In this episode, Caleb is at the Great American Outdoor Show, so Keith and Jack are talking about Important Gun Stuff! Truthfully, Caleb writes these episode descriptions and he’s exhausted sitting in an airport lounge right now and frankly didn’t listen to the episode so he has no idea what happened. It be like that sometimes.
Gun Control Failure: Inevitable
Gun control failure is an inevitable part of life, as it would be under any other prohibitionist scheme. If you type “Sweden grenade attack” into a search engine, you will get a stark picture of what a world where handguns are just as punitively barred from import as RPG rockets looks like. After all, if you’re going to get the same amount of jail time for a .22 as you are for a frag grenade, why not go for the gusto? Like any prohibition scheme restricting import, production, sale, ownership and use of something that is still desired by a significant portion of the populace, there will be criminals who get around it, and make an excellent living doing so selling to that now black market.
So when California –the shining city on a hill of anti-gun lobbyists– experiences a series of deadly gun violence incidents, it garners some criticism for the regimes that have been put in place there were promised to eliminate the possibility of such things. Indeed, the favored gore scoreboard of the left, The Gun Violence Archive’s Mass Shooting Tracker claims that since Jan 6, there have been 9 “mass shootings” in the state. Californians were promised that they were giving up their freedom to keep and bear arms for the safety that would come with a dearth of weaponry, which of course has clearly resulted only in more inevitable gun control failure.
Instead of recognizing this, California blames the states around it with looser regulations. Instead of acknowledging that, as the war on drugs is winding down, they are ramping up a war on guns to replace it, they double down on authority and restriction that is doomed to failure. After all, if gun control dictated per capita violent crime rates, California wouldn’t rank higher than Mississippi.
Negative Outcomes From Poor Concealment
You’ll routinely hear people talk about the fact that “people are so oblivious and in their own world that they’ll never notice if I’m [printing/dressed funny/etc]”. That is, as my 5th grade English teacher Mr. Macey used to say, “a good wrong answer”. It is technically correct (the best kind of correct). That being said, the oblivious masses are a complete non issue, they’re not the reason most of us choose to carry a firearm anyway. So whether or not they take notice is completely irrelevant, at least for me.
You know who looks to see if people are carrying guns? Other people that carry guns; regardless of which side of the law they’re on. It’s the expression “game recognizes game”. And it makes sense. We as gun carriers know the “tells” of what to look for, so it’s more obvious. The mistake we make is assuming that everyone thinks like us, or has our same intentions. If you happen to clock somebody out in public that you can tell is armed, the first thought through your head is likely wondering what kind of gun they’re carrying, and the best way to engage them in conversation, since you clearly have common ground. This is because you’re presumably a (at least semi) well adjusted, productive member of society who doesn’t prey on others.
But let’s take that same scenario, and dig into the what and why. The only reason you would think to approach that stranger and engage them in conversation is that they’ve already communicated information about themselves. Based on that information, you’ve now formulated some assumptions that would allow you to approach this person in a socially acceptable manner.
Well here’s the trick: there’s no password on visual information, that signal is broadcast out into the world indiscriminately to be picked up by anyone that’s tuned in. Like ham radio. So what makes you think that the professional predator isn’t going to exploit that information to their advantage. Sure they may steer clear if they’re just some 2-bit crook, but if they’re a professional felon all you are to them is a battlefield pickup.
Doesn’t happen you say? There are plenty of instances readily available of people, both law enforcement and private citizens, being relieved of their firearms by motivated attackers. Here’s the thing, it’s not just threats that we have to worry about tipping off.
What do I mean by that. Well, we carry a gun to protect and preserve the life, health, and well-being of those that we love. Specifically we carry the firearm to repel physical attempts to deny us those things. Isn’t it safe to say that a similarly life altering event would be sudden denial of income? It’s certainly not as bad as death, but it can have a significant impact all the same.
Example 1: The subject in question attracted attention from a co-worker, simply because of the pull-the-dot soft loop on his belt. Luckily, in this instance, the co-worker was friendly, and simply informed Subject 1 that it wasn’t as subtle as they had thought, and to be more careful since that workplace was a non-permissive environment (NPE)
Example 2: A man was dropping his kids off, and was walking them from a satellite parking lot to the front entrance of the school. As he approached the front of the school, the uniformed officer noticed his carry gun under his shirt, and confronted the man. Both parties were polite, but the officer took him away from the entrance, disarmed him, and reported it to the school. The school decided to trespass the man, and he was no longer allowed on school grounds and prohibited from attending any school functions.
Example 3: The subject is working in a business professional environment, who in this case opts to size up his trousers so he could carry IWB. Walking past the office manager’s office without his jacket on, she made a comment that it looked as though he had lost weight. Subject 3 was confused, and asked what precipitated the comment. She responded that his trousers were bunched in the back, and she thought that was the reason why.
- The point is that, at least for most of us, we conceal a firearm because we put some value in the element of surprise. Matt Landfair of Primary & Secondary equates it to playing poker with your cards facing out. Sure you may still win, but at that point a positive outcome has less to do with your ability and more to do with luck. Why not give yourself every advantage?
