Parvusimperator Reviews the M1 Garand

Posted by

I hit up the gunshow and finally am able to cross a gun off my list: the legendary M1 Garand.

I ended up picking this one up for a bit less than $1,200. It’s in great shape with matching parts and parkerizing, and a stock in good shape. The bore and breech score highly on the gauges. I was going to just get a CMP rifle, but I moved recently, and their stock is drying up. Plus, there’s a several month wait. And a quick gunbroker check showed that I wouldn’t save much there for rifles in comparable condition. Once I factored in shipping and transfer fees, the difference in price wasn’t much. Maybe $50 or so. Screw that. I’ll take Garand in hand. This one even came with the cool CMP hard case, which is well made and lockable. So it’ll work for airline travel, should I want to fly somewhere with a rifle.

The Garand probably needs no introduction, but I’ll review it anyway. This was the standard American service rifle in World War 2 and the Korean War. It was the frontline rifle from 1936-1960 or so. It soldiered on quite a bit longer in the National Guard (some units went directly from the M1 Garand to the M16), and was also widely used by many American allies. South Korea was a particularly heavy user of the type. General Patton himself described it (perhaps a trifle hyperbolically) as “the greatest battle implement ever devised.” It fires the .30-06 cartridge from an eight-round en-bloc clip and weighs about 10 lbs, depending on example. It also spent decades dominating service rifle competitions.

Mine was made by Harrington and Richardson in February of 1956. Production would stop in 1957. On the one hand, I’m a little sad that my rifle didn’t see combat service. On the other hand, this also means it’s in absolutely superb condition. It’s just as good a touchstone this way, and now the only one who’s going to be putting wear on it is me. And make no mistake, I got it because it’s a touchstone. Both of my grandfathers served in the Second World War, and this is a nice way for me to have a connection to them, and the rest of the members of the greatest generation. Plus, it’s a nice companion for my Mauser Kar 98k and my Lee Enfield No. 4 Mk. I. Also, did I mention it’s pretty? Because it is absolutely gorgeous.

The lines of the M1 Garand are just right. That said, it’s also on the heavy side. 10 lbs is hefty. Of course, it’s also firing a full power rifle cartridge in the .30-06 (7.62×63 mm). You probably don’t want to go too much lighter. And again, this is a military rifle. Weight means strength, which means abuse resistance. And recoil absorption. Carrying it, I notice the weight. Shooting it, I’m very happy for the weight.

For a traditional layout rifle, the Garand has pretty good ergonomics. The trigger is a little gritty, but otherwise a solid mil-type trigger. This isn’t a match trigger, and that’s okay. The sights on the Garand are absolutely amazing, especially for the time period. It’s a great sight picture that would be directly copied to the M14, and used with minor mechanical tweaks (but the same fundamental picture) on the M16A1 and M16A2. It’s great.

How does it shoot? Wonderfully. It is not abusive. It is very precise, and the iron sights are fantastic. Even more so when you consider that these sights were designed in the 1930s. Compared to its contemporaries, the Garand is amazing. Today, it’s still a super fun rifle for blasting. Plenty accurate. And I love the ping of the ejected clip. Hear that? That’s the Ping of Freedom.

So make yourself an ARK: Fishbreath builds an AR-15

Posted by

That’s right. It finally happened.

Of course, it’s me, so I built it from a lower parts kit (some years ago) and random upper parts (a few days back), not simply by pinning a prebuilt lower and upper together.

Oh, and it’s in 7.62×39. That’s right: an AR-15 in 7.62×39. A 7.62×39 AR-151.

First thing’s first. Why ARK? Well, I have two existing 7.62×39 rifles. One is the BRK, the Bullpapniy Russkiy Karabin. Another is Kat, which is my competition Russkiy Karabin, or CRK. There’s an obvious theme developing here, so ARK it had to be. In traditional Fishbreath rifle naming style, the acronym has two meanings. The first, most obvious one is that the rifle is an AK caliber in an AR pattern: AR-K. The second is the also-traditional Russian name, the Amerikansko-Russkiy Karabin.

Why build an AR-15 in 7.62×39, you ask? I have a few reasons. First: it’s a deeply underrated caliber. It can do everything .300 Blackout can do, although I grant it’s harder to find subsonic 7.62×39 than .300 Blackout. In ballistic terms, the two cartridges are so nearly identical that the drop-compensating reticle in my chosen optic works for both with the same zero. The difference between the two comes down not to innate capabilities, but to modern development effort2.

Second: the AR platform is admittedly pretty neat. I can hardly deny that the ergonomics are good, and the Lego-for-adults aspect is deeply appealing to me, an adult who rather wishes he had more Legos.

