Assume the underarm assault position and fire a six-round burst into the E Target. No time limit.

Table 2 – 50 Meters – E Target

Phase 1 – Shooter can choose between a standing, sitting, or kneeling position and fire four rounds single shot into the E Target. No time limit.

Phase 2 – Shooter can choose between a standing, sitting, or kneeling position and fire a three-round burst into the E Target. No time limit.

Phase 3 – Shooter can choose between a standing, sitting, or kneeling position and fire a three-round burst into the E Target. No time limit.

Table 3 – 90 Meters – E Target

Phase 1 – Shooter can choose between a standing, sitting, or kneeling position and fire four rounds single shot into the E Target. No time limit.

Phase 2 – Shooter can choose between a standing, sitting, or kneeling position and fire a three-round burst into the E Target. No time limit.

Phase 3 – Shooter can choose between a standing, sitting, or kneeling position and fire a three-round burst into the E Target. No time limit.

M1 Carbine Qual

Finally, we are breaking away from the .45 ACP cartridge and getting into a real rifle qualification. .45 ACP is tough at 90 meters, but how does .30 Carbine work out to 300 yards? Here’s the skinny.

Table 1 – 100 Yards – Two A Centers on 6×6 Frame

Ensure you have two mags loaded with four rounds each. Begin in the standing and fire four rounds into the top A Center. Transition to the sitting and reload. Fire four rounds into the Bottom A center. The time limit is 35 seconds.

Table 2 – 100 Yards – Two A Centers on 6×6 Frame

Ensure you have two mags loaded with four rounds each. Begin in the standing and fire four rounds into the top A Center. Transition to the kneeling and reload. Fire four rounds into the Bottom A center. The time limit is 35 seconds.

Table 3 – 200 Yards – Two B Centers on 6×6 Frame

Ensure you have two mags loaded with four rounds each. Begin in the standing and fire four rounds into the top B Center. Transition to the sitting and reload. Fire four rounds into the bottom B center. The time limit is 35 seconds.

Table 4 – 200 Yards – Two B Centers on 6×6 Frame

Ensure you have two mags loaded with four rounds each. Begin in the standing and fire four rounds into the top B Center. Transition to the kneeling and reload. Fire four rounds into the bottom B center. The time limit is 35 seconds.

Table 5 – 300 Yards – 1 B Center on 6×6 Frame

Ensure you have two mags loaded with four rounds each. Begin in the standing and transition into the prone. Fire round rounds into the B center target. Reload and fire four more rounds. The time limit is 35 seconds.

Booming Along

The quals all seem fairly basic and certainly a product of their time. They do seem to be combat oriented, but only to a small degree. Keep in mind this wasn’t the only training soldiers received. This training just confirmed the soldiers had an idea of what they were doing with their issued weapons. It’s certainly an interesting look back at the WW2 era. I’m going to keep digging for a Thompson, shotgun, and even BAR qual, and maybe we’ll see a sequel to this article soon.

The HighBall and SafetySight From Defender Tactical

A while back, I wrote about the problem with the Mossberg bead. The sum of that article was basically that Mossberg puts their bead way too low on their barrels, which results in an issue with modern buckshot and slug loads. They tend to appear to shoot high. A good bit after writing that article, I ran into a company called Defender Tactical that produced rails for the Mossberg series shotguns. They also produce a sight system that aims to fix the Mossberg bead problem they call the HighBall. 

HighBall is a clever way to name the system. Defender Tactical simply took the Mossberg bead and made it taller and much bigger. This does two things. First, it corrects the point of aim, point of impact problem with slugs and Federal Flitecontrol by simply raising the bead a bit. It sits at about the same height as a Remington bead on a pedestal. 

Second, a bigger bead is easier to see. Shotguns are close-range fighting weapons, and in close-range scenarios, fights move fast. Bigger sights are easier to see and, therefore, easy to shoot faster with. The Highball provides you with a simple and affordable fix that’s easy to install on any bead-sighted Mossberg shotgun. 

But Wait, There’s More

That’s not where the Defender Tactical sighting systems end. Alongside the HighBall, they created something called the SafetySight. The SafetySight replaces the rear safety with a larger easier to access safety that also doubles as a rear sight. At the front of the safety is a raised portion with a simple white line in the center. 

Align the SafetySight with the HighBall, and you have a stand-in rear sight that allows you to get a bit more precise with your modern buckshot loadings and slugs. The combinations of the SafetySight and HighBall are a must-have. The combined price is quite attractive, and if you have a stock bead, it’s not going to work well. 

At the Range 

When it comes to cheap buckshot loads, the difference isn’t as obvious. When you start shooting slugs and buckshots like Federal Flitecontrol, the difference is night and day in terms of point of aim and point of impact differences. The HighBall alone makes it much easier to put those tight loads of buckshot exactly where you want them. 

Even with just the HighBall sight, your speed and ability to put lead on target are impressive. That big bead is very easy to see and catches the eye nicely. 

With the SafetySight combination, you get an even more effective and precise combination. It really shines when it comes to slug use. At 50 yards, a bead sight kind of sucks by itself, but the SafetySight and HighBall combo makes it very easy to throw slugs with excellent precision. Even out to 100 yards, there is a drastic improvement.

Is it better than a dedicated set of ghost ring sights? No, but it’s the peak of bead sights, especially on Mossberg shotguns. The combination of the two sights is an awesome addition to your Mossberg 500 at a very low price point. For 25 bucks, it’s tough to beat. Check it out here.

