Author Archives: parvusimperator

Night Vision Equipment

Posted by

History is a great thing to learn from. And one of the details that we can look to history for lessons on is the basis of issue: how many of what things a given unit should have. This is often hard to work out without any kind of experience, so let’s look to some troops with experience. The following is based off of notes from Marines in Iraq circa 2003 or so and the related Marine Gunner’s Conference, so some of the equipment may be a little out of date. I’ve noted alternatives where applicable. These marines saw combat and used their equipment heavily. The overall base unit here is a rifle company (182 men), so the numbers for items will be referenced on that basis.

PVS-14 (Night Vision Monocular): These should be issued one per man (182). Monoculars are liked because they allow one eye to remain open for peripheral vision or shooting if another optic is mounted on the weapon. PVS-14s are Gen 3 light amplification devices and are still pretty good. There are alternatives that integrate thermal at present. One other thing noted in the report: helmet mounts are required. The strap mounts aren’t very good, and don’t work well with helmets.

3X Magnifier: None of these were listed on the table, and our veterans differed a little. The 3X magnifier is a useful observational tool, especially in the desert. The panel recommended at least enough magnifiers for stationary gunners and forward observers (40), if not enough to also equip the fire team leaders (67). A handheld magnifier is useful for observing without necessarily orienting one’s weapon toward the target. Note that there are also 6X magnifiers available at present.

PEQ-2 (IR Laser sight): The PEQ-2 is a laser sight to aid in aiming with night vision devices. The findings were that every weapon that could mount a PEQ-2 (i.e. basically everything that wasn’t a pistol) needed a PEQ-2, which works out to 176 units. The PEQ-2 is heavy and bulky. It is outmoded, if not obsolete. Much better choices exist today, including the DBAL, ATPIAL, and the MAWL. The MAWL is best of breed as I write this.

VLI (Visible Light, i.e. flashlight): The standard flashlight, capable of being used in the hand or being mounted on a weapon. The findings were that every rifle needed a light, especially for urban operations. This works out to 134 lights. Additionally, the marines agreed that the VLI itself was too big, too heavy, and needed too many batteries. They requested a smaller, lighter flashlight. The Surefire M600 Scout Light comes to mind as an excellent long gun weaponlight choice today.

If you’re curious about IR illumination for use with night vision devices, there are variants of the M600 (and other flashlights) that can output infrared in addition to white light. Also, many laser sighting units come with a built-in IR illuminator.

PVS-17B (Night Vision Weaponsight): The PVS-17B is a dedicated night vision weaponsight, complete with reticle and 2.5X magnification. This was found to work well on support weapons, including the M-249, AT4, and SMAW. This works out to 39 PVS-17Bs. It was not favored on rifles, because a PVS-14 could be mounted in front of the RCO, giving similar capability for less weight and hassle. The PVS-17B is pretty heavy and bulky. These days, the PVS-22 is often preferred. The PVS-22 is designed to give night vision capability to an existing optical sight rather than replace it like the PVS-17B. However, given that the PVS-17B is also a 3rd Generation light amplification unit, it’s not outmoded.

PAS-13 (Thermal Weapons Sight): The PAS-13 is a thermal imaging weapon sight. The original model was quite heavy and bulky. It was favored by the committee only for machine guns (M-249 and M-240 gunners), which works out to 33 units. The committee did suggest that machine gunners carry both PAS-13 and PVS-17B sights. Since Operation Iraqi Freedom, newer versions of the PAS-13 that are significantly lighter and less bulky have come out. The PAS-13G is even reasonably sized to mount on a rifle.

RCO (ACOG): The Marines RCO of choice is the ACOG. They favor the TA31F, which has the red chevron reticle with fiber optic and tritium illumination and fixed 4X magnification. Marines love ACOGs, and the Gunner’s Committee was no exception. The magnification is very useful for target acquisition, identification, and discrimination. They sought one per rifle, or 134 ACOGs for the company.

IR Beacons: This is a little blinking IR light used for identification. While none were on the allocation table at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, they are very useful for helping identify friendly units and avoid blue-on-blue incidents. The committee figured every fire team and every platoon sergeant should have an IR beacon, which comes to 5 per platoon, or 25 per company.

Laser Boresight System: Not a combat weapon, this is used for boresighting. Duh. It is also useful for boresighting the aforementioned night sights and rocket-type weapons like the SMAW or AT4. Every squad needs to be able to boresight its stuff. They figured 20 boresighters per company would work well.