Third: I can’t abide by being so normal as to build an AR in 5.56. Parvusimperator often accuses me of being a gun hipster… and I absolutely agree. An AR-15 in 5.56 does very little to interest me: hipsterish though this sentence may be, it’s played out. 7.62×39 is much more oddball, and therefore more interesting as an exercise.

Fourth: ammo is super-cheap, even if I have to pop by a local gun store. Much ink has been spilled on this front, so I won’t spend too much time on it. Suffice it to say that I don’t even mind having to occasionally pay friendly local gun shop prices for 7.62×39.

To be honest, though, it’s mostly the hipster factor. 7.62×39 AR is an odd combo, I like odd combos, and most of all, I like building things. Let’s get into the nitty gritty on parts.

Lower receiver
Surplus Ammo in Washington State, which is mainly a surplus ammo outfit, also makes decent forged lower receivers. It’s a lower. How much is there to say?

Lower parts/furniture
I got the standard Palmetto State parts kit, minus grip and stock. All the mechanical/internal gubbins are the same, with the exception of the trigger and hammer pins. I went with versions retained by wee c-springs for those, since I’d been hearing horror stories about the pins coming out under use at the time. It seems unlikely, pressing on the pins with my thumbs now, that they might, but better safe than sorry.

For the grip and stock, I went with the sadly-discontinued ATI Strikeforce set. The grip is heftier than most AR-15 grips, swelling to actually fill an average-sized hand, and nicely padded. The stock has an adjustable cheek riser which I’m not currently using, and is also padded. I purchased this set when I was planning to make this lower a 6.5 Grendel rifle, so that explains the slightly more marksman-oriented setup.

Upper receiver
Again, I went to Surplus Ammo, who had a billet upper in stock, charging handle included, for $75 delivered. I have a hard time arguing with that. It has a dust cover and a forward assist, as the Army intended. No side-charging or anything like that. It’s a $75 receiver. You can’t expect much beyond the standard for that money.

Barrel
Faxon Firearms makes a 7.62×39 barrel with a 1-8″ twist. Unfortunately, it’s built to the surprisingly odd government profile, but crucially, it has a much larger gas port than your average 5.56 barrel. Since 7.62×39 is a lower-pressure cartridge by a significant margin, the extra gas port diameter is all but a requirement for adequate functioning.

The 1-8″ twist is also nice: a faster twist can better stabilize a heavy cartridge, and if I eventually load subsonic ammo for this rifle, that’s a handy trick.

Bolt carrier group
LJ’s AR Parts, who I had not heard of until I built this rifle, make a nitride BCG with an extended firing pin for better primer strikes on the harder primers of the standard cheapo steel-case ammo often fired through 7.62×39 rifles. That’s the one I’m using.

Gas block
I got one of the low-profile ones wot attaches by set screw. I prefer set screws to pins in basically every case.

Handguard
Parvusimperator had a spare Troy Industries 9″ jobber lying around. It’s a nice lightweight handguard, ventilated so it doesn’t get hot easily. It also avoids the quadrail problem of heavy rails you don’t need by having a single top rail with attachable sections for other accessories.

Muzzle device
I went with the Strike Industries King Comp, which is well-reviewed and seems effective enough. In my estimation, it works better than the AK-74-style brake. Happily, it’s not quite as bad in terms of side concussion as Parvusimperator’s favored brakes, although it does considerably increase the noise. Factoring in my ear protection, I had a hard time differentiating the report from Parvusimperator’s Garand and the ARK.

Magazines
Ordinarily, these wouldn’t merit mention, but this is a 7.62×39 AR-15 we’re talking about, and standard magazines need not apply. I found Midway’s house brand, AR Stoner, works fine.

Sights
Finally, the bit I alluded to at the very beginning. I chose a fancier optic than is my usual wont: the Primary Arms 1-6x ACSS scope for 7.62×39/300 Blackout. I have to say, I’m sold on the concept: an illuminated variable-power optic with 1x or near-1x magnification on the low end, for use as a red dot-style sight close up, and a bullet drop compensation reticle for longer-range work. This one is a particularly nice example. Parvusimperator, that noted glass snob, said the glass is “not bad”. The reticle is perfect for my purposes: a large illuminated chevron, to be zeroed at 50 yards, plus drop markings for 300-600 yards, the latter being just about the maximum effective range for 7.62×39. Rangefinding markings for each range are built into the reticle ACOG-style, where the crosshatch on the vertical line corresponding to a given range matches the width of an adult male’s shoulders at the same range. There’s also a rangefinder marking off to the side for standing height.