- Now there’s folks out there who will take the approach of “I’ll wear whatever I want”, and they are certainly well within their rights to do so. What some fail to realize is that uniforms exist and are prevalent, even outside of the conventional arenas. Every tribe, every social group, every collective has a uniform. Some are subtle, some not so much.
The fact is that, as mentioned earlier, your clothes say something about you, regardless of what those clothes are. The question is whether or not you are controlling that message. I’ll be touching on “uniforms” in more detail in a subsequent article.
“In wake of Supreme Court Second Amendment decision, uncertainty plagues gun laws new and old”
CBS News has noticed the positive momentum the 2nd Amendment has in the wake of Bruen, and they low-key hate and fear the freedom ringing.
Washington — Less than a year after the Supreme Court issued its major decision expanding gun rights, the new legal test laid out by Justice Clarence Thomas in his majority opinion has reshaped the legal landscape for firearms laws and led to uncertainty over whether measures that aim to curb gun violence can survive legal scrutiny.
Because most of them can’t.
Plain and simple, the majority of gun laws on the books don’t actually do anything other than interfere with the natural right of a person to arm themselves in their own defense and allow politicians to pat themselves on the back and collect campaign dollars for ‘doing something’ against gun violence unlike their [opponent of the moment] who loves murder.
That’s the narrative. That’s the formula on repeat, over, and over, and over again. Vote for me, I’ll solve it. The other moron will make it worse, and probably likes it because they’re [implied racisms and bigotries] and [shill for the tiny amount of political dollars coming from the firearm lobbies].
It’s more predictable than a script on the CW and only a fraction as entertaining.
The laws — those recently enacted in the states, as well as longstanding federal restrictions with broad support — are being tested in courtrooms from coast to coast, where judges are tasked with evaluating whether they are “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
They love pulling that historical tradition line out of Thomas‘ directions and ignoring the rest. We know that for a long time now the 2nd Amendment infringements in states like California, Hawaii, New York, and Illinois have only held out of a combination of political loyalty and an unwillingness to upset an equilibrium. Regional courts would generally sustain regional firearm laws, unless they were so egregious it was entirely indefensible, because if it got appealed above them it was no longer their problem. A circuit court doesn’t care if they issue a ruling, it goes to SCOTUS, and then SCOTUS changes it. They did their jobs. So for the divisive topic of guns, letting local rules stand and be defended by their state AGs was just passing the case down the line until one side or the other got tired or SCOTUS decided. Circuit court justices would never have to account for an anti-2A decision because they didn’t make the law and they weren’t the final decision on the law, they were just a stop on the way to that decision.
All that to say what I said above, the middle courts had very little to lose in siding with states on gun laws in most cases and they wouldn’t be the one to upset state AGs and legislatures and come under fire for it.
But that has changed and it started before Bruen, Bruen perhaps is its penultimate expression.
“We’re seeing a lot of action and a lot of unpredictability when it comes to the Second Amendment after Bruen,” said Joseph Blocher, co-director of Duke University’s Center for Firearms Law. “It’s happening in a bunch of different directions, and the source of the change is the new methodology that the Supreme Court announced in the Bruen case because it instructs courts to evaluate the constitutionality of laws based solely on whether they are in some ill-defined sense consistent with historical tradition.”
You see though, that’s where people like Blocher trip up. There isn’t anything ill-defined about the tradition of arms in this country, what shifted is who were considered ‘the people’ who could bare them and most early gun control efforts were in prevention of letting ‘those people‘ bear arms.
“We hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” Thomas wrote. “To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. “
In plain English, laws that merely exist as feel good measures and sounds good on paper restrictions can no longer simply be sustained by arguing a ‘state interest’ or ‘general public welfare’ line to a court, even as piles of evidence show these laws hurt far more than they can be shown to help, are inconsistently if ever actually applied, and are ignored by courts and convicts alike for various reasons and offenses until the crime gets egregious enough it can no longer be.
The recent decisions looking to restore marijuana users firearm rights and not violate the rights of someone accused, but not convicted, of domestic violence and issued a protective order against are examples. That second decision caused outcry, and was inflamed by eager politicians looking for gains after a mediocre midterm, but when looked at logically applies to almost nobody.
Nobody?
Nobody.
Misdemeanor DV convicts (can I still use that word for a person convicted of a crime in a court?) are prohibited people. All felons are prohibited people. What do we suppose the percentage of POs issued is against people with otherwise non-prohibitive records? What do we suppose the follow through rate by LE checking their properties are and successfully removing all weapons? How much do we suppose their ability to acquire a weapon, not legally just acquire, is impacted? How much do we suppose that, even without legal access to firearms, the ability of the person under to the PO to actually cause harm is impacted?
It isn’t? A Protection Order is just a piece of paper that makes it extra illegal to do already illegal things to someone? Neat.