PEQ-4: This is a powerful IR laser pointer. For pointing while using night sights. It’s powerful and can be distinguished from the PEQ-2 lasers. PEQ-2s aren’t really able to be seen well by vehicles or aircraft if they’re not right on top of the user. The committee recommended 10 per company for platoon leaders, company leaders, and machine gun leaders. The aforementioned laser sights that have replaced the PEQ-2 are also a lot more powerful, and have obviated the need for these.

M-24 Mini Binoculars: Not night vision equipment. These have 7x magnification. Despite having ACOGs on their weapons, squad and team leaders found binoculars to be very flexible and useful. The committee recommended 27 per company.

The committee also realized that the above recommendations are not without their own issues. These devices add quite a bit of weight to the Marine’s rifle. These devices have their own switchology that requires training, require batteries (other than the RCO–ACOGs don’t need batteries), and add maintenance requirements.

The Armored Squad

Posted by

Like many armchair strategists, I like thinking about questions of organization. And this includes examining some unconventional ideas from history. Today, we have a really neat one: The Armored Squad. For reasons that will become clear shortly, I have also dubbed it the “Super Squad” in conversations with Fishbreath.

This squad idea comes out of World War 2, and the question of tank-infantry cooperation. Tanks and infantry are better together, which leads to questions of how this should be organized in order to promote unit cohesion. Some American units organized into Armored squads, where an M4 Sherman tank was paired with an infantry squad in an M3 half track. This gave a tank, with all the armored firepower that entailed, plus ten dismounted infantry who had their own transport to keep up with the tank. On paper the Sherman had a crew of 5, and the M3 half track had a crew of two: one driver and one machine gunner, so this is a total of 17 men.

This wasn’t an ad-hoc formation; particular tanks and particular squads were paired together for training and were kept together. They ate together. They fought together. In the Hurtgen Forest, the tankers took turns in the foxholes with the infantry, and the dismounted infantry got turns in the vehicles to warm up. Training together meant that infantry and tanks were much more intimately familiar with their respective counterparts’ limitations.

Moving up the organization table, we have five armored squads per platoon, and three such platoons per company. There were three of these tank-infantry companies per “Combat Command”, which is another organizational curiosity of the US Army in the Second World War. In brief a Combat Command was basically a brigade sized unit comprised of companies and platoons. There was no battalion-level organizational structure, and this was thought to increase flexibility. So, in the combat commands in question, there would be three tank-infantry companies plus a host of supporting units.

The advantages are the obvious increase in firepower over a regular mechanized squad, and it provides a tank with much more effective close-in protection than it would have otherwise. The disadvantages are on the logistics side. There’s a much larger fuel burden, plus there are two dissimilar vehicles that need maintenance, which increases the burden for maintenance personnel. Where a normal tank or mechanized infantry company would only have one sort of vehicle to maintain, with one set of spare parts to stock, the tank-infantry company has two.

In combat, the armored squad and associated units built from it were very effective. The 5th Armored Division was organized along this model, and it suffered notably fewer casualties than either 6th or 7th Armored Divisions (which were more conventionally organized), all of which were deployed to the European Theater of Operations at about the same time. 6th Armored went in on July 27th, 5th Armored went in on August 2nd, and 7th Armored went in on August 14th. Each division was deployed for the duration. 6th Armored took 5,194 casualties and lost 196 tanks, 5th Armored took 3,043 casualties and lost 116 tanks, and 7th Armored took 4,781 casualties and lost 360 tanks. Combat situations are, of course, not identical, so we should be careful not to read too much into these numbers. But it might suggest some tactical improvements by putting tanks and infantry together for the duration.

We can also see a very similar organization almost 60 years later. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, aggressive divisions driving on and into Baghdad often organized their forces to combine a pair of Abrams tanks with a pair of Bradleys. The force could fit down most streets with the Abramses in the vanguard. The Bradleys and the dismounts provided effective cover for closer threats, or for higher threats the Abramses couldn’t tackle. The Abrams tanks could also use their guns and fronts to breach buildings, which would then be cleared by the dismounts. Plus, putting the Abrams tanks forward meant that they drew the ambushes, and they were much harder to kill with RPG-7s than Bradleys.

In 1944 and again in 2003, the concept has been proven in combat in a variety of environments. To be sure, there is an increased logistics, maintenance, and training burden. But we made it work in 1944 with a conscript army. So we can make it work now with a professional army from a training standpoint. And if the US Army’s long drives with Abrams tanks have taught us anything, it’s that the correct answer to logistics is more trucks. The TO&E should reflect how we fight. And we should train like we fight.