Other handy markings include dots for a 5mph crosswind at each range, and dots for leading a running target (at 8.6 mph, the generally-accepted speed for a man running with a rifle). The latter isn’t especially useful to me, since I don’t really hunt for anything, much less the most dangerous game. The former dots are nice to have, though; crosswind shooting comes up a lot, although I don’t expect it to do so too much with this rifle.

Final notes
There’s a canonical article on AR-15/7.62×39 reliability I want to address fully in a later post, but I do want to touch on reliability concerns and my results here. I went into this project with some trepidation on the reliable-functioning front, but emerged from Saturday’s range test with no remaining concerns: 40 rounds of slow fire while I was zeroing my scope and verifying that zero yielded no problems. Nor did 60 rounds of rapid fire, including some fast double taps, from magazines loaded to a full 30 rounds. 7.62×39 AR owners commonly cite two related pain points: cycling and feeding. For 7.62×39, you want a biggish gas port for the barrel length: at 0.087″, the port on the Faxon barrel in the ARK would yield a tremendously overgassed rifle for 5.56, but seems just about right for the ARK.

I’ve hit my about-1400-words target pretty handily with this first article. Stay tuned for the next one, in which I rag on the AR as a platform!

  1. I repeat this not because it’s necessarily strange (though granted, it is a little strange), but for SEO purposes. Hello, Googlebot!
  2. In defense of this rather bold claim, I present the 7.62 US cartridge (scroll down a bit), which was a subsonic 7.62×39 cartridge capped with a ~200-grain bullet intended to be used with the PBS-1 silencer on the AK-47 and AKM. Sound familiar? In any event, I intend to try some subsonic handloads and perhaps a suppressor of my own down the road.

Parvusimperator’s SiG Predicton

Posted by

To paraphrase a song lyric, Connect two three facts…

FACT: We know that Glock won the biggest law enforcement pistol contract with the FBI. Many had thought the SiG P320 was a shoo-in. Glock thought the contract was worth some effort, and the FBI went with Glock.

FACT: SiG has just disbanded its shooting team. It’s pretty complete; as of Friday, October 7, 2016, websites and facebook pages are gone. We know this team was created to market the P320. Shooting teams get axed for cost reasons. Not justifying the ROI, that sort of thing.

FACT: The Modular Handgun System Competition entrants have been informed of who’s in and who isn’t. We know this because of S&W’s investor communications indicating their elimination. So as of the end of September 2016, S&W knows. Which means SiG and Glock and the rest also know.

Now. Connect these facts. No luck with the FBI. And no more shooting team. Now, is this the the course of action you would take if you were one of the three downselects? Of course not. In both of these cases, the prize is the knock-on effects. It’s not just the FBI contract that Glock won. There’s a whole bunch of alphabet soup agencies at the federal level that are allowed to simply “Take what the FBI’s got” and skip their own evaluation. Plus a bunch of other police departments will no doubt to the same. The FBI is a big-name agency. Plus, a lot of smaller agencies/departments don’t have the budget or knowledge to do their own big evaluation. If the FBI did a massive one, and Glock came out on top, then it’s likely pretty good. Certainly good enough. Plus many citizens who will no doubt pony up dollars.

The Modular Handgun System (for it’s stupid, stupid name and high likelihood of being a boondoggle) holds promise of similar secondary contracts from smaller nations, plus more agencies, civilian sales, and “mindshare”. After winning the 1985 contract, the M9 was in the hands of action heroes for the next 10 years. And again, got a ton of sales.

So the smart money says SiG is out too. And with two contracts down, why spend the money on the shooting team? So that’s my prediction. We’ll soon hear that they didn’t make the cut.

Resurrected Weapons: Marder 2 IFV

Posted by

Ah, another wonderful late Cold War vehicle that didn’t survive peace. As a bonus, it’s super confusingly named. Do not confuse this vehicle with the Marder II tank destroyer of World War II. Thanks, Germany. I’ll use Roman numerals when referring to the tank destroyer, and arabic numerals for the IFV.

Anyway the Marder 2 is a look at what the Puma might have looked like if the Germans weren’t so hell bent on shoehorning the thing into a damn A400m. Let us suppose we worried about a proper, conventional war, and let us suppose we don’t care about overrated air deployability with a bunch of massively overpriced transports that have been consistently plagued with problems. And that we don’t have. Let us also suppose that we are German designers, and we love our armor properly heavy.1

We’d get the Marder 2. It weighs 44 tonnes kitted out. Hey, just like the Puma with the full armor kit. Unlike the Puma, the Marder 2 had a more conventional armor layout. It could withstand 40 mm APFSDS rounds on the frontal arc, and 20 mm APFSDS everywhere else. Pretty hardcore. Armor was composite right out of the gate, so it was also quite effective against HEAT rounds and ATGMs.

