Tag Archives: commentary

Why we don’t trust gun control

Posted by

If you were unfortunate enough to catch the final 2016 presidential debate, you may recall Hillary Clinton’s most bald-faced lie: that the Heller decision was about toddlers, guns, and accidental deaths. It’s difficult to express how comprehensively this is untrue.

The Supreme Court described the law at issue in DC v. Heller as a ‘total handgun ban’. This is not in any way in dispute. The word ‘toddler’ appears nowhere in any of the opinions, nor does it appear in oral argument. The word ‘child’ appears only in Breyer’s dissent, and comes up a few times in the oral argument transcript. In the latter case, though, the context is a discussion of the safe storage requirements imposed by the DC law1. In any event, the children under discussion are, depending on your statistical source, all people under the age of 14, or all people under the age of 18. Hardly ‘toddlers’.

So, there’s nothing in the court’s final decision, and very little in the supporting material, to suggest the primary issue at hand was anything but the aforementioned total handgun ban. And yet, Hillary brought up DC v. Heller as a case in which the Supreme Court failed to properly apply the Second Amendment. Put another way, she supports the DC law as written.

Why might she have chosen to express her position using toddlers as a framing device, then? One possibility is that it’s simple scoring of cheap political points. This is almost certainly the case. However, I posit that it is not the only cause here. I take Hillary at face value when she says that she feels accidental deaths by toddler with gun are a problem worth tackling2. I also take her at face value when she argues that DC v. Heller was a bad application of the Second Amendment. Taken together, what does that mean? Preventing the vanishingly small number of accidental gun deaths among youth per year is an admirable goal, and a complete ban on handguns is a proportional effort to make in service of that goal.

As a gun rights guy, this is a completely terrifying line of reasoning. The right to armed self-defense (whether against petty crime by petty criminals, or high crimes by petty politicians) is a fundamental right, however out of vogue it may be most places in the world. Subjecting fundamental rights to utilitarian arguments is a real slippery slope, not the fallacious kind a particular set of internet leftists are so eager to throw a flag on. There is literally nothing, legally speaking, which distinguishes the First Amendment from the Second. If you’re attacking one on utilitarian grounds, you’re opening the door for an attack on the other.

Leaving aside that argument, though, consider the end result of such utilitarian reasoning. If fewer guns in private hands reduces deaths (which is not settled science, but we, like the gun control supporters, will momentarily assume it to be true), and if government has a responsibility to reduce deaths to as near zero as possible, then the government has a compelling interest in reducing the stock of privately-owned firearms to zero. This chain of reasoning underpins the thinking of every major advocate of gun control.

Don’t believe me? How often have you heard gun control advocates express admiration for the gun laws in Australia or England? If you’re paying attention, the answer is ‘all time time’. Those two countries have de facto gun bans, and de jure gun bans on anything you might be able to reliably use for self-defense. It’s the same in New York, where a recent report blames lax gun laws elsewhere for criminal firearms violence in New York. (As opposed to, y’know, New York’s violent criminals.) The solution? Stronger gun laws elsewhere! Stronger laws in New York, even!

So, gun control supporters, I ask you this: are you for banning guns? If so, good for you; that’s a reasonable position, if one I completely disagree with. Come right out and say that, because it’s a very different position than ‘reasonable regulations’. People deserve to know exactly where you stand. If you do like the sound of ‘reasonable regulations’ but not ‘total gun ban’, then I’m sorry to be the one to tell you, but you’re a patsy for the total gun ban people. They aren’t planning to stop with the gun show loophole (not a thing), the online loophole (also not a thing), better mental health reporting, or anything that sounds good to you. They will exploit your vote as far as you’re willing to give it to them, then they’ll dump you and find the next group of suckers willing to vote for them. Bear that in mind when you go to the ballot box tomorrow.

  1. ‘Disassembled and nonfunctional’.
  2. She’s allowed to feel that way, but frankly, they aren’t a problem worth tackling, at least not by federal law. I cite a David Mitchell sketch as evidence for this.

The Humble 60mm Mortar

Posted by

A while ago I talked about how the XM-25 was a stupid, useless waste of money. More recently, I expressed my disdain for it’s stillborn parent project, the XM-29. But that is not to say I don’t think that all infantry needs are rifles and machine guns. No, enemies in defilade or behind cover are a classic problem, and I like the classic, time-tested, cheap solution that is the mortar. Today, we’re going to be talking about the smallest of the common modern mortars, the 60mm.

The US Military has been using 60mm mortars since the Second World War, and really liked the concept. So we Americans have stuck with them, and they’re excellent light weapons for the platoon or company. Depending on charge and model, they’re good for a maximum range of four kilometers. Unlike the XM-25, mortars and mortar shells are both cheap. They also actually work. Let’s look at some examples.