I really like this organizational setup. I’d probably go with three tank-infantry teams per platoon, and three tank-infantry platoons per company. I’m usually a triangular organization kind of guy.

Shotgun Build 2: No Limit Scattergun

Posted by

For USPSA, I love Open because I think it’s cool. If I’m gonna shoot a racegun, I want the fastest, blastiest racegun. I don’t want a bunch of rules about what I can’t do. Plus, electro-optical sights are cool, and loud compensators are also cool.

In 3-Gun, Open Shotguns are even better. Not only do they get cool red dot sights and cool compensators to spit fire, but they have a whole bunch of nonstandard magazine designs open to them. One such idea is the X-Rail, which is a cluster of four magazine extensions in a rotary unit, kind of like a giant revolver. Each holds six shells, so you get 24 out on the front. It’s super heavy, but you won’t have to reload as much. Empty gun starts still suck.

On the one hand, the X-Rail lets you use highly reliable, proven shotguns, like Benelli M2s. On the other hand, that’s a lot of weight on the end, and I’m not a big fan of super heavy weapons. Especially when the weight is out on the end of the gun. So that’s out. Pretty arbitrarily, but I don’t care. This is my list.

I want a shotgun that feeds from detachable box magazines. Shotgun shells make these difficult to make, and for some stupid reason, no company in America makes any sort of base gun that we can work with. Which leaves us the choice of Russian Saiga 12s, Russian Vepr 12s, Turkish MKA-1919s, or Turkish XTR-12s.

And no, those aren’t staying stock. Once again, I’m going to order a tricked out one, mostly because I don’t have the expertise to do that myself. Plus, some of the things commonly done to a race shotgun aren’t things I can do myself.

The other complication is the bans on imports of Russian weapons, which could distort prices when I finally go to purchase. That said, there are a lot of imported guns. And, unlike my pump gun, this was never going to get done on the cheap. This shouldn’t disqualify the Russian-made guns out of the gate, especially because I can still get base models for a reasonable price on Gunbroker.

Right out of the gate, we can eliminate the Saiga 12s, because the Veprs do everything the Saigas do, except way better. The Vepr comes in a not-stupid configuration out of the box. The Vepr doesn’t need tuning to actually work out of the box. The Vepr has a much more consistent build quality.

We can also eliminate the XTR-12 pretty quick. At the time of writing (October 2017) there are issues with getting large-capacity magazines to work reliably. And that’s the whole freaking point of open shotguns. There’s also very poor aftermarket support for these.

Two down. Now, the MKA-1919 actually comes in a couple different versions. One is from Tooth and Nail, and comes heavily tricked out. The other is from Firebird precision, and they remake most of the components right here in America. So, better tolerances, and hopefully better reliability. However, they don’t offer a compensator option. The T&N MKA 1919 build is available with a mid-barrel compensator. So, at this point I’m inclined to only look at the T&N one, given the better configuration options.

Vepr-12s from Dissident Arms also come with nice big compensator options. They use compensators at the end of the barrel rather than midbarrel ones. On the one hand, the Vepr-12 will have some increased costs from requiring a charging handle conversion (i.e putting a charging handle on the left side of the receiver).1 On the other hand, the Vepr-12 is probably the most reliable. It’s certainly the most reliable out of the box. In fact, it’s one of the few detachable box fed magazine shotguns to function reasonably out of the box. Points in its favor.

The other item in the room is ‘classic Russian Ergonomics’. Which we can improve somewhat. We can get a safety that’s workable with the shooting hand thumb or trigger finger without removing our shooting hand from its place. As mentioned before, we can put the charging handle on the correct side of the gun with a simple modification. We can also get a modification to be able to drop the magazines with our trigger finger. On the other hand, the MKA 1919 has AR-style controls. Well, other than the charging handle placement. It is at least on the proper side out of the box.

Now, to my way of thinking, that’s about a wash. Competitively equipped models are about the same price. However, the Vepr-12 has one other edge over the MKA 1919: I live near, and have squadded with, a member of the Dissident Arms shooting team, and he’s pretty active on youtube as well. So there’s a nearby Vepr-12 expert that I know.

And there you have it. My pick is the Vepr-12, tricked out into awesomeness by Dissident Arms.

  1. Someone2 might chime in that the normal charging handle on the right side. This is true and completely irrelevant. Open guns are made to fit you not the other way around. Also, if you want competition guns on the cheap, you’ve got the wrong division. ↩
  2. Possibly Fishbreath. ↩

TO&Es for ’44!