Marder 2 also had a proper manned turret for two. The main gun was a big 35 mm autocannon with a whopping 177 ready rounds, and another 110 stored in reserve. That’s some serious firepower. More than twice as many ready as a CV9035. I like it. I like it a lot. There was also the usual MG3 coax machine gun. As a further bonus, the cannon and feed system was designed to accommodate 50 mm Supershot with only a barrel change. A never-was round for a never-was vehicle.

There is something missing though. You guessed it: ATGM capability. I still really like having it.

The rest of the Marder 2 is pretty conventional. It had just under 1,000 hp in a V8, letting it keep pace with the Leopard 2. It also matched the Leopard 2’s road range of 500 km, which is nice. It had a crew of three and seven dismounts, just like the Marder 1 IFV. Not terrible, but not great either.

Some other numbers: It was 7.31 m long, 3.48 m wide, and 3.05 m high. It had a fuel capacity of 890 L. The commander had an independent, stabilized thermal sight. The gunner had all of the fancy fire control systems you’d expect from the early 90s, plus the ability to shoot at low flying aircraft.

Interestingly, the dismounts sat on seats in the middle facing outward. Each man had a vision block. No firing ports were provided, which is good. Those never worked as advertised, and just compromised protection. I’m not sold on the merits of this seating arrangement with the vision blocks. I’d much prefer benches along the outer sides of the troop compartment rather than in the middle. It simplifies the rear hatch setup, and ends up using the passenger compartment space more efficiently. This is one place that the Puma does well with its repeater displays. Small cameras are a lot less disruptive to armor too. Note that this is nothing that can’t be fixed. Most early IFVs, including the Bradley and later model BMPs, had firing ports plated over. We have much smaller breaches to deal with. And the original Bradley had a pretty goofy seating layout that was later made sensible. And a more conventional seating arrangement would give us some room for those ATGMs we like.

Unsurprisingly, we’re a big fan of this vehicle. Even with it’s 1991-vintage design, it’s almost exactly what we’d want. It’s got tons of firepower, great protection, good mobility, and good capacity.

1.) Or at least, German designers in certain eras. Early WW2 designers didn’t favor particularly heavy armor on Panzers. This of course changed with later models. And the Leopard 1 was reasonably armored, but not heavily like a Chieftain. The Marder 1 was well armored for it’s size, however, and the Leopard 2 is about the equal of the Abrams. Modern German armor is loaded with armor, as is good and proper. (Leopard 2A6/2E: 63 tonnes, Leopard 2A7: 69 tonnes, Puma: 42 tonnes, PzH 2000: 55 tonnes)

Terminated Weapons: PARS 3 LR/Trigat

Posted by

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. Three big European nations, all washed-up, has-been powers, decide to collaborate on a project. They threw everything including the kitchen sink into it. The end of the cold war meant a reduction in ordered numbers, a boatload of delays, and the sort of cost increases that make legislators hold angry hearings. Somehow the project didn’t get cancelled, and now one of the three actually has some.

It’s the PARS 3 LR ATGM. Also known as Trigat, this was supposed to be the cool new missile of choice for attack helicopters in France, Germany, and the UK. The Europeans had their own TOW equivalent, called HOT. The latest version, HOT-3, was rather better than the TOW-2A as far as range and armor penetration were concerned. The Americans decided that they wanted something better. They buckled down, said “Hughes, get ‘er Done!” and got the awesome Hellfire missile for their helicopters, starting in 1984. The Europeans stuck with the wire-guided HOT for quite a while, but eventually decided that they needed a new missile too. No problem. They’d team up. Hey, the ECC was still cool back then. They hadn’t figured out that these multilateral programs were nothing but goat rope.

Of course, in 1991 the Soviet Union broke up. Goodbye Cold War. Hello vengeful legislatures. As we’ve seen before, lots of stuff got frozen as is. Big projects died. So the Americans, who had Hellfires in production, got to keep them. Funding for PARS 3 was cut, which brought delays.

Let’s look at the missile before resuming our history lesson. It’s about Hellfire-sized, weighing 49 kg and measuring 1.6 m long and 159 mm wide. It’s got the usual tandem shaped-charge warhead that we’d expect. Guidance was an imaging infrared system, something like what you’d find on some Maverick missiles. Nothing wrong here, but it was new ground for the Europeans. Definitely something that would drive cost up. Remember, basic Hellfires have semi-active laser homing guidance. Which is quite a bit easier and cheaper. I’m all for fancy fire-and-forget, but the perfect is the enemy of the good enough. And getting away from wire-guided missiles is much more important for missile range and helicopter survivability.