The current American standard mortar is the M224A1. Fully assembled, it weighs just under 38 lbs, but it can be broken down into its components (namely baseplate, bipod, sighting unit, and mortar tube) to be carried by the mortar team. Nominally, the M224A1 is operated by a crew of three men. The M224A1 can also be operated ‘commando style’ by a single man. Here, a smaller baseplate is used, and the bipod is omitted. The soldier supports the tube with his hands for aiming. Perfect for light infantry. The M224A1 can be gravity-fired, or may use an optional manual trigger. The M224A1 has a one meter long barrel.

The M6 mortar family from Hirtenberger is the British standard mortar, when they’re not being criminally stupid and removing them from equipment tables. The M6 comes in three different barrel lengths: 640 mm, 895 mm, and one meter. Bipods and baseplates are standard across all models. Again, smaller baseplates are available for ‘commando style’ operation.

Since 60 mm mortars are pretty common, shells are available from a wide variety of manufacturers. The same sorts of warheads are available in all of the catalogs though: HE, combined effect antipersonnell/antimateriel, white phosphorous smoke, red phosphorous smoke, illumination, and IR illumination. Nothing too sophisticated here. Inert training rounds are available as well, and mortars are cheap enough that you can afford to practice with them.

Mortars are a proven solution to the problem of cover on the battlefield. They work. They’re cheap. Get some for your army today!

Lessons from Wargame: Airland Battle

Posted by

Fishbreath and I are big fans of Wargame: Airland battle (which I will abbreviate as WALB, for I am a lazy typist). Now, I won’t pretend that it’s a perfect simulation, but it’s a solid one which should be relatively consistent in it’s assumptions/errors. So I thought it would be a good place to test some ideas, at least until I finally buy Steel Beasts (which also doesn’t do airpower). I have rather less time in Red Dragon, but I’ll add notes where appropriate.

I tend to roll with tank-heavy decks, with a good amount of airpower. So I’m usually rolling with America for NATO (because USAF) or USSR for Pact (because duh). Some observations and conclusions, in no particular order:

Observation:
If we’re talking tanks alone, the T-80U is tops, followed by the Leopard 2A4 and then the M1A1. The T-80U has a marginally better gun, and gun-launched ATGMs, which gives it a bunch more range. Flank armor is weak, so hit it there. The Leopard 2A4 and M1A1 are pretty similar, and both are noticeably less good than the T-80U. Though numbers even things up.

Conclusion:
Gun launched ATGMs are cool, because they give you more range. Puts the priority on seeing the other guy first of course. Though, that’s really important all the time, as we’ll see. Note that tank optics are a little nerfed in the game, to make you use recon units. Which is fine, but does deprive the Abrams of things that the US Army got right before everyone else, namely high end thermals. Otherwise, this one’s all about the gun. As for the numbers game, Uncle Joe said it best.

Observation:
Of course, this isn’t a straight-up tank sim (like Steel Beasts). So when playing NATO, I’ll go with America. The M1A1 is almost as good as the Leopard 2A4, with the biggest deficiency being that you have to gas it up more frequently. This happens to me a lot. But playing America gets you a much, much better air force, better attack helicopters, and Bradleys.

Conclusion:
It’s all about the combined arms, shock. No big surprise here. Games like this tend to strongly encourage playing as the bigger powers who give you more options. This was one of the few things improved in Wargame: Red Dragon–they allowed you to group lesser powers to get a well-rounded unit set.

Observation:
I love Bradleys. One of my favorite combos is the M3(A1) recon vehicles with some M1(A1) Abramses. This gives me a long range sight with the good recon optics, plus a long range missile punch from the Bradley TOW-2 missiles. It does take a little micro to keep the Bradleys alive. I probably don’t have to remind you to put the big tanks with the heavy armor out in front.

Conclusion:
ATGMs are useful on IFVs, who knew? It’s more that this armament set of smallish autocannon with lots of ammo + ATGMs on IFVs is useful for just about any target I encounter. I try to bypass towns, personally. Other loadout decisions might also work for your intended use case. I will say that the Bradleys are also quite formidable on the defensive, again, as long as you can keep them from being hit too much. The 25 mm gun with large ammo reserves and good fire control is pretty good against aircraft. Not much to be done about IFV survivability except go heavier. That seems familiar…

Observation:
In that same vein, I’m big on American-style aggressive reconnaissance. Recon vehicles alone seem to have a nasty habit of dying. As part of an armored spearhead, they live longer.

Conclusion:
There are two schools of thought on recon: recon by stealth and recon by force. I like the latter. It fits with my tactical conceptions. I don’t think there’s a wrong way to do recon, but understand your role and the vehicles. Bradley’s ain’t stealthy. Something like the SPz 11-2 Kurz doesn’t bring a ton of firepower to a fight. And the American school fits me better, so I like it more. Glad to see it can actually work too.

Observation:
The Soviets have some great SHORAD in Tunguska. That thing is amazing. Interestingly, my favorite from the NATO perspective it the cheap and cheerful M1097 Avenger, which was a surprise to me. It is not as obviously amazing, and I probably wouldn’t have picked it if I didn’t desperately need to make do while I wait for Eagles to swat things out of the air.