So when it extra doesn’t work it is… extra bad, I guess. The violent person did the bad thing they were extra not supposed to do to one person or persons in particular and they did that. We can put them in extra jail now, sorry about your severe injury and/or death though. We wrote it down that they shouldn’t do that or go near you. Tough luck.
So back to the original question. How many POs are issued against people who are otherwise totally fine to own a firearm? That would be a number to know actually, and not merely a situation to speculate on hyperbolically. What evidence do we have to suggest that making those specific individuals give up their personal weapons is effective? How is that different and more effective than saying stay away and do not contact [individual or group]. How is it being monitored during the PO that they do not acquire a firearm or other means to harm the protectee(s) of the order?
All of these questions, which will not have satisfactory or possibly even known answers, are to generate the asking of the real question.
If this person is such a risk to this other person, and we know that, why are they free to act as they choose but with a list of no-no’s on a napkin? Any violent action they take against the person under the order was and still is illegal. Additionally, due to the order, proximity or contact outside any parameters stated in the order are arrestable acts too. What does going through the effort of confiscating ‘known’ weapons actually accomplish for the meaningful safety of the protectee when the alleged potential aggressor has nearly limitless options to cause harm if they are going to.
If they are this much of a risk. Lock. Them. Up.
“But that would violate…” Yes it would, but you apparently have enough evidence to suggest that the continued possession of a firearm is too much of a risk to the protectee to allow so lets mitigate all those risks and after evidence is presented the person goes into a custody status. Could be house arrest, not prison, but if they are that objectively great of a risk they should not be free to act. If you don’t have that evidence we cannot act against someone in so half baked a way, it is a violation of several of their civil rights when it comes to criminal proceedings and their own defense. Period. End of debate. We either trust them enough to abide by the order of their own volition or we do not based upon evidence and they should be in some manner of custody because of that.
The Next Laws to Fall?
If the fear being projected out of the California is any indication, the belief there is that both the magazine and assault weapon bans are going to be given their just rewards as unconstitutional. All thanks be unto Judge Benítez, the pearly clutching is actually satisfying to watch now since they long ago abandoned reason.
Weapon prohibitions, especially partial ones so convoluted as to be made easily circumventable, are just political drivel anyway. They are written, passed, and pushed only to advance the political image of the politicians who write and support them. They do not increase safety. They are, at best, a thought and a prayer that a bad thing will not happen after the rule gets passed. Which, if you follow the logic chain, is as effective as just hoping a bad thing doesn’t happen.
“I Used to Be an Adventurer Like You”
Jack and I talk with Ian and Ike of Big Tex Ordnance about SHOT Show, marketing, fighting people in their underwear in the middle of the night. It was a good time on the Big Tex Ordnance podcast going through the modern challenges of digitally communicating in this space.
So that’s fun.
Beretta 80X Cheetah
One of the more interesting group of handguns in the Beretta booth at this past SHOT Show that took place a few weeks ago are the new re-vamped and re-designed Beretta 80X Cheetah models.
The Beretta Cheetah or “80 Series” are classic compact, straight blowback hammer-fired .380 Auto pistols dating back to 1976. All members of the Cheetah line are descendants of the “70 Series” family of sub-caliber pistols, which in turn are descended from the Beretta M1934/1935 lineage. Like the “70 Series” before them, Beretta Cheetahs were offered and chambered in all of the classic handgun “sub” calibers like .380 Auto (Models 83, 84, 85m and 86), .32 Auto (Models 81 and 82) and even .22 LR (Models 87 and 89). The Cheetah family has several sub-variants: some pistols take single-stack magazines while other use double-stack magazines. And different generations are either B, BB, F, FS (no different than how Smith & Wesson “dashes” their revolvers). 80 Series pistols were manufactured from 1976-2017.
During the recent 2023 SHOT Show, Beretta revived this product line by adding the latest members of the 80 Series family, the new Cheetah 80X pistols. Currently, these can be had in all-black or with a two-tone bronze anodized frame and black slide. 80X pistols still work off of the original blowback design and are chambered in .380 Auto with a magazine capacity of 13 rounds. They can be carried cocked-and-lock or shot like TDA pistols. Their frames have been redesigned and re-contoured, and these new frame take after the same lines seen on the modern 92X series Vertec frames. This time around, the dust cover is Picatinny railed for accessories. The new frame is contoured in such as way that people with smaller hands should not have any difficulties gripping it assertively. Most importantly, these new 2023 models come with optics-ready slides to making it easier to mount a slide mounted red dot sight. Overall, the latest members of the Cheetah family are optimized for carry, especially with their compact form-factor.
Non-Events as Training Opportunities
Plenty of contributors and content creators on the “Gunterweb” will take news stories and use them as teachable moments. I think that’s a great idea. Otto von Bismarck famously said “Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others.” Before I was ever aware of that quote, I was fond of saying “I’d rather learn from people who learned the hard way”. These are easy to draw lessons from because there’s generally a clear outcome, either positive or negative.