HB5471 Update: IL AWB Back On

HB5471 Back on
Photo Credit: Robert F. Bukaty | AP

HB5471, the recently passed, then halted by injunction, assault weapons ban for the state of Illinois, is back on again, after the 7th Circuit court’s review. Firearms Policy Coalition filed for an injunction in late April to halt the clearly unconstitutional ban, and it was granted by federal district judge Steven McGlynn, who noted that “The Supreme Court in Bruen and Heller held that citizens have a constitutional right to own and possess firearms and may use them for self-defense,” the judge wrote in his ruling. “[The ban] seems to be written in spite of the clear directives in Bruen and Heller, not in conformity with them.” This resulted in the law not going into effect, giving citizens of IL more time to purchase banned items, and hope that the law might never go into effect at all.

In spite of this, the 7th Circuit has reversed McGlynn’s decision, meaning HB5471, the IL AWB, is now law –an HB5471 FAQ provided by the state of IL is located here–. Of note, one of the judges comprising the 7th Circuit panel held in 2015 that “If a ban on semi‐automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.” This kind of interest-balancing argument was specifically called out by Bruen as invalid, and it has to be stated that eliminating a fundamental right to reduce *perceived* risk, in order to make the public *feel* safer is absurd. Perception is not reality, and feeling is not being, as any functional adult should be able to explain, but regardless, the argument is legally moot according to SCOTUS.

This is not the first time anti-gun legislators and judges have actively ignored the Bruen decision, flouting the highest court in the land in the process, and it won’t be the last. While this is infuriating, especially for IL residents, if we take the long view, we have to admit that watching the gun-banning forces paint themselves into a legal corner they won’t be able to escape from, forcing SCOTUS to make a far more definitive ruling about “Assault Weapons” is somewhat entertaining.

As legal challenges to bills similar to HB5471 in WA, OR, NY, and others continue to inch forward, consider donating to the organizations fighting these battles. They don’t have a blank check from the taxpayers like the states who pass these laws, knowing they are counter to the constitution and the Supreme Court’s very recent decisions, and need support from all of us. The gun rights you save may be your own.

The ROKS-2 – A Flamethrower in Disguise

World War 1 established the modern flamethrower, and the German’s use of this device told modern armies they’d need one for the foreseeable future. If you sit and think about a flamethrower, you realize it’s a special kind of crazy, a sure sign that society failed by inventing such a way to kill another person. Flamethrowers proved to be very tactically capable tools and could flush out troops in pillboxes, bunkers, and caves. The Russians wisely adopted their own series of flamethrowers with the ROKS-2 and ROKS-3.

The ROKS-2 – Flamethrower in Disguise

The ROKS-2 is of particular interest to me. The Russians designed the ROKS-2 specifically to disguise the fact that it was a flamethrower. The flame projector was designed and built to look like a Mosin Nagant rifle. The weapon features a wood stock and rifle-like appearance and even the Mosin stock. Up close, it is easy to see that it’s not a Mosin, but at distances as far as 50 to 100 yards, it’s likely tough to tell what you are looking at.

The tanks also were designed to resemble the Russian backpack of the era. They used sheet metal to encase the tanks to make the pack appear flat and like a backpack of Soviet design rather than a tank fuel of flammable hatred. A false pouch was even added to the pack to give it that backpack look and feel. If you look at packs from the era, it certainly resembles the design.

The ROKS-2 weighed 55 pounds and carried 9 liters of fuel. The wielder could shoot flames about 35 meters toward Nazi scum but had only six to eight seconds of burn time. Nitrogen propelled the fuel, and a pyrotechnic cartridge ignited the fuel. The ROKS-2 granted the common Soviet soldier an anti-bunker weapon that was incredibly capable in urban combat. No one wants to be immolated or asphyxiated by the dragon’s breath worth fo fire the ROKS-2 generated.

Why the Dress Up

Flamethrowers were very valuable weapons. They were an infantryman’s tool that could clear out pill boxes and bunkers, caves, and destroy improvised bunkers. They were more effective at clearing these emplacements than machine guns and even rocket launchers and grenades. Flamethrowers not only killed the troops in these bunkers but would often completely destroy them.

The flame burned at over 1,200 degrees Celsius and could destabilize concrete and brickwork. It would fry electrical and communications wires and destroy weapons and ordnance stored in a bunker position. After the flame went throw, the position was basically dead, and even if it was retaken, it offered cover at the most. It tactically cut off the defensive position. This is why flamethrowers like the ROKS-2 were so valuable. They were force multipliers.

An infantry unit armed with ROKS-2 flamethrowers didn’t just kill the enemy and move on. They salted the earth behind them in a tactical sense. This often made the flamethrower man a very big target. If you were a grunt in a bunker and had to pick a target, the guy who is looking to fry you alive looks like a good target to hit.

The ROKS-2 disguised itself to keep the flamethrower man alive longer and to get the man to the threat without being the biggest target on the battlefield. The ROKS-2 made a big showing at the battle of Kursk, which was a brutal engagement with German troops and armor.

The end of the ROKS-2

The Russians eventually ditched the ROKS-2. Not because it was ineffective but because disguising it was expensive and difficult. To reduce cost and increase production, the ROKS-3 was developed. It’s essentially a ROKS-2 lacking the disguise. The ROKS-2 flamethrowers that were in service continued to be in service. Overall they had an effective flamethrower and an effective disguise tactic that ensured the flamethrower man remained alive long enough to prove society’s failure.