Posted by

Last time, we looked at the result of the German combat testing of the StG-44, and how they thought it compared to the MG-42. Their conclusions were that the StG-44 was very good, but could not completely replace the MG-42.

I’ve chosen to look at the relevant tables for 1944 because at that point (or at least when the tables were written) the situation wasn’t so desperate as to put economy uber alles. Lots of the ’45 tables do just that. Also, keep in mind this is what the planners envisioned, which wasn’t necessarily what was fielded in great numbers.

The difference we’re interested in happens in the infantry platoons. The previous table had squads of nine men: one leader and eight soldiers. It also had one MG-42, and there was a designated gunner and assistant gunner. The gunner and assistant gunner both also carried P-38 pistols for personal defense. The squad leader had an MP-40, and the other six men had Kar 98ks. Moving up the table, each platoon had three squads. It also had a command element consisting of a platoon leader, two message bearers, and a litter bearer.

For the standard rifle squad, total ammunition allotment (i.e ready and reserve rounds) was as follows:

Member9mm Parabellum Rounds8mm Mauser rounds
Squad Leader1,536–
Gunner99–
Assistant Gunner993,450
Rifleman 1–99
Rifleman 2–99
Rifleman 3–99
Rifleman 4–99
Rifleman 5–99
Rifleman 6–99

Of course, the assistant gunner’s ammunition was in 50 round belts, often carried in drums, and a good portion of his allotment might be distributed to the rest of the squad or left on any vehicle the platoon might have. The gunner was the one who got to carry the MG-42, of course.

The table of ammunition allotments for the new squad was quite a bit simpler:

Member9mm Parabellum Rounds8mm Mauser rounds8mm Kurz rounds
Squad Leader––720
Gunner––720
Assistant Gunner––720
Rifleman 1––720
Rifleman 2––720
Rifleman 3––720
Rifleman 4––720
Rifleman 5––720
Rifleman 6––720

(I’ve left the titles as-is from the previous table for comparison’s sake, but they don’t quite fit when everyone has an StG-44.)

Readers who are interested in the soldier’s load will note that this is a savings of about 13 lbs over the previous one in terms of total load carried for the entire squad.

The new assault platoon had two such all-StG-44 squads. The third squad contained all of the long range support weapons, including two MG-42s and three rifle grenadiers. This support squad consisted of eight men altogether, including the squad leader. Snipers were concentrated in the company headquarters squad.

This new organization was pretty easy to command, a bonus for the Wehrmacht Heer as its supply of well-trained veteran squad leaders dwindled.

A few more things stand out to me, looking back seventy-odd years later. First is that we could replicate this platoon pretty readily with three IFVs that each have a six mount capacity, if we used the IFVs themselves as a “support squad”. While this would be a small, easily commanded platoon, it does tie the IFVs closely to their dismounts, and perhaps that is not desirable.

I would be remiss if I didn’t comment briefly on what the 1944 tables said about the Panzergrenadiers. Panzergrenadier platoons consisted of three identically-equipped squads. Each squad was made up of ten men, including vehicle driver and assistant/gunner. No StG-44s were assigned at this time. Instead, the eight dismounts had two MG-42s, with a third MG-42 remaining in the halftrack.

StG v. LMG

Posted by

I got the awesome book Sturmgewehr! recently from Collector Grade Publications, and it contains tons of great stuff. It’s got a detailed history of the crazy internal politics and the various iterations of the prototypes that would eventually become the world’s first assault rifle.

All of that is awesome. And that alone would be worth the price of admission. Engineering prototypes are cool, and it’s great to track the evolution of an idea as it intersects with operational realities in testing. Plus, despite (or perhaps because of) being a dictatorship, the Third Reich had some crazy political struggles, with all kinds of subterfuge and pet projects and competing notions. Right there, I had my money’s worth.

But I was hoping for more, and happily Collector Grade (and the Waffenamt’s obsessive documentation) delivered. What I was really interested in was how the Germans figured they would be deploying this new weapon. Clearly, an assault rifle can replace bolt action rifles, semiautomatic-only rifles like the Gewehr 43, and submachine guns like the MP-40. That’s most of the weapons of the squad right there. But what about Hitler’s Buzzsaw? Can the StG-44 plausibly replace the MG-42? Did the Germans figure this was a net gain or a net loss?

Let’s look at the technical considerations for that very comparison, comparisons forged in the hellish engagements of the Eastern Front. I’ll have a follow up where I look at the 1944 organization tables built with the StG-44 in mind. Note that the Germans frequently deployed prototype StG-44s to combat units to gain feedback. One of the questions asked was “Can this weapon replace the MG-42 in an infantry squad?”