What I personally find a little more interesting, albeit less dramatic, is dissecting and Monday morning quarterbacking what I call “Non-Events”. These are situations that are seemingly benign, but could have the potential of degrading into something serious if not handled properly. Going through my social media posts, it looks like I average one of these “Non-Events” every year, so I decided to share them, in the hopes that it will encourage others to analyze their habits and how they conduct themselves.
Non Event Jan 2019:
On my way home from work today I stopped to put air in my tires. As I pulled into the air station, I noticed a dude on the corner of the sidewalk. Initially it looked like he’d just left Buc-ee’s and was waiting to cross the street. Except that, after I’d pulled through, dude was still just hanging at the corner. It’s 40° in Houston right now. Nobody’s voluntarily spending more time in that shit than absolutely necessary. (Red Flag number 1)
Here’s where things get interesting: An occupied Pearland Police cruiser was parked almost right next to me, so I figured that would be my scarecrow… Nope!
As soon as I kneel down to put air in my tires, my man starts paying attention to me. As I move to my next tire, my new friend CROSSES IN FRONT OF THE HOOD OF THE COP CAR, and is now positioned between my car and Mr. Popo. (Red Flag #2)
I have my OC palmed already because I’m wearing one of my favorite pairs of shoes and a watch that would be a bitch to get fixed, so you bet your sweet ass I was fixing to hose this fella down if MUC1 didn’t work.
Nothing happened. But it could have easily gone the other way.
Non Event August 2018:
We’re leaving the grocery store, and I see two dudes in line at the Western Union counter “admiring” my wife. It wasn’t a fully predatory look, but every male on the planet recognizes that look as one of less than innocent thoughts.
On any other day I would have just dismissed it, but I had just finished listening to John Johnston ‘s interview with Tim Chandler discussing the Petit family home invasion murders.
I made very direct eye contact with these two, and made damn sure the message received was “I see you motherfucker” Not because of some ego driven notion of defending my wife’s honor, but making sure it was clear that if there was ill intent, they should move on to a softer target.
Some people will call this paranoia, but they are mistaken. I don’t think anyone’s coming to get me. I do however recognize cues of potentially predatory behavior, and know at least loosely how to avoid fitting the template of “the victim”
Did I overestimate the situation? Probably. Did it cost me anything? Not in the slightest. The thing is, I’ll never know if I read the situation correctly or not until it’s too late.
Dr. William Aprill says in his class “weird is enough”
Non Event 2016/2017:
I was gassing up at the local stop & rob in the late morning (around 10-11 AM) before going into work. All I remember specifically is that a truck pulled up to the pumps opposite the gas tank (I could see the gas cap, so they weren’t there to fuel up), and that one of the 2 dudes in the cab had a tallboy in a paper sack. They attempted to engage me verbally, but I politely but abruptly gave them a “I’m good man! Have a good day!”, got in my car and drove off. I decided to remove myself from the situation because Unusual Behavior + Day Drinking = no possible positive outcome for me.
It very well may have been nothing, but I preferred to not stick around and find out.
Non Event November 2015
So I just had another “non-event” that I figured was worth documenting. Nothing happened, but it definitely is one of those scenarios that most people shrug off, but have the potential to change everything:
Scenario: I was walking my dog around the track behind our house. During my 2nd lap, I noticed a guy walking down the street, and crossed into the area of the park. He was alone. He didn’t have a dog to walk, and he didn’t start walking around the track. I thought he was maybe going to sit down at the bench, but he continued towards the picnic tables.
The initial alert was that this appeared to be an able-bodied man of working age. Now, I’m gainfully employed and was at that park at noon on a weekday, so that in and of itself wasn’t a major alarm bell, but it does deviate from the norm enough to warrant attention.
It was what he did next that elevated my alert level: He appeared to be picking up or looking for cigarette butts around the benches and tables. This isn’t normal behavior. He then started arguing with himself, pretty aggressively. As soon as I heard that, I turned down the street instead of continuing to walk the track.
Seemingly innocent, but these are also the types of situations that end up as headlines and lead stories on the evening news. Previously, I may have just tried to avoid him, but continue on my way. But after reading The Gift of Fear, as well as works by Rory Miller, Greg Ellifritz, and George F Matheis Jr, I had the good sense to “un-ass the area”. I was able to enjoy a leisurely stroll with my pup instead of having an unscheduled date with a cop or EMT.
While you’re out and about, keep your head up. Pay attention to who’s paying attention to you. Did you get home safe because of what you actively did, or were you just not the slowest gazelle today?
The Glock 47
The “new” Gen5 9mm Glock 47 pistol has actually been around for a few years now. In 2019, Glock Inc. was originally awarded a huge contract to replace the US Border Patrol’s .40 S&W HK P2000s both with an entire line up of Gen5 9mm Glock pistols: the Glock 19 Gen5 MOSs, Glock 26 Gen5s, and the Glock 47. The Glock 47 is now seeing its full commercial release right after being publicly announced during the recent 2023 SHOT Show.