The Hellfire is cheaper, combat proven, and comes with some alternative warhead options, including thermobaric and fragmentation warheads. There’s also the radar-guided AGM-114L version, which is pretty fancy, and gives that fire and forget capability. It’s been combat proven all over the world. Get rid of the stupid PARS. It’s overpriced and doesn’t do anything the competition doesn’t.

But don’t just take my word for it. Two of the three partners backed out. First was the UK. They didn’t much care for the project, or the Eurocopter Tiger (a wise decision). They went with Apaches and Hellfires. They even got the fancy Longbow fire control radar for their Apaches, and the AGM-114L version (among others). Awesome. Good on you, GB! Even the French, who stuck with the Tiger (Tigre?) project, got sick of the issues. They bought Hellfires for their Tiger(re)s, like the Australians did. Look, when the French back out of a project because it’s too expensive and not delivering, you know you’re done. The French are as protectionist as they come, and work hard to keep a native arms industry as best they can. But even they have limits.

Somehow the Germans actually bought the darn things. Very silly. I’m sill confused about the utter foolishness of it. Just. Buy. Hellfires. Even the French agree.

Parvusimperator Reviews the Vickers Glock 17 (RTF2)

Posted by

This review is going to be a little different. I’m actually going to focus more on the Vickers-specific add-ons/changes than the gun itself.

What we have here is a Gen 3 Glock 17. So it’s a 9 mm, “duty-size” handgun. Holds 17 in a mag, striker fired, super reliable. Runs great. Again, you probably know if you do or don’t like Glocks already. Gen 3 means that it doesn’t have the revised striker, ejector, and recoil spring assembly of the gen 4. It also doesn’t have interchangeable backstraps or a reversible mag catch. Note that Gen 3 mags will work in a Gen 4 for righties, gen 4 mags will also work in a gen 3. The Gen 4 is less proven than the gen 3, simply by virtue of not being around as long. The guts of the Gen 3 are the same as the earlier gen Glocks. Also possibly noteworthy is that the trigger on the Gen 3 is a little better than the one on the Gen 4. Not much, but noticeable if you focus. This one is a Vickers Glock, so it comes with a number of extras from Larry Vickers’ company and Larry’s preferences. The first you will notice is the frame.

The Vickers Glocks are all built on the RTF2 frames. This was the second attempt by Glock to make a pistol with more texture. The RTF2 was thought by focus groups (or whatever testers) to have too much texture, so Glock softened it a bit for what would eventually end up on the Gen 4 guns. I prefer the Gen 4 texture to that of the Gen 3, but remember, I like texture. I like RTF2 even more. Not quite enough to put a ton of effort into hunting it down, but given the choice, it’s my preference. I also like that the texturing goes higher on the frame, right up to the slide rails on the RTF2. This is where I want texture, because this is where I want my grip to be strong: as high as possible. The RTF2 has texture right where I want my support hand to be locked in, yay. Also, my Vickers Glock 17 happens to have a cool Wolf Grey frame color. It’s different. Kind of a feldgrau, but lighter.

Now lets get to the Vickers parts. The next thing you’ll notice is that the Vickers Glocks have good sights. No really. Real sights!

I’m saying that again, because it’s worth repeating: THIS GLOCK HAS GOOD SIGHTS OUT OF THE BOX!

Thank you, Larry! You rock! These sights are the Vickers Glock sights, and consist of a fiber optic front sight and a plain black, u-notch rear sight. Front sight width is 0.125″, rear sight notch is 0.145″ wide. OUTSTANDING! Note that if you would like a narrower front sight, you can hit up Dawson precision for a front fiber optic sight in a matching height. Or some other height if you’d like to change the sight picture’s relationship to where the bullet goes. Anyway, these are exactly the kind of sights I like. It’s also kinda weird to have actual good sights on a factory gun. Especially a factory *Glock.*

The Vickers Glock also comes with the Vickers slide stop and Vickers Mag release catch. The Vickers slide stop is basically the perfect size. It’s got some more texture than the stock one, and it’s bowed out a little. So it’s easier to hit with your thumb. However, unlike the Glock factory extended slide stop, no amount of high, aggressive gripping will accidentally trip it, or prevent it from locking the slide. It’s great.

The Vickers mag release catch is just a bit bigger than the stock Glock Gen 3 one. That’s fine. I don’t really have a problem reaching the factory one. This one is easier to reach. But it’s not so big that the mag will fall out of your holstered gun. It’s a good thing to try if you want faster reloads, or have trouble reaching the stock one. It’s a pretty cheap part to experiment with. That said, it’s still not reversible. Lefties should probably get a Gen 4 if they care.