Anyway, let’s grab some relevant figures for comparison, so we have them all in one place. The MG-42 weighs 25.51 lbs, is chambered for 7.92x57mm Mauser, is belt fed, and fires at about 1,200 rounds per minute. We’re concerned primarily with the light machine gun use case, so not supported by the excellent tripod. While the MG-42 could be operated by one man, in practice a second man was designated to be the ammunition bearer, and would also help carry spare barrels.

The StG-44 weighs about 10 lbs unloaded, is chambered for 7.92x33mm Kurz, is detachable box magazine fed, and fires at about 500-600 rounds per minute (cyclic). A lot like a modern assault rifle.

When comparing the two options, it should be noted that this was not a one for one replacement. That is, the StG-44 would not be issued one per squad or fireteam in the fashion of the M1918 BAR. Rather, it was a shift to a ‘distributed firepower’ model, something like that of the Soviet submachine gun regiments. Clearly the StG-44 was a lot handier, and could be easily used in a trench or in built-up areas. A squad of StG-44s didn’t provide one obvious target for enemy suppression, and when relocating, did not have a significant drop in effective firepower as the machine gun was moved.

While the firepower of one MG-42 was significantly greater than that of one StG-44, given the different rates of fire and the relative capacities of a belt and a box magazine. Since the StG-44 was to be deployed en masse, this wasn’t a focus of comparison. It may interest the reader to know that Wehrmacht planners figured three StG-44s were roughly equivalent in close-in firepower to one MG-42.

The one big advantage the MG-42 held was at range. The MG-42 was still effective at ranges beyond 500 meters, but the StG-44 was never designed to be effective at these ranges. In the evaluations, units that were stationed in areas of Russia with long sightlines placed a high value on the MG-42 and keeping it available. Units that did not have many long sightlines available at the time of evaluation tended to value the handiness of the StG-44, and reckoned it could completely replace the MG-42.

Next time we’ll look at the units equipped with the StG-44, at least as they were drawn up on the organization tables.

(Snarky) Confessions of a Recovering Tactical Timmy

Posted by

I’ve gone to a bunch of “defensive”/”tactical” training classes1. And I’ve enjoyed them, and I have a lot of good friends who teach such things. That said, I’ve noticed a few quirks, and there are a few little things that annoy me. Maybe this is just me becoming more of a “gamer”. Whatever. I don’t care. Since I’m snarky, I’m going to point some of them out here.

  1. “It’s not a stage!”
    Continue reading →

Giant OTV/IOTV Weight Chart

Posted by

I do like playing around with weight accounting, and I do like tinkering. The following charts were pulled from a US Army service manual1 on the Interceptor Body Armor System. They’re remarkably annoying to find online in detail, and details are important. Especially if you want to play with your own configurations. So in the interest of knowledge and thoroughness, the charts are reproduced here. All weights below are in pounds.

First, the Outer Tactical Vest. This is the vest you see in early Operation Iraqi Freedom Photos.

ComponentXSSMLXLXXL3XL4XL
Base vest6.646.957.668.389.519.8410.8111.79
Throat Protector Assy.0.250.250.250.250.250.250.250.25
Yoke and Collar Assy.0.900.951.001.101.201.301.401.50
Groin Protector Assy.0.700.700.700.850.850.850.850.85
DAPS5.505.505.505.505.505.505.505.50
ESAPI Plates (pair)7.609.5010.9012.5014.2014.2014.2014.20
ESBI Plate Carriers (pair)2.802.802.802.802.802.802.802.80
ESBI Plates (pair)5.105.105.105.105.105.105.105.10
Total System Weight29.4931.7533.9136.4839.41>39.8440.9141.99

Next the Improved Outer Tactical Vest, Gen I. This reconfigured the armor a bit and added a quick release system for easier medic access to a wounded soldier, among other features. Note also the addition of some long sizes, and that the Axillary protection system (the A in DAPS) and the carriers for the ESBI side plates are now integrated into the IOTV base vest.

ComponentXSSMMLLLLXLXLLXXL3XL4XL
Base Vest9.019.339.8610.6010.9711.2411.9812.5113.5215.8016.17
Front Yoke/Collar Assy.0.560.560.560.560.560.560.560.560.560.560.56
Rear Yoke/Collar Assy.0.800.830.880.880.910.910.960.961.021.171.17
Groin Protector Assy.0.720.720.720.720.870.870.870.870.870.870.87
Lower Back Protector Assy.0.670.670.670.670.670.670.670.670.670.670.67
Deltoid Protector Assy. (pair)2.002.002.402.402.402.402.902.902.902.902.90
ESAPI Plates (pair)7.609.5010.9010.9012.5012.5014.2014.2014.2014.2014.20
ESBI Plates (pair)5.105.105.105.105.105.105.105.105.105.105.10
Total System Weight25.4628.7131.0931.8333.9834.2537.2437.7738.8441.2741.64

Finally, we come to the Improved Outer Tactical Vest, Gen II. This vest brought a bunch of minor improvements.

ComponentXSSMMLLLLXLXLLXXL3XL4XL
Base Vest9.619.9310.5611.3011.7211.9912.7813.3114.3216.6016.97
Front Yoke/Collar Assy.0.560.560.560.560.560.560.560.560.560.560.56
Rear Yoke/Collar Assy.0.800.830.880.880.910.910.960.961.021.171.17
Groin Protector Assy.0.720.720.720.720.870.870.870.870.870.870.87
Lower Back Protector Assy.0.670.670.670.670.670.670.670.670.670.670.67
Deltoid Protector Assy. (pair)2.002.002.402.402.402.402.902.902.902.902.90
ESAPI Plates (pair)7.609.5010.9010.9012.5012.5014.2014.2014.2014.2014.20
ESBI Plates (pair)5.105.105.105.105.105.105.105.105.105.105.10
Total System Weight27.0629.3131.7932.5334.7335.0038.0438.5739.6442.0742.50

That’s as far as this copy of the manual goes. Probably for the best. That’s more than enough tables for one day.

  1. TM 10-8470-208-24&P ↩

Ballistic Combat Shirt

Posted by

Body armor. Don’t go outside the wire without it, right?

The upper thoracic cavity is where the heart and lungs are. That’s what we’re trying to protect. And hard plates like ESAPI do a good job of protecting the front and rear of the upper thoracic cavity. The sides get more difficult, because you have arms. There’s still a lot of important blood vessels, and rather complicated joints in the area above and to the sides of where plates go, regardless of whether you are wearing an armor carrier like the IOTV or a simpler plate carrier rig.

The IOTV comes with a number of accessories to protect the neck, collarbone region, shoulders, and the sides of the upper thoracic cavity. These components are the yoke and collar assembly and the Deltoid protector. These consist of an inner soft armor component, an outer cordura casing, plus attaching hardware. In size L the total weight of these accessories is 3.87 lbs.

We can contrast that with a ballistic combat shirt. This is the usual modern style of combat shirt, with heavier material for the sleeves and upper torso and lighter material for the abdomen, that’s designed for (somewhat) more comfortable wear with body armor. In the BCS, the upper chest and shoulder region contains segmented soft armor panels, providing the same ballistic protection as the aforementioned yoke and collar assembly and the deltoid protector, but the total weight of a size L Ballistic Combat Shirt is only 3.2 lbs. This looks like about half a pound of weight savings, but remember, this includes the combat shirt. A modern-style combat shirt sans armor weighs about 0.9 lbs.1 So, for system weight, we’re looking at more like 1.4ish lbs. of weight savings. Not a lot, but every little bit helps.

Weight savings isn’t the only gain here. We’re removing a lot of bulk from the shoulder area, which is a big win in terms of how much it sucks to wear. Deltoid protectors get caught on things. They make narrow doorways, crawlspaces, and vehicle hatches more annoying to move through. Less bulk means you can move through these areas faster. The bulk also makes weapon manipulation more annoying. In testing, soldiers unanimously praised the new ballistic combat shirts for being less bulky and annoying. The loss of the various straps and buckles to attach all the above components is probably also a big hit.

It’s often very difficult to reduce soldier load by reducing protection for the regular “line” infantry. Special forces guys play by different rules, but the regular grunts are usually stuck with a heavy load. Sometimes it takes some out of the box thinking to be able to make some small gains.

  1. Source here, though they don’t tell me size. Shouldn’t matter much though. “A bit less than a pound is probably a fair approximation for most modern NyCo shirts with this style of cut and a flame-resistant treatment. ↩

Body Armor Ratings

Posted by

Body armor toughness comes in a bunch of different flavors. Over here in the US, we have a couple standards. There’s the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) standards, standards used by the US military, plus a bunch of other marketing-speak. Let’s break it down.

First, NIJ:

TypeProtection
Level II9x19mm (124 gr. FMJ @ 1,305 fps), .357 Magnum (158 gr. JSP @ 1,430 fps)
Level IIIA.357 SIG (127 gr FMJ @ 1,470 fps), .44 Magnum (240 gr. SJHP @ 1,430 fps)
Level III6 rounds 7.62x51mm M80 (148 gr. FMJ @ 2,780 fps)
Level IV1 round 7.62x63mm (.30-06) M2 (166 gr. AP @ 2,880 fps)

NIJ ratings are commonly used for armor marketed to law enforcement and civilians. Some notes:

  • All velocities listed above are approximate, and should be understood to be +/- 30 fps.
  • Level II and IIIA are soft armor, and are understood to be reasonably multihit.
  • Level III and IV are hard plate armor.
  • Level IV is required to be able to withstand at least one round of 7.62x51mm M80 FMJ. It is not required to meet Level III multihit standards (6 shots) against M80.
  • You may notice there is no testing required against SCHV rounds (e.g. 5.56x45mm, 5.45x39mm). Level III armors may or may not stop SCHV rounds. Level IV armors are required to stop at least one SCHV round.

This last point leads lots of manufacturers to test against various SCHV (usually 5.56mm in the States) rounds, which is good. Do note that “Level III+” and “Level III++” are not NIJ certifications. Those are marketing nonsense. Read the list of test rounds carefully. Some materials used for Level III plates have problems with M855 steel-core (semi-armor piercing) rounds, and some other materials used in Level III plates have problems with the speed of M153 rounds, especially out of a 20″ barrel. Ideally, your plate will withstand both.

What about military plates? I can only speak for the US plates at present. These plates are made from ceramic materials. The US Military uses its own testing standard, not the NIJ one. SAPI1 plates are designed to resist three hits of “up to” M80 7.62x51mm ball. There’s also ESAPI2, which has a similar multihit standard against M2 .30-06 AP rounds. And then there’s XSAPI. Because somewhere out there, some terrorist has some exotic high power super armor piercing 7.62x54R mm that will punch through ESAPI plates and we need to stop that round too. It’s also multihit. Against something exotic, but I don’t know the test round. Maybe tungsten-cored .30-06?

Anyway, as you’d expect, more protection means more weight:

SizeDimensionsSAPI WeightESAPI weightXSAPI weight (Approx)
XS7.25″ x 11.5″2.8 lbs.3.75 lbs.4.7 lbs.
S8.75″ x 11.75″3.5 lbs.4.6 lbs.5.8 lbs.
M9.5″ x 12.5″4.0 lbs.5.5 lbs.6.9 lbs.
L10.125″ x 13.25″4.6 lbs.6.3 lbs.7.9 lbs.
XL11″ x 14″5.3 lbs.7.2 lbs.9.0 lbs.

Do note that all US Military plates assume they are mounted over the OTV, IOTV, or equivalent military-spec soft armor for them to perform as advertised. To the best I am able to determine, XSAPI plates have never been deployed in combat. They sit in depots because they’re too damn heavy and because the expected threat never materialized. Also, remember the above is per plate. Double it.

That military soft armor is tested to a different standard than the NIJ one. The military is concerned with fragmentation, primarily, so they look at the V50, i.e. the speed at which a given projectile must be going to have a 50% chance of penetration. This number is chosen because it’s a lot easier to work with than V0 from a measurements and statistics perspective. To simulate artillery fragments, the US Army tests with steel projectiles with weights of 2, 4, 16, and 64 grains. Steel doesn’t deform like lead pistol bullets do, so this is sort of a different challenge than regular pistol bullets. The V50 for a 124 grain 9mm NATO round against the current soft armor in the IOTV is about 1,525 fps, which is pretty similar to that of most Level IIIA soft armor panels. On the other hand, the NIJ requires Level IIIA panels to also stop .44 magnum rounds, and the US Military doesn’t.

Next time, we’ll take a more in-depth look at soft body armor systems.

  1. Small Arms Protective Insert ↩
  2. Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert ↩

Parvusimperator Reviews a Remington 870 Police Magnum

Posted by

I have some local trainer friends who teach a well-regarded shotgun class. I decided to take it to learn some things about how to use a scattergun, which of course meant that I needed a shotgun. My choice was a cop trade-in Remington 870 Police pump-action shotgun. At first, this might seem like a very un-Parvusimperator choice, so let’s review the reasoning.

  1. It was cheap. I picked this thing up for less than half the MSRP of a brand-new 870P. So I’m getting to class on the cheap, which is nice when I’ve burned through my training budget and am saving for a fancy USPSA Open pistol.
  2. It’s quality. The 870P is made with better parts than a regular 870, and this one is old enough to date from back before the “freedom group” axed Remington’s QC department in search of greater profits. So I have a cheap, reliable gun that I won’t have to worry about going wrong mechanically in class.
  3. I like the idea of taking an old, beat up shotgun and making it mine. Sort of like adopting a pet, but for guns.
  4. If I ended up disliking it, I could probably get all my money back selling it, given that I bought the gun used and that it’s a desirable Police model 870.

Upon unboxing, I discovered my shotgun was as expected. Date codes on the barrel told me the shotgun was built in 1995. In the meantime, the synthetic furniture on it had been beaten to hell and back. Someone had gouged “VAULT” in the stock. The ‘brass bead’ sight no longer had any finish resembling brass. The receiver was well-patinaed, and had a good bit of rust.

On the plus side, all of the metal is sound, and the action is very smooth. Running it is a joy, and brings a smile to my face. Also, I have no complaints about the trigger. It’s not something superfancy, but it also has no glaring problems.

I didn’t have a ton of time to get the shotgun ready for class. Clearly, I wouldn’t be able to get it cerakoted or anything, and I was expecting class in the rain. I did have time to make a couple changes in preparation. Did you really think I would not? I added a Magpul SGA-870 stock and a Wilson Combat +2 extension.

I’ve talked about the Magpul stock before. But it bears talking through again. Magpul put a lot of thought into this stock. It’s the best stock out there for shotguns. It’s super comfortable and is easily adjustable for length of pull. I’m not a tall guy, and I don’t have gorilla arms, so I normally get very annoyed at the very long length of pull on factory stocks on shotguns. They’re probably “tradition” or some nonsense.1 Anyway, problem solved, problem staying solved. It also comes with a nice rubber recoil pad. Replacing the old rubber recoil pad is something that should be done on general principle given the age of the shotgun and how much abuse the old stock had gone through. As a bonus, the stock came with some sling attachment points.

Lots of people make magazine tube extensions. I picked the Wilson one because the price was reasonable, the quality is good, and it came with all of the other extras I wanted, namely a new high-visibility follower, a new magazine spring, and a front sling attachment point. The high-visibility follower is very helpful in a class environment for administratively verifying that the weapon is unloaded. Even if I didn’t get the magazine tube extension, I would have wanted to replace the magazine spring because I don’t know the age of it.

On to class! How did the shotgun do? What did I learn about the parts? And what is coming for our rescued shotgun?

My shotgun ran great in class. Several others had shit break on their guns. One guy had the handguard become detached from the loading forks. Another had a screw come loose inside his receiver and jam things up. People switched to backup guns. But my old 870 Police Magnum gave me no trouble at all. Despite being old and unproven (to me), I had a great time with my shotgun, and my small initial investment paid off.

My existing mods were also good choices. My instructor friends are also huge fans of the Magpul stocks. I found that it did everything I asked. I got the length of pull adjusted to suit my preferences, and that helped. The stock even made supporting and firing the gun one-handed reasonable.

I also had no complaints about the extension. More ammo is better. Duh. The spring worked great. No jams. Plus, the high visibility follower was in fact very visible.

What I did find unsatisfactory was the two-point sling. I rigged this up like I would rig up one of my carbines, using a VTAC sling. This wasn’t my best build plan ever. Having a sling mounted in front of the handguard on a pump shotgun ended up being super annoying, because it seemed like it was always getting in the way. Plus, the shotgun always felt askew when it was hanging on the sling. On a carbine, I’d just move the sling adapters, but I can’t do that here. This will take some more thought.

The ‘formerly-brass’ bead sight on the shotgun was a reasonable sighting system. It wasn’t great. For most “indoors” distances, it will work fine if you’re using something with a pattern like non-flite-control buckshot or birdshot. I found that at distances, the lack of a good second reference made headshots with slugs harder to achieve than I would like. I will probably end up getting the shotgun drilled and tapped for a picatinny rail so I can mount a small red dot. Because I freaking love red dots, and I love the target-focused shooting paradigm that they get you into.

While the gun worked great, there are things that need changing. I’ve talked sights, even if those are “wants” more than needs. A bigger priority is the finish. The one on the gun is toast. When I asked gunsmiths in the class about getting the rust off, they told me not to worry about killing the finish, because it’s already crap. Not that 870s are known for their good factory finishes.2 This is going to get redone in…something. I don’t know what yet. Stay tuned.

  1. Ask Fishbreath. ↩
  2. Seriously, how does Remington’s parkerizing suck so hard? My M1 Garand also has a parkerized finish on its metal parts, and it’s a bit more than twice as old as my 870, and the finish on my M1 is fine. No rust. ↩