By all means, the “new” Glock 47 which will be replacing the Glock 17 Gen5 from here on out is basically identical to the 17 in terms of size, weight, and handling. Glock 47 pistols ship with MOS optics-ready slides by default. The main difference between the Glock 47 and the venerable Glock 17 however lies in the fact that the Glock 47 shares the same full-size frame with the Glock 45 pistol. (This means that the Glock 47 in turn is compatible with the fifth generation Glock 19 slide).
Gen5 + 4 Different Configurations From Two Base Guns
To clarify, Glock 17 frame and slides are not compatible with anything other than themselves. But anyone who purchases a new Glock 47 and already owns a Gen5 Glock 19 can mix and match those slides. Their Glock 47 slide will work with the Gen5 Glock 19 to make a “longslide Glock 19.” Furthermore, if they don’t own a Glock 45, they can basically assemble their own “commander sized 19-X” Glock with their Glock 47 frame and Glock 19 slide. The interchangeability of these frames and slides basically means that someone who owns both a Gen5 Glock 19 and a Glock 47 has the chance to configure four different pistols from both of those frames and slides. [1. Glock 47; 2. Glock 19; 3. Glock “19X” or “45”; 4. “Glock 19 Longslide.”] To make it easy to understand, it’s no different than the Glock 43X and the Glock 48: both pistols share the same frame and recoil assembly, but the Glock 48 obviously has a longer barrel and slide. In the same way, the Glock 19 Gen5 shares the same recoil assembly with the Glock 47.
Personally, I am a huge fan of the fifth-generation Glock 17 and I’ll be sad to see it “retired” but it makes sense why Glock would simplify their processes and reduce the number of basic frames.
YOU’RE ON YOUR OWN
“You’re on your own”
“Nobody’s coming to save you”
Frequently we hear these expressions as they pertain to defensive encounters (typically shootings). The idea being that you only have who/what is with you to solve the problem, and by the time the “cavalry” arrives, the situation will likely have been resolved one way or another.
But here’s the thing nobody’s talking about: These sentiments are equally applicable to online discourse as well.
Social media is awash with concealed carry & self defense groups of every possible flavor, with various degrees of expertise.
The best among them, like The PHLster Concealment Workshop, Combatives Association, or Primary & Secondary, are aggressively curated and opinions need to be backed up with experience (either practical or academic).
The vast majority, unfortunately, consist of people with an internet connection and an opinion without a lot of substantiating background. Many recommendations boil down to little more than desperate attempts to feel relevant. “This is my favorite thing, so it should be your favorite thing too, despite the fact that I lack sufficient context or expertise to offer useful feedback”.
At best, these types of situations can result in unnecessarily extending a learning curve, or maybe wasting some money.
At worst they can result in life-altering negative outcomes.
Most recently, in one of these groups, the topic came up of someone talking about carrying at a job that discourages carry.
If you’re familiar with my background you know this topic is deeply personal.
Many of the responses were well intentioned, but not exactly appropriate. Lots of folks talking about carrying full-sized duty guns with a dot and a light at a wedding, or some other social function for a few hours. That’s a far cry from working in close proximity with the same group of people 8-10 hours a day for years at a time for a couple of reasons:
1) It’s a short, one-time event vs. daily routine. There’s just more hours to possibly “get it wrong”
1a) At work other people involved generally have a better sense of who you are as a person, your habits, mannerisms, etc. They’re more likely to spot “tells” than a stranger you just met.
2) Speaking of “getting it wrong” the consequences are generally far more severe for being discovered at work vs. at a social function.
There were, as you’d expect, a smattering of comments about how people are oblivious/don’t notice, etc, which I think is a very dangerous sentiment, and probably warrants its own article.
The thing that really didn’t sit well with me though was how cavalier people were with advice that had the potential to destroy someone’s professional and financial wellbeing. Too many people were confusing “I got lucky” with “My concealment is really that good”.
Some people have high level concealment because they exist in high consequence environments.
Some people haven’t suffered a negative outcome yet simply due to a combination of luck and environmental apathy.
It’s important to understand where they’re coming from, and how seriously they take the consequences/fallout.
Nobody’s going to cut you a check or serve your sentence for you if the advice is bad, wrong, or poorly thought out.
THAT is what I mean by “you’re on your own”.
Be very cautious about who you take advice from, because they won’t have to suffer the consequences of being wrong.
M-16A4 World Tour: Ukraine
The Colt Model 6700/AR-15A4, a civilian legal semi-auto only version of the M-16A4. This particular rifle is paired with the excellent Steiner M8Xi Dual-Plane 1-8x LPVO with the Plumb Reticle.
The M-16A4, the last of the full-size 20-inch M-16 5.56mm NATO M-16 variants and the one synonymous with the GWOT (The Global War On Terror) is starting to show up in the current Ukraine-Russia conflict. Honestly, it is not surprising to see a proper western rifle showing up on the front lines in Ukraine considering the plethora of military aid Ukraine has been receiving since the start of the conflict nearly a year ago.