The Vickers Glock comes with some baseplates for the included mags. The Vickers baseplates are, well, baseplates. They hold the mag guts inside the mag body. Very important. They seem to work. They also have little notches in the side for extra leverage in case you need to rip the mag out to clear a malfunction. I’ve never had to do this, but it’s a nice feature.

Finally, the Vickers Glock comes with Larry’s Grip Plug/Glock tool. Lots of people don’t like the gap at the back of the Glock grip. Some people have noticed reloads getting hung up there. It’s pretty easy to fix with a grip plug if this bothers you. The Vickers Grip Plug does this job, but also includes a Glock Tool. Remember, all you need to thoroughly detail strip your Glock is a 3 mm punch. One is built right into this grip plug. It’s a nice value add for this part. While I don’t generally like the idea of disassembling out in a field, or at a match, it’s nice to know I could. Plus, if I want to work on the gun, it’s nice to not have to wonder where my Glock tool and my punch set have gotten to. There’s a tool built into the gun instead.

So overall, while the Vickers Glocks are a little more expensive than a factory Glock, I think the included extras make the package worth it. They’re certainly worth it from a simple calculation of what it would cost to buy the parts separately. If you like Glocks, or striker fired pistols in general, this is a good buy.

US Military Modular Handgun System Update: S&W Eliminated

Posted by

We’ve got some news on the US Military’s Solicitation for the M9 replacement.

First, a brief aside. I am extremely skeptical that this program will actually result in a pistol being procured by the US Military. There have been many, many attempts to replace the M16/M4, and all have failed. At this point, I’m pretty sure the carbines just start laughing at the attempts. So color me skeptical of this XM17.

See, a large part of the problem with replacing the M4 is that its really quite good. There are some perceived flaws, but it’s a great gun. It’s actually really reliable. And it’s in the system. Spare parts, armorer training, the whole lot. So when compared to a bunch of expensive “wonderguns” that don’t live up to the ad copy, or a bunch of slightly different guns that still shoot the same damn 5.56 mm round, it’s no shock that the M4 sticks around.

But what about the M9? Well, here’s my two bits, though it’s not really at issue here. I think it’s a fine gun. I’m also not personally a big fan1. I think the decocker/safety is in an awkward place. I’m not a fan of double action pistols. And you’re basically stuck with the sights its got, though newer models have rectified this somewhat, depending on sight availability. But that’s the opinion of one guy. Who’s a pistol shooter and pistol enthusiast. The M9 is mostly in the hands of guys whose job doesn’t involve lots of shooting. They don’t get a ton of practice with it. Changing the pistol isn’t going to change the fact that they won’t be able to hit a barn from the inside, and they won’t care about their pistols. Now, people who actually care about and frequently use pistols, the elite forces types, get enough training to make it work and have budget items to buy whatever they please. And really, pistols aren’t that important. Since the competitors all shoot 9 mm rounds, I’m not sure this is worth the effort.

But for now, the Army disagrees on that last point. Or perhaps they agree with my earlier point of disliking the M9. So they solicited a new “Modular Handgun” which was a really, really long document when compared to the FBI’s solicitation. We’ve learned one of the entrants has been tossed.

Smith & Wesson.

Now, part of me was surprised by this. S&W had partnered with General Dynamics Land Systems for its offering. And GDLS is one of the biggest American contractors, with lots of experience getting contracts in Washington. I thought this was a great business move for them, work with someone who has experience in dealing with the Pentagon. But it wasn’t enough. They’re out.

And now, time for some rampant speculation!

First, who might we expect in the downselect? Glock, of course. Especially after winning the FBI contract. Glock is the big, obvious, 800 pound gorilla in the room. They’ve also been selected by SOCOM, so those guys whose job involve lots of faceshooting seem to like them. I might also expect SiG to go far, and then possibly FN or Beretta, since FN is a big weapons contractor, and Beretta makes the current pistol. We’ll see from there.

Now, let’s talk about the S&W entrant, the M&P. I’ve got some time on an M&P40. It’s a solid gun. Of course, the US Army is interested in 9 mm. And the M&P9s have a poor reputation for quality control and accuracy at range (beyond 25 yards). Not all of the full size 9 mms have the problem, but that’s the rep they’ve got. Maybe there were QC issues with their submission? Maybe there were production concerns?

Note of course that the M&Ps come with a manual safety option, but the Glock, P320, and the Beretta APX don’t. Doesn’t really matter. It’s something that can be added if a competition demands it. I’m also not sure if that’s a requirement of the MHS, or something preferred, or if the US Military has moved on from that desire.

1.) It is, however, quite iconic. The Beretta 92 is the weapon of choice of many wonderful fictional characters, including John McClane, Martin Riggs, and the S.T.A.R.S. team.