Conclusion:
You knew the Tunguska was great. Guns, missiles, mobile like a tank. Love it. It is sometimes advisable to order it to shut down its autocannons so that it doesn’t announce its presence to enemy armor. The success of the M1097 was a surprise to me. It’s a HMMWV with a big rack of stingers on the back in a turret. But Stingers are excellent MANPADS, and it’s a great thing to hide and use to ambush marauding aircraft and helicopters. And then move to a new hiding spot before the inevitable counterstrike. It’s the kind of SHORAD you could really load up on. Maybe load some WVRAAMs to for a bit more range.

Observation:
My Soviet decks, and especially my American decks tend to lack a lot of infantry. Especially the well armed ‘shock infantry’ that a lot of the other European powers have. A bunch of this is because I prefer armored thrusts and ripostes to slugging it out. This basically means I’m gonna have a hard time dealing with built-up areas. That’s the price I pay for my builds. Also, Fishbreath likes the infantry-defensive type fight (maybe he’s got a British character to his tactics?), and so I usually leave that to him. Instead, I’ll take the deep Thunder Run any day of the week.

Conclusion:
Specialization is good. Urban combat sucks. Bring infantry if you’re stuck there. Or avoid it entirely. You can get a lot of success with deep thrusts. Especially if you’ve used some probing moves and skirmisher-type engagements to figure out where the enemy isn’t. Protip: that’s where you should be striking.

Observation:
I’ve got some good rounds with a German armored deck that comes with their excellent Panzergrenadier shock infantry. If you’re gonna storm a town, go heavy. In Red Dragon, Panzergrenadiers ’90 are awesome.

Conclusion:
If I’m gonna go infantry, I’m going with infantry that bring stuff. All the stuff. The bigger rocket launchers the better. Oh, and that buzzsaw that is the MG3. Cue the Panzerlied. Maybe I should build a Castle Iter Rules deck. It’s also in Red Dragon that you can get Marder 2s, a formidable IFV with staying power. You still don’t quite have the Death From Above air support that is the USAF though.

Observation:
Okay, let’s get to it. The USAF is the best AF, hands down. Want air superiority? They’ll get it. Want something to die? You got it.

Conclusion:
Airpower rocks, news at 11. Von Rundstedt’s ghost is yelling “Duh!” over my shoulder as I type this, I’m sure. If you can see it, you can bomb it. And if you can bomb it, it’s gonna die. The USAF even has plenty of SEAD to take out those pesky Soviet SAMs. Or you can use the F-117A. I’m pretty sure it was never intended to be used like some kind of stealth stuka, but I don’t care. It’s my go to if I want to get rid of some pesky command vehicle. Also, can I say napalm and cluster weapons rock? Because they totally do. I love you, Dow Chemical.

Observation:
The Soviets have the best overall air defenses around with the aforementioned Tunguska and the excellent medium-range Buk. They really need it given the mighty USAF, plus several other NATO members that have decent air forces that are good at bringing pain. Beware Tornadoes.

Conclusion:
Nothing new here. The Russians invested heavily in SAMs, and it shows. Also, cluster bombs are super effective. Shocker. Defense in depth is helpful. Tornadoes and similar are especially problematic because they come in low and fast, giving minimal time to react. The big vulnerabilities are against fighters, and against widely-deployed AAA, but I’ve usually spent my points on other things by then.

Observation:
The F-14 Tomcat/Phoenix combo is stupid awesome. It’s my go-to American fighter, despite the availability of the F-15C.

Conclusion:
This is an interesting function of some in-game limitations. Given the smallish size of the battlefield and lack of early warning from ground based radar or AWACS (and thus no early interception opportunities), my options are to have fighters loiter over the battlefield on patrol, or scramble to intercept. I’ve found loitering to lead to a bunch of annoying ambushes from enemy fighters or medium range SAMs, and it almost always means I don’t have air cover when I need it because of fuel concerns. If I’m intercepting, then the long range of the Phoenix missile makes up for all other shortcomings of it and the Tomcat. The Tomcat was built as an interceptor and it’s quite good at this. Being able to launch first even gives it a good shot against Flankers. So even though the F-15 is the better air superiority fighter, the F-14 is better in Wargame. Although its much less famous, similar conclusions apply to the MiG-31 Foxhound for the USSR (which is much more of a pure interceptor design than the Tomcat).

Retro Review: Parvusimperator Looks at the M16A2

Posted by

Let’s have some fun with an old review. I’m a huge fan of the M16, as you well know. There was a pretty comprehensive set of changes put in from the M16A1 of my father’s Vietnam-era generation to my generation’s M16A2 (and M16A4, though that’s mostly an M16A2 with a picatinny-rail equipped flattop upper). Let’s look at them one by one, and I’ll tell you what I think. We’re starting from the muzzle end, of course.

Muzzle Device Changes
This is the later “birdcage” flash suppressor with the bottom ports not cut. Meh. I could take these or leave these. I suppose it’s a little better, because it’ll blow less dirt back in the face of the shooter when prone, but that’s hardly a big deal on the M16A1. I guess I’m okay with this, but I’m going to be looking at the price very closely. This isn’t worth a lot to me.

Front sight Changes
This one is really subtle. There were five detents for the M16A1 front sight as you adjust it for elevation. There are four on the M16A2. Because…better? Something about glare and flat faces, I don’t know. I don’t think this one matters.

Barrel Changes
That profile. It’s now fatter…in front of the gas block. The rest of the barrel is unchanged. There is literally no good reason for this. It’s beyond stupid. There were some dumb soldiers using their M16A1 as a prybar. Apparently this was the fix, not discipline. Is there any wonder we’re in such a sorry state now?

There were also some questions of barrel flex, especially under prolonged fire. Well, all that flex is going to happen between the chamber and the gas block. But that part of the barrel was left alone so they didn’t have to make new M203 brackets. A thicker muzzle end won’t do shit besides balance stupid. If this was an actual concern (and I strongly doubt it, but I’m not staring at the data) then they should have added notches or made new M203 brackets.1

There’s also the subtle matter of new barrel twist. The M16A2 was designed to work with the new SS109/M855 round. The NATO standard 5.56 mm. The Belgians, who developed that round, called for a 1 in 7 twist. Some experts think a 1 in 9 twist would work better. But the Belgians also wanted to make the barrel stabilize the associated tracer round, which was quite a bit longer. So they called for 1 in 7. I can’t blame anyone involved in the M16A2 design for choosing the manufacturer-specified twist rate for the new round.

New Handguards
Okay, these I like. I like these a lot. Way better than the old triangular-type ones. They’re more comfortable. They don’t have those “teeth” things at the top that break. There’s only one kind of part to stock in the inventory instead of two. And they’re better ventilated. Fun for the whole family.

Delta Ring
Colt angled the ring holding the handguards on. The new slip ring (now called the “Delta ring”) was designed to be easier to grab and pull down to remove or replace the handguards. A small change, but a good one.

Brass Deflector
I guess if you shoot rifles wrong-handed, you probably oughtn’t get brass in the face for your trouble. Pretty small change, doesn’t actually impact anything.

Range adjustable sights
Another feature I hate. Unlike the barrel profile, I understand the reasoning. It’s just wrong. These were added because the USMC has a focus on long range rifle marksmanship on known-distance ranges, and also because they wanted something that would do well in high power matches. The sight is better for this. However, the two apertures aren’t very well designed (the big one is too small for its intended use, and the small one is too big for its intended use). Further, I categorically disagree with the train of thought here. Range estimation is hard. Range estimation when you’re getting shot at is very, very hard. Studies have shown that soldiers are really, really bad at range estimation. And the whole point of SCHV rounds is that you have a large point-blank zone. So for the most part, put the sights on target, pull the trigger2, and the error should be small enough not to matter. Remember, these are iron sights, and Ivan or Charlie or Haji isn’t going to obligingly stand still at 500 yards and wait for you to shoot him. The original -A1 type sights were better.

Various Lower Receiver Reinforcements
The lower receiver got beefed up a bit in some critical areas. Apparently they were breaking. Anyway, I’m all for stronger, but soldiers can break anything. So I’d really like to see some data on this, in terms of breaking strength and what standard abuse modes will do to it.

New Pistol Grip
You were so close, Colt. So very close. The shape and size are the same as the old grip. But this one is made from a tougher plastic and it has more texture. I like textured grips, and yay tougher. What went wrong? The nub on the front. This is why finger grooves suck. If they fit your hand, they feel good. If they don’t, you’re gonna have a bad time. Because my hands aren’t like the dude that called for the nub, it doesn’t fit my hand right. I’d grind it off, except there are even better grips on the aftermarket. The best of breed are currently the TangoDown Battlegrips.

Burst trigger
I hate hate hate hate hate the burst trigger. Hate it. I hate the conceit that soldiers are too dumb to be trained to use autofire correctly. I hate the conceit that three is the only correct burst size. I hate the notion that the psychological aspect of carrying your own fully automatic rifle in your hands to respond to the enemy’s in kind isn’t worth having. I hate that it means you get three super crappy trigger pulls instead of one mediocre trigger pull. I hate that you never know how many rounds are going to come out, because it doesn’t reset. So, if you have one round in the magazine, the gun will fire the chambered round, plus the one in the mag. You reload. You pull the trigger again. Only one bullet comes out, because the system “remembers” where it left off. You want suppression? Do you need to break contact right fucking now? Automatic fire. Accept no substitutes. I’m so glad this “feature” is dying a much deserved death these days. Probably the worst feature on the gun.

New Stock
I’m split on this. On the one hand, yay tougher. On the other, it’s longer. It’s a great length for prone shooting on a known distance range, slung up with your rifle. It’s less good in combat when you’re using all kinds of positions. Especially if you’re not tall.

Overall, meh. Honestly, the best thing here are the new handguards, and you could easily put those on an M16A1. Also of note is the Diemaco/Colt Canada C7 rifle. Which is an M16A2, but with A1 sights, a safe/semi/auto trigger, and various spacers to adjust the stocks. That’s pretty good. Way better than the M16A2. Sigh.

Now, of course, just buy an M4. Duh. Or M4A1 if you want a barrel that’s in a heavier but sensibly-cut profile. Both are available with a proper safe/semi/auto trigger. The M4 has always been available this way in the catalog. It’s not Colt’s fault some stupid colonels didn’t buy the right triggers.

1.) This issue was finally fixed in the newest M4A1 builds, which use a nice, medium-profile barrel. It’s thicker under the handguards, and there are notches cut in the sides to accommodate the M203 mounting brackets. And, to the surprise of exactly no one, this barrel actually works as intended, holding up to lots of full auto better. There’s a separate question of whether or not this is needed for general issue…
2.) This is why red dot sights work so well on the AR-15 and other SCHV rifles. Modern technology has fixed this issue. Now, everybody uses an optic, whether an Aimpoint or an ACOG. Which is a separate discussion, but any optic will beat good irons, let alone stupid ones like these.

So make yourself an ARK: ragging on the platform

Posted by

Not very hard, I admit: I’ll grant you that the AR-15 is an excellent example of a weapon design which is easy to work on, easy to assemble, and easy to maintain. As far as building your own goes, the AR-15 is a lot like democracy: the worst system, except for all the other ones we’ve tried.

That being said, though, no other rifle has the same reputation as the AR-15, whose marketing says that any enterprising citizen with some tools in the basement can knock one together from your various parts kits. This is technically correct, and while I’m on the record saying that technically correct is the best kind of correct, I have to throw the flag here, for two separate reasons.

First: the AR-15 in its original design does require specialist tools, to attach a pinned gas block. Fortunately for modern end users, set screw and clamp-on gas blocks are much more popular, because they, y’know, work just as well. If you build to the original spec, you need a drill press, which brings us to…

Second: the fairer comparison is an 80% AR lower against an 80% AK blank. You’ll need a drill press for the AR lower as well as the AK blank; there’s just less of a market for AK building because it doesn’t have that Lego feel.

Beyond that, the AR has a ton of annoying fiddly bits which, while still better than, say, rivets, are still a pain. Consider the barrel nut. Rather than having a single purpose and a single torque specification, it has two purposes and a massive torque range: it holds the barrel to the receiver, and it supports the gas tube through its notched flange while being locked in place by same. This is an example of too-clever-by-half thinking. The barrel nut ought to just be a regular nut, and when designing a regular nut, it’s best to rely on torque over some external device designed to inhibit the rotation of the nut. If the gas tube needs support, design a separate part for that.

Consider also the roll pin. Sure, it does its job, but at what cost? In most cases where I may want to remove a part, I prefer set screws or mechanically-retained pins. (Remember, I have c-spring retained trigger and hammer pins on my lower receiver.) I will grant that the roll pin is fine in some places. For instance, I don’t intend to ever replace the trigger guard on my lower receiver, so roll pins are fine! Similarly, I don’t plan on unpinning the gas tube from the gas block; if I have to replace one, or if I want to change one, I’ll replace them as a unit. Same deal: roll pins cool.

Parvusimperator asked me to gripe about the dust cover, but I (intelligently) bought an upper receiver which already has the dust cover installed.

The worst part is that most of these failings need not be failings! It’s dead simple to make an AR-15-compatible receiver. Upper receivers especially already exist to meet a myriad of needs. Why not improved end-user serviceability? Lowers are a harder pill to swallow, since ‘needs special parts’ is a terrible thing to see on the side of one. Then again, ambidextrous lower receivers are a thing, and most end users are only going to bother changing furniture, triggers, and maybe buffers, none of which are big offenders in the special-tools market. The same reasoning holds here. We already have specialist AR-15 lowers for the ambidextrously-interested. Why not for the bolt-catch-replacingly-interested?

So make yourself an ARK: 7.62×39 AR reliability

Posted by

In a previous post, I alluded to the canonical article on AR 7.62×39. That is this article, an excellent resource by a guy who goes by Major Pandemic1. It identifies two issues with AR functioning in 7.62×39 rifles: cycling, which I will use to mean exclusively the movement of the action, and feeding, which I will use to mean the process by which ammunition is stripped from the top of the magazine and pushed forward into the chamber. These two issues are, at their base, related, and Major Pandemic hits upon the solutions pretty quickly, along with one which I believe to be superfluous. This is because he hit them in the wrong order.

It’s impossible to claim an AR-pattern rifle is unreliable without first making sure the gas system is functioning as designed. Thanks to parvusimperator’s recent book acquisitions on and general encyclopedic knowledge of the history of the scary black rifle, I have a few instances to cite. First on the list are the M16 and M16A1, where a change in powder from stick-type to ball-type yielded a change in pressure curve. The result: unreliable functioning2. Rounding out the list are your various carbines, from the CAR-15 in the 1960s and 1970s to the M4 carbine through to the super-short Mark 18/Close Quarters Battle Receiver, all of which fall prey to another issue: changing the barrel length without changing the gas system. When you shorten (or lengthen) a barrel, you decrease (or increase) the dwell time. That figure, the measure of how long a bullet stays in the barrel (and barrel pressures remain high), combines with the pressure curve to determine where the gas port should be placed, and how large the gas port ought to be.

Fortunately for 5.56 NATO shooters, the hard work has already been done, and barrel manufacturers have the sizes and locations pretty much figured out. Unfortunately for we 7.62 Russian Short shooters, the same body of work is not yet done, and shooting a different cartridge with a vastly different pressure profile is the very definition of messing around with the gas system. When doing your function tests, be prepared! If you run into cycling issues, try a lightweight buffer and/or a lightweight spring. (I believe the received wisdom is to try them in that order. Parvusimperator will correct me, if not.†) If that doesn’t suffice, you may have to increase the size of your gas port. With a drill, I mean, and a bit. Don’t increase the size too fast: my 7.62 AR functions perfectly with a factory gas tube size of about 1/12″. If you get to larger than 1/8″, you’ve almost certainly done something else wrong. A bluing pen (if you’re using a blued or nitrided barrel) should give you some finish around the gas port.

Next, and obviously, get dedicated magazines. The 7.62×39 cartridge is obscenely tapered, and only magazines specifically designed for it will push your cartridges up in front of the bolt carrier proper-like. This isn’t .300 Blackout; it’s not shaped anything like a 5.56 round, and any magazine not designed to feed 7.62×39, in a word, won’t. Midway’s AR-Stoner brand works well, and they won’t break the bank.

That brings us to feeding issues. By this point, you shouldn’t have any. If you clicked through to Major Pandemic’s article, you’ll see that he decided to dremel out the divider between the feed ramps. Granted, Bushmaster’s successful, functional 7.62×39 AR took the same tack, but my suspicion is that they made the same mistake other manufacturers, plus innumerable individual builders, made: an undergassed or overbuffered gun leaving magazines insufficient time to fully feed the next cartridge before the bolt carrier returns.

If and only if you simply can’t get your rifle to function correctly, you may consider a few courses of action before breaking out the dremel. Different magazines may help. It’s a bit of a shame that you may have to match a specific brand of magazine to your rifle, but if you were expecting rock-solid reliability with any equipment you care to find, you should have bought an AK. You might also try shooting it more. There’s a break-in period to any gun, and springs and lubrication may not take at first. If you do resort to dremeling and you have a barrel with a finish, don’t forget the wee touch-up pen to get your corrosion resistance back.

I think I’ll close with one final note on barrel selection. Faxon Firearms, who I’ve mentioned before, seem to make an excellent product with a gas port able to run just about any example of our favorite Russian intermediate cartridge without issue. I recommend their product. If you ignore that recommendation, I would at least suggest you look for a nitrided/Melonited barrel. Nothing else really makes sense for 7.62×39: presumably, you’re going to want to shoot cheap steel-cased, bimetal-jacket ammo, and a harder barrel helps to offset the additional wear you get from that choice. Combine that with the much lower velocities you have to work with compared to 5.56, and you may be surprised at the barrel life you end up with.

Then again, you may not. As you may have noticed, we don’t have sponsors around here, so I’m engaging in the most rampant of rampant speculation, not being able to afford 1) a second barrel to beat up and 2) the 20,000-40,000 rounds of ammunition it would likely take to really blow the first item out. As always, we’re curious about your experiences with 7.62×39 ARs, dear reader, so leave a comment if you have any.

1. I’m hardly one to talk about strange monikers, though.
2. I found some rather morbid documented accounts of US soldiers found dead next to malfunctioned, torn-down M16s, suggesting the men were killed while trying to fix their rifles.

† I would very strongly recommend messing with buffers, buffer weights, or even a reduced mass bolt carrier before touching the buffer spring. There are plenty of options out there to reduce the mass of the operating components if you want to go that route. Clipping spring coils is a good way to get plenty of malfunctions. -parvusimperator

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.

Things I Don’t Care About: What You Carry

Posted by

Hello, dear reader. Today I would like to comment on all those out there who would like to give you advice on what you should carry, as a sequel to my post about being ok with what guns you buy. Name pretty much any kind of gun, or at least anything even close to reasonable for concealed carry, and I guarantee you that you will find two things:

(1) At least one article by some yahoo telling you why he carries this thing, and why you should carry it too. Likely condescending to people who disagree with said yahoo, but not always.

(2) At least one article by some other joker telling you how carrying this thing will Get You Killed on Da Streetz, dawg. Or something like that. I was never a cool kid. I don’t know how they talk. Again, likely condescending, but not always.

Again, whatever it is. Gun, method of carry, *whatever*. Striker-fired pistol, J-frame, 1911, double-action pistol, bigger-than-J-frame-revolver, appendix carry, condition one carry, condition three carry, etc.

Fear not, dear reader. I am here to tell you that I do not give a hot shit if you carry, what you carry, or how you carry it.

To be honest, there’s an awful lot of ‘butthurt’1 about these things. If you’ve picked something that isn’t popular, you’re probably thinking “Gosh, I wish this was popular, so I could pick up chicks or something”, so you’ve gotta try to change the world and convince everyone you’re right. If you have the popular choice, you have to defend it from all of those annoying attackers, so you can be the one to get the chicks or whatever. Seriously, this is about the tone and nonsense out there that you see.

Well, yinz2 can fuck off. You ain’t going to see that here.

You might be wondering what I carry. I carry a striker fired pistol. Usually it is made by Glock. Occasionally, it isn’t made by Glock. And sometimes, I carry a very nice 1911, barbecue gun style. I carry on the strong-side hip. I’ve grown accustomed to the trigger characteristics of striker fired pistols (especially the ones made by Glock). This works for me. You are not me. You might make different choices. You might have different priorities.

Maybe you prefer double action pistols, like Fishbreath. When he carries, it’s a Beretta PX4 compact. Yes, with the stock safety/decocker. He likes that pistol. There are days when I envy his commitment, because it took me a lot of experimentation to come right back to the same damn (Glock) triggers I started with, but whatever. We’re different. That’s okay.

You see, we’re adults. Also, we’re friends. We understand that we’re different people. We understand that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. And that’s okay. You make your bed, and you sleeps in it. Everything has trade-offs.

Okay, great! If you choose to carry, carry whatever you damn well please. Fishbreath and I do. We don’t evangelize about pistols to each other.

But wait! There’s more! So much of this is based on preference and working with your chosen pistol. Don’t believe me?

Fine. Plenty of guys win at competition with Glocks. Bob Vogel is one example. I’m going to pick Bob because his Glocks are pretty much stock, besides new sights. If they’re good enough for Bob, they’re not holding you back. Open gun excluded, of course. That one’s all fancy. But he’s won in divisions that aren’t Open as well. His first win was with the same Glock 35 that he carries on duty. So there. If they’re good enough for Bob Vogel, they’re good enough for you.

Plenty of guys win at competition with double-action pistols too. Ernest Langdon has done great and won tournaments with some Beretta 92s. Even won in IDPA CDP division with a P220 against a bunch of good 1911 shooters. If they’re good enough for Ernest, they’re good enough for you.

So much depends on your goals, the effort you want to put in, and what you’re comfortable with. Presuming you buy something decent from a reputable manufacturer (so, most handgun companies) the gun isn’t going to be the thing holding you back. Also, you probably shouldn’t listen to some random jagoff3 on the internet tell you what you should carry. What does he know about gunfighting? Because he sure as shit doesn’t know you.

As for what you should carry, and where, there are tons of variables in that too. How permissive an environment are you normally in? Do “No Guns” signs carry the force of law in your area? How worried about violent crime or armed terrorist attack are you? Does your job involve lots of sitting? Lots of standing? What’s your body type? What’s your method of dress. I know none of these things about you, dear reader, and I wouldn’t pretend to do so to suggest something to you. I don’t want those clicks.

Going back to Bob Givens’ data on actual CCW gunfights, the key thing has been Having A Gun, probably followed by Got You Some Training, since all of the data comes from Bob’s former students. Trigger type or placement of gun didn’t matter too much. Practice is important. Having something reliable is important. Which reliable thing? Probably doesn’t matter too much. Carry what you like.

Only you can determine what you like. Only you can determine what you’re comfortable shooting and carrying. If you’re taking classes, you can ask your trainer for some advice. In person, so he can get some information about you. But most good trainers will give some broad suggestions. There’s no one correct answer.

1.) I think this is a word kids use on the forums these days, so I’m gonna use it too.
2.) I live in Pittsburgh now, so I’m bound by law to use this word.
3.) I am also bound by law to use this word.

Protective Pistol I AAR and Bonus Glock 34 Mini Review

Posted by

A couple weeks ago I finally got off my butt and took my first handgun class. It was awesome. I’m going to go over some takeaways in a moment, but first, let’s look at what I brought to class.

Mini Review
I took my Glock 34 (Gen4) with me to class. At this point, there’s not a ton to say about it. It’s a Glock. You probably know if you like them or not by now. Gen 4 means interchangeable backstraps and good texturing. The Glock 34 is the “practical tactical” model. Glock built this with an eye towards competitions, which isn’t to say you can’t do other things with it. It’s size was determined by the biggest possible Glock that would fit in the standard IPSC box, which was built around (among other things) a Government model 1911. Because of the small size of the Glock striker firing mechanism, this means you get a long 5.31″ barrel for your troubles, and a correspondingly long sight radius. Awesome. The frame is the same as that of a Glock 17. It also comes with Glock’s factory extended slide stop and a “Minus” connector, which means a lighter and generally nicer trigger pull. I think my Glock 34 trigger pull feels a lot like my VP9 trigger pull. Take that as you will, subjective evaluation, sample size of one, etc. It’s also marvelously soft shooting, even for a 9 mm.

Why did I take the Glock 34? Well, I shoot it great. Plus, I wanted something relatively unmodded for class. I also wanted iron sights, because I figured we’d be working front sight focus drills and such. Plus, I’m coming back to liking irons, specifically for sight tracking reasons (at least, when I can make that work) and acquiring them quickly when in close. And they’re not annoyingly prone to hanging up on your concealment garment like the RMR does. Anyway, I also picked the Glock 34 because I have another Glock I could use as a backup gun that could take the same mags and holsters. So I’d be set even if my gun broke.

-end mini review-

I’m not going to go into all of the details covered in the class. Mostly because I’m not going to explain those as well as my instructors did. But I’ll cover the broad strokes. Protective Pistol I is all about basic gun handling and developing a response to the most likely sort of threat that a concealed carry permit holder is likely to encounter. We covered a bit on the laws of Pennsylvania, safe handling procedures, and marksmanship fundamentals. We also talked through a number of examples from incidents on the street. My instructors were great at telling us how they got to what they were teaching us, and why they were teaching us that. Usually, they could break out cases or let us go test things to demonstrate that the things we were learning really did work.

Let’s talk takeaways. They taught that a strong grip was key to shooting at speed. Treat the Glock like an old revolver (in double action), not a tuned 1911 for bullseye with the “surprise break”. They taught some movement as part of the response to the threat, in order to better regain the initiative. They even had a video of a convenience store clerk responding to an armed robber. The robber was holding the clerk at gunpoint, but the clerk’s sidestep on the draw bought her time to be able to get the first shot off, which convinced the would-be robber to flee. It was a good example of how their techniques worked without having to make us break out the simunition guns.

I also loved the student:instructor ratio. It was 7:2, which was about perfect. This is a class I’d recommend, and will probably take again to focus on the fundamentals they reviewed. I’m also keen on more classes from these guys. They were great!

How did my gear hold up? Very well. No significant problems. I had a sturdy belt and a good holster already, plus plenty of mag pouches. Our instructors reviewed some quality brands to buy from if we needed anything (I’m sure I will), plus some stuff to avoid. E.g. Dark Star Gear is awesome, serpa holsters suck.

I ended up making a few changes to my Glock 34 after the match. I want to try the Vickers extended slide stop instead of the Glock factory one. I found the factory one pretty easy to bump when going for a high, strong grip. I think the Vickers will help with this. I also would like to get some more time with an extended mag release. I found the stock one to be a little short if I didn’t want to change my strong hand grip. Some time on the range with another student’s gun told me I might like a non-serrated rear better, so I’ve got a new set of sights to poke at. I really like the fiber optic sights though, so I’ll stick with that up front. Fiber front/plain rear worked well for me.

Experience also showed that the MagLula is super effective at loading magazines. Way better than the little thumbsaver that comes with most pistols these days. I ordered one as soon as I got home from class.

Both instructors had Surefire X300U weaponlights equipped with the DG switch. I’m sold on this too, at least if you’re gonna run a weaponlight. It makes operating the light intuitive and easy by adding a grip-activated pressure switch to the light. And Surefire lights are the weaponlights to buy, again, if you want one. For carry, I’m still debating. It does add some width and some weight, and it’s probably not *needed* on your carry gun.

But for a nightstand gun, for the gun you reach for when something goes bump in the night? Hell yes put a light on it. You don’t want the first words you hear after you shoot some intruder at oh dark thirty to be “Daddy, why’d you shoot me?” And yes, this has happened. It sucks. Don’t let it happen to you.

Another lesson, this one from another student. A female classmate was using an XD Mod 2 Subcompact pistol. In 9 mm of course. She was having a lot of trouble establishing her grip in timed drills that involved a draw from the holster. The instructors suggested she try a bigger pistol, and one of them brought out his spare M&P9, complete with holster. This really improved her performance on the drills. She wasn’t a big woman, but she shot the M&P fine. I didn’t get her thoughts on how the gun felt, but it shot right, and that’s the important thing.

Clearly, we had awesome instructors, who were good at diagnosing problems and offering solutions. Good on them for being prepared. The other lesson is that even if you’re petite, it’s easier to get a good grip on a bigger gun. There’s a tendency for women to choose or be given small guns to shoot. I don’t think this is wise.

Maturity and Security in my Choices

Posted by

(Sigh. Me having a very upset stomach and not being able to go to a match means you get multiple posts from me today. Lucky you, dear reader.)

I’ve seen some posts out there about things like “Are my revolvers still cool?”, “wheelguns suck”, “I don’t like lever guns”, “No, you’re wrong, lever guns are amazing”, “wheelguns are the best or you’re wrong!”, and the like. And now I’m going to weigh in on all this nonsense.

Right now, on my hip, is a Glock 34 with Surefire X300U-A. 17+1 capacity, loaded to bear with 124 grain 9 mm +P Gold Dots from Speer. I love this thing. It shoots great, conceals well with my normal mode of dress (read: loose fitting t-shirts and cargo pants). Hardcore, serious firepower. Also a total gamer gun. I picked this because I can conceal it (it’s about as big as a government model 1911) and I shoot it well. I have some other buddies who conceal a