The Mattel Rifle
The AR-15 family of weapons including the M-16 rifle is soon approaching its 60th year since its original debut. At that time, the design and material used in its implementation were a radical shift from that which gunmakers commonly used. Wood and steel were replaced with modern plastics and aircraft grade aluminum (leaving steel only for the most critical stress bearing parts of the rifle). The cartridge developed to accompany these new rifles was also radically different from its contemporary counterparts. The smaller rounds for the new rifle had a mass that was 66% percent lighter while traveling at warp-speed out of full-size barrels. Due to the fact that these rounds and cartridges were smaller and weighed less, soldiers could nearly triple their combat loads of ammunition as well. The adoption of the M-16 and its 5.56mm cartridge caused a military-arms paradigm shift. Eventually, every professional army moved to adopt modern rifles chambered with small caliber high velocity cartridges, often times the 5.56mm NATO itself. The Soviets themselves followed suit by essentially re-barreling their 7.62x39mm AKs into 5.45x39mm AK-74s.
While there are efforts and committees looking at moving beyond the classic AR-15 direct impingement protocol and its classic 5.56mm NATO cartridges, both are known entities in the world of small arms. Truthfully neither will be going away any time soon, just like the cornucopia of AK/RPK 47s, 74s, PKMs, SVDs, and even Mosins we see in Ukraine.
The Musket Still Abides
Even though the M-4 carbine has nearly replaced the M-16 rifle wholesale amongst Western militaries (as the former comes standard with a shorter barrel and a telescoping stock and easier to lug around, especially around structures and vehicles), a full size M-16 rifle is nothing to sneeze at either. The United States Marine Corps was the last branch of the American Armed Forces that used the M-16A4 in Iraq and Afghanistan until the early 2010s.
The biggest benefit of the full-size M-16 is that its 20-inch barrel lets 5.56mm ammunition develop peak velocities increasing this rifle’s effective range past 600 meters. Full size rifles also benefit from having a longer rifle-length direct impingement gas system which is smoother operating and places less stress on all springs and moving parts in the action. Moreover, the recoil impulse from a rifle-length AR-15 gas system provides for the most comfortable softest shooting experience. The biggest drawback of the M-16A4 is its fixed stock which is fairly long, especially for a military rifle. This stock has a length of pull of fourteen inches and besides making the weapon somewhat cumbersome, it makes the rifle harder to handle for people of short stature or who are wearing military kit. That said, assuming there are plenty of magazines and ammunition, it’s probably still a better choice than an old AK-74. The flat-top Picatinny railed upper receiver that’s standard on the M-16A4 makes it extremely convenient to mount any type of optic: red dots, LPVOs, ACOGs, traditional riflescope, etc. It is a safe bet to assume that soldiers and irregulars in Ukraine will make the most out of this versatility.
New Flashlight Accessory
Ever since Raven Concealment Systems discontinued their flashlight pocket clip back in 20XX, there’s been a bit of a gap in the market.
The only real options if you wanted a finger ring were either some cobbled-together DIY solution, or the Thyrm Switchback.
Now for duty carry, or instances where concealment isn’t a high priority, the Switchback is a perfectly functional product. I have my own qualms with it, but that’s primarily due to its form not being optimally suited for my particular use case.
The newly released Retention Ring is a solution to those for whom this is a challenge.
Designed by Daniel Easterday of 11 Minute Defense, the Retention Ring consists of a neoprene ring secured to a length of piece of type 1 paracord with dual-wall adhesive heat shrink tubing.
This handy little pull-ring can be attached to a variety of small handhelds, and allows for the use of that hand while still retaining the tool.
When paired with the Thyrm Low Profile clip, the Retention Ring gives you all the same functionality of the old RCS clip and at roughly the same cost ($17.99 for the clip + $9 for the Ring)
Personally I like the closed-ended variant the most, since it’s the easiest to attach (and I’m not great at knots). I’ve found it works great on both my Cloud Defense MCH and my Surefire Stiletto Pro.
Whether being carried clipped to a pocket, or more discreetly on something like a Pocket Shield the Ring allows for positive retrieval and retention.
Full Disclosure: Daniel sent me these for T&E. I have since purchased a couple additional rings, as I see the value of them and think it’s a quality product.
Up to now I haven’t done any destructive testing on them, but most of my light usage tends not to be in extreme or austere conditions.
The Retention Ring is available for purchase at https://retentionring.com.
Daniel Easterday, creator of the Retention Ring, has a background that includes product development, assembly, prototyping, and Logistics. Daniel is also a firearms instructor in the Chicago suburbs, and he used his varied experience to turn what originally started as a niche solution to add an O Ring to his own flashlight into a product line that has multiple uses across a wide variety of industries.
Cannabis and Guns: Legal?
While no sane person claims that legal cannabis and guns go together, it seems most people understand that like alcohol, one can enjoy both safely at separate times. Despite this in 2016, the ATF made a change to question 11 on the 4473 –the federal form that any transfer of ownership through a federally licensed firearms dealer requires to complete, and on which it is a federal crime to lie– making it explicitly clear that use of products containing cannabis, even in a state which had deemed it legal is enough to bar someone from exercising an enumerated right.