Resurrected Weapons: LRAC F1

Posted by

There’s a relatively unsexy class of weapons out there that are critical, but don’t get any of the cool press of ATGMs. Behold, the humble rocket launcher/recoilless rifle. The HE Projector. They’re super useful, because there are plenty of targets on the battlefield that need a healthy dose of prescription HE, but don’t necessarily warrant the trouble of a guided round. Bunkers, for example, have a habit of not moving out of the way in time. These weapons are unsexy because there’s not a lot of room for whiz-bang gadgets. It’s a bazooka. Plain and simple.

A bunch of the use cases are conveniently used by disposable rocket launchers, like the AT4 or the M72 LAW. These tend to be lighter than the traditional recoilless rifle/unguided rocket launcher designs, and a lot less trouble. But they’re not reloadable. And you’re stuck with whatever round is in there; usually it’s a HEAT round. Which would be fine, except that these weapons aren’t going to punch through the front armor of a vanilla T-72, let alone a modern T-90 with ERA on the front. Other rounds might be more desirable. And here, the old recoilless rifles and rocket launchers still shine. Let’s look at one you might not be too familiar with: the French LRAC F1.1

The LRAC F1 is a reusable 89mm rocket launcher. The tube is mostly fiberglass, which keeps the weight down. It’s a 1970s-vintage design, but the launcher and sight weighs only 5 kg. This is very good, even compared to the modern versions of the venerable Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. The sight is a pretty simple fixed 3x optic with a stadiametric reticle. Gunner does his range estimation and chooses the point of aim by himself and fires. Pretty typical for this class of weapon. Rockets weigh 2.2 kg.

Available warhead types include a HEAT round, rated for 400mm of RHA penetration, which scares exactly no one these days. Oh well. We have Javelins for tank-killing. There’s also a HEAT-Frag Dual Purpose round, a smoke round, and an illumination round. These days, the most useful are the smoke round and the dual purpose round. The major use cases for this are first as a portable, short-range assault gun for infantry support, and second as a way of quickly throwing obscuring smoke a reasonable distance to break contact or hide an attack.

Rocket technology really hasn’t changed since the 70s, so the LRAC F1 is still a competitive system. Or it would be, if the French still used it.2 What changes would we want to make to update it?

Honestly, not many. Mostly produce new rockets, maybe integrate night sighting options. The launcher is plenty light already. The existing rockets aren’t very reliable anymore because of age, of course. Production should focus on the dual purpose rocket and the smoke rocket. Reformulating the smoke round to be infrared screening as well isn’t very hard, and would be very useful. Also, a thermobaric rocket would be an excellent idea. I’m a huge fan of the type. The tubes are rated for 130 launches, so they’d need to be made too. Pretty simple, and we can easily keep the cost down. No guidance system, no exotic materials. No gold plating.

There’s no good reason why the LRAC F1 can’t be successful on the arms market with good marketing. There’s plenty of demand for these systems, and not a lot of types that are still in production. Weight is a constant complaint, especially with the closest western competitor, the Carl Gustav. This does the same thing for about half the weight.

Verdict: Approved for production by the Borgundy Ordnance Procurement Board

1.) Also known as the LRAC 89 or the ACL STRIM.
2.) It’s been replaced by the AT4, a good (though somewhat limited) single-use rocket launcher, and the Eryx, which I’m not a fan of.

Meet Madeline, Parvusimperator’s Sweet Sixteen (A5) Build

Posted by

Let me walk you through an older build. It taught me a lot. Plus, my range notes are at hand already. You will no doubt be amused, dear reader, at this. Because it’s decidedly not a “cool kid” rifle, at least for the roughly present day definition of “cool kid”. This is about as gun hipster as I get. Fishbreath is even snickering.

Also, yes, dear reader, I know. There’s no such thing as a codified M-16A5. It’s not a thing. I am very aware. There were lots of proposals for what an M-16A5 should be, and I cribbed from a few proposals to make mine. Things I wanted were a 20″ barrel and a collapsible stock. Also, something a little more fancy than the regular plastic A1 or A2 style handguards. Let’s break it down.

Why would I want a 20″ barrel? Because I can. I have some other 16″ barrel carbines. I wanted to play around with a 20″. 20″ with a rifle gas system was how the rifle was what was originally designed by Eugene Stoner. So why not see how it does? Also, not getting in and out of a Humvee all day means I don’t really care about handiness. Or, again, I could take a different gun.

Why a collapsible stock? Because I can. Also, because I Escaped from New York, and it’s stupid, stupid bans that mandated fixed stocks. Screw that. Adjustable all the way!