Specifically, the added language reads: “The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.” In layman’s terms, whatever your crazy state might think, the ATF is here to ensure that if you snort 13 marijuanas and go on a shooting spree, it won’t be with a legally transferred gun. Of all the ways a federal LEO could flex its authority to ensure the continued safety of the average American, it sure is one of them.
Since the feds made this move to heroically place themselves between the sleepy, bloodshot eyes of pot-related gun violence and the American public, that public has –resoundingly– voted for them to sit back down. In fact 37 states, D.C., and Guam now have some form of legal weed. Further, some of those states have even produced rulings that preclude concealed carry permit issuing agencies from discriminating against legal marijuana users. Legally owned cannabis and guns are somehow existing in the same household without producing violent waves of crime hundreds of thousands if not tens of million of times a day across the country. It’s almost like people who obey the law are poorly represented when it comes to the commission of violent crime.
Despite this, neither Trump nor Biden made any moves towards recognizing a states right to self-determination on this topic. In fact as recently as last year, Biden defended the ATF positioning itself as arbiter of your legal recreational decisions. Cannabis and guns seemed destined to be federally prohibited from cohabitating legally forever until just recently when, as it sometimes does, Oklahoma happened.
Citing Bruen, a Trump-appointed federal judge struck down the prohibition on gun ownership due to otherwise legal cannabis use. The historical test Bruen requires is shaping up to cut a swath through a bevy of restrictive gun laws that have sat on the books unopposed for decades. Cannabis and guns is just one small facet of this, as the wave of court cases challenging laws that blatantly violate it illustrates.
While there is certainly potential for abuse –as there is with any liberty– either we must presuppose our fellow countrymen are adults who are capable of making responsible decisions, or we must abandon the pretext of liberty and grant the feds power to restrict everyone’s behavior, “for their own safety”. Regardless of the party calling for the restriction, those who love liberty should resist. Allowing ownership of both cannabis and guns is simply an extension of this line of thinking, and no freedom-minded person should be threatened by it on principle.
Mosins, Still Doing Work
If there’s any individual weapon that deserves the most credit for beating back Nazi Germany, it might be the legendary bolt-action Mosin-Nagant rifle.
The Soviet Union made them in absolutely huge numbers — and they’re still available and rather cheap compared to their contemporaries. What’s more extraordinary is that the basic design is more than a century old.
Even now, rebels carry Mosin-Nagants alongside more modern weapons as in conflicts from Ukraine to the Middle East.
But there’s good reasons for that. It’s because of the rifle’s simplicity, ruggedness and a design philosophy summed up as “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
During the late 19th century, the Russian Empire wanted to upgrade its arsenal. Instead of its existing Berdan II single-shot rifles, the empire wanted a cutting edge repeating weapon that fired smaller but higher-pressure metallic cartridges.
Russian army officer and engineer Sergei Ivanovich Mosin designed the new rifle’s action — a straightforward bolt action that “cocks-on-open.” Belgian weapons designer Leon Nagant improved the weapon’s feeding mechanism.
In 1891, Russia adopted Mosin’s rifle and christened it the “Three-Line Rifle, Model of 1891.”
The rifle has few moving parts — which is part of its beauty. Its beefy mechanism only consists of seven pieces, while its trigger group consists of three. The heavy stock is Russian birch wood.
These rifles have seen a lot of battles. Russians troops carried them during the 1905 war with Japan. The rifles served with Russian troops during World War I. The Bolsheviks carried those same rifles again when they fought to create the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1922.
But the Soviets introduced the most popular variant — the Mosin-Nagant 91/30. In 1930, the Soviets modernized the rifle, installed several major upgrades and added the “30” designation to its name.
Its basic design was almost 40 years old then, and people are still using it.
Gunsmiths shortened the 91/30 by a few inches, and calibrated its sights in meters. The older imperial rifles have sights calibrated in archaic arshin units standardized during the reign of Peter the Great.
But if you see a Mosin-Nagant, it’s most likely a 91/30 from World War II with sights measured in meters. The Soviet army entered the war equipped with this triokhlineika — or “three-liner” — as their standard issue bolt-action battle rifle.
The Soviet Union made millions of Mosin-Nagants, and manufactured them in their greatest numbers during the early 1940s. During the middle of the war, the Kremlin developed the M-44 carbine.
This wasn’t the first Mosin-Nagant carbine, but the M-44 features a distinctive integral folding bayonet which better met the Soviet army’s needs. The carbine is roughly 10 inches shorter than the 91/30, making it easier to carry and use in cities.
Toward the end of the rifle’s service life, the Soviets shifted to arming soldiers with carbines instead of the full-sized version. Despite the carbine’s better handling, its shorter barrel means that shots are louder and the muzzle flash is brighter.
The Tula and Izhevsk arsenals produced the bulk of the Soviet army’s Mosin-Nagants. Izhevsk produced more, as its factories were safely tucked between the Ural Mountains away from the front lines.
After the war, Moscow widely distributed them to communist countries and Soviet allies. Mosin-Nagants appeared in China, North Korea, Vietnam and the Middle East. Today, pro-Russian separatists wield them in Ukraine, as do Islamist groups in North Africa and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Other non-communist nations — most notably Finland — used Mosin-Nagant variants. During its two wars with the Soviet Union, Finland produced domestic variants and retrofitted captured Soviet rifles.
Shooters and collectors widely consider the Finnish rifles to be among the finest and most accurate Mosin-Nagant variants ever produced. They also fetch a considerably higher price.
Like many Russian weapons, manufacturers engineered the Mosin-Nagant with generous tolerances so it would be able to fire in a wide range of conditions, especially during brutal winters.
To suit Russian soldiers and their bulky overcoats, the Mosin-Nagant’s stock is slightly shorter than many early and mid-century battle rifles. This can make them slightly awkward to shoot if you’re not bundled up — but modern shooters often attach accessories for extra length.
The Mosin’s full-size cartridge — the 7.62 x 54-millimeter Rimmed — is highly reliable. Its tapered sides make its smooth enough to feed and extract from dirty or fouled chambers.
The cartridge’s geometry makes it easy to produce accurate match or specialty ammunition. The Finns, in particular, manufactured highly reliable examples of this cartridge.
The 7.62 x 54R’s potency is comparable to the West’s 7.62 x 51-millimeter NATO cartridge and even its old American contemporary, the .30/06 Springfield. Not surprisingly, this Russian cartridge has the distinction of being the longest serving military round in continuous use.
Detractors say that the Soviet Mosin-Nagant is not as refined as its wartime and world-famous rival, the German Mauser Karabiner 98k rifle. But the counter-argument is that the Soviet Union operated under very different circumstances.
Sure, the Russian rifle is less refined. It was for a war-time peasant army facing an existential threat. Versions from World War II lack the fit and finish of pre-war rifles, but they’re accurate and sturdy enough to suit a battlefield.
Both the Mosin-Nagant and Karabiner hold five cartridges in their internal magazines. Both have similar tangent sights, and both will bruise the shoulder after shooting several dozen rounds thanks to their punishing recoil.
But the Mosin-Nagant is robust, simple to maintain and easy to mass-produce quickly. No wonder the Soviets carried it to victory, and why it keeps popping up around the world.
Author’s Note 2023: While I certainly see the hyperbolic sensationalization of pointing out that Russian troops and their allies are using outdated equipment, which they are–it is also fair to point out that in most cases these are PU Mosin Sniper Rifles (Or rifles with affixed aftermarket optics). Putting a riflescope on a bolt-action rifle made in 1943 that’s still in working condition fundamentally isn’t any different than putting a scope on a Tikka T3 chambered in 6.5mm Creedmoor today; it’s just that one will be more clunky than the other.
This article was edited for GAT Daily and I originally wrote it for War Is Boring back in 2015. I reposted it here because the article was originally inspired by the 2014 part of the Ukraine conflict which obviously escalated last year again.
Gunday Brunch 86: Senile Millennial Ramblings
In this unhinged episode, the boys talk about…well it’s a lot of stuff, guys. But there is ammo talk! And John Wick 4 talk!
YOU’RE NOT HELPING!
By the time this posts, the ATF will have just released their final brace ruling and published it in the Federal Register.
Ever since they brought the brace ban back into the conversation on January 13th, there’s been an understandable amount of anger and frustration in the online discussion.
Unfortunately, some people have allowed the anonymity of the keyboard and the cloak of righteousness to lead them to behavior that they probably wouldn’t exhibit in person.
We are at a pivotal stage, and have the chance to either make great headway or do irreparable damage to our cause.
If these events have motivated you to contact your legislators and express your displeasure in a well articulated fashion, donate to one of the 2A activist groups with a track record of productive action and success, or otherwise involve yourself in the process, then this article isn’t really directed at you.
If, however, your indignation over the ATF’s overreach led to emotional rants on social media, combative statements about “fedbois”, or other belligerent conduct, congratulations. All you’re doing is playing directly into the caricature of the unreasonable gun-zealot that’s being painted of us by the opposition.
These emotional ramblings do nothing but make the poster feel good and unravel the hard work of those that are actually struggling to make headway.
You’re not helping, and frankly I resent that people are smugly patting themselves on the back while simultaneously making life harder for those that are working towards productive change.
Dunking on the anti-gun crowd does nothing. Those people are already so staunchly entrenched in their belief that they’re unlikely to ever accept our perspective as valid.
There is, however, a large swath of society that is utterly agnostic on the subject. This is where optics matter. Sterile facts and extreme fear-mongering aren’t an effective way to win hearts and minds. Far too many people get fixated on making sure everyone knows just how right they think they are that they completely miss opportunities to actually be persuasive.