Now, the Canadians have had plenty of good experiences operating an A2/A3-style1 upper with a standard M4-type collapsible stock and a heavy carbine buffer. But I wanted something else. Again, because I can. I went with the Vltor A5 Stock Kit, which was designed at the request of the USMC to replicate the feel and spring performance of the regular fixed-stock buffer system with a collapsible stock. The buffer weights 3.8 oz., and is a different length than either a standard carbine buffer or a normal rifle buffer. The spring is the same one as used with the fixed rifle stock (again, longer than the carbine spring), and the A5 system uses a longer2, seven-position buffer tube instead of the usual six-position tube. It also came with the Vltor Emod stock. This stock is a little longer than most collapsible stocks, which looks right on the longer A5 tube. Note that the A5 tube will work with any other collapsible stock that you like. The Emod comes with two longitudinal storage tubes and a storage compartment in the stock “toe”. All storage compartments have rubber gaskets to seal out water. The stock is also one of the heavier collapsible stocks on the market, weighing in at 14 oz, but that’s fine. I’m using a long barrel here, remember?

Handguard choices are dictated somewhat by our gas system. All the moreso because I bought a handguardless prebuilt upper from BCM. BCM makes good stuff. This gave me a 20″ A2-profile (aka. ‘government profile’, aka ‘M4-profile’) barrel, a standard front sight block that’s properly pinned, and a forged upper receiver, all nicely assembled. I also had a regular barrel nut, for use with standard A2-type handguards. Unless I chopped the front sight block, I was stuck with the standard gas system length. But, seeing as this is a 20″ barrel, that’s a 12″ long rifle gas system, which is plenty of handguard space. This isn’t the 7″ Carbine system, which is long enough for your hands or accessories but not both. I wanted something a little nicer than the regular A2 handguards, and I would prefer free float, because that’s better, and I would like the ability to mount accessories. Ideally, I wouldn’t have to remove the front sight block, so I’d need a two piece setup. I settled on the Centurion Arms C4 12″ Quadrail. This is a two-piece, free float quadrail that clamps around a standard barrel nut. It also has two sockets for quick detach sling swivels. Perfect! I covered those cheese-grater feeling picatinny rails with Magpul XTM rail covers. As a bonus, this system is great at dealing with heat. I may change rail covers in the future–I’d like to give the LaRue index clips a try.

Other than the A5 stock system, the lower is pretty standard. I gave the Stark pistol grip a try, and found that I was reasonably fond of it. Though, pistol grips are fun and easy to swap. Trigger is the excellent Geissele SSA. The rest of the lower parts kit is pretty boringly stock. The lower receiver is made by Mega Arms. Standard forged unit.

In terms of optics, I originally went with my Elcan SpecterDR 1.5x/6x. Which is awesome but heavy. I’ll probably go Marine-approved ACOG (specifically the TA31RCO-A4CP) on Madeline, especially since she’s already on the heavier side of AR-15 builds, and I’ve moved the Elcan to Bridget, my lighter competition rifle. Marine-approved ACOG, with the Marine-approved 20″ barrel and Marine-approved A5 recoil system. Semper Fi!

How does she shoot? Great. Subjectively, the felt recoil is softer, with the longer buffer system and gas system. The A5 does slow the bolt carrier down a little, and replicates the cyclic rate of fire and “feel” of the original rifle system. That’s awesome. I haven’t done a ton of transitions, but they haven’t been a big deal for me. The extra weight isn’t a big deal either, but I’m not a whiny REMF. I get some other cool things with a 20″ barrel and the rifle gas system. I can finally properly mount a bayonet on my rifle! Yay! Alas, I’m a civilian, so I’m not likely to need that. But it’s cool. And if I ever wanted to set up some dummies for skewering out back, now I can. I also get more velocity with a 20″ barrel. This gives me a longer point blank range, longer fragmentation range for M193/M8553, and more penetration at any given range for M855. Not that those last two matter while shooting paper targets, but they’re still cool. Interestingly, the Marines haven’t had the kind of inconsistent terminal performance complaints that the US Army has. And M855A1 has a higher chamber pressure. Maybe that longer barrel does give you something worthwhile…

I really like Madeline. Even if she’s a goofy mix of parts that the cool kids eschew. Maybe I understand a little of Fishbreath’s hipsterism. Or maybe I just enjoy soft shooting rifles. It would be lots of fun to take her to a carbine class.

1.) A3 style is just an A2 with a flattop receiver. They still use the A2 style plastic handguards, not the KAC RAS M5 like the Marines have on their M-16A4s.
2.) 3/4″ longer, to be precise.
3.) M193 and M855 are both significantly more lethal if they fragment. Fragmentation is significantly more likely to happen (read: nearly guaranteed) if the velocity of the bullet is more than 2,700 feet per second when it strikes its target. More muzzle velocity from a longer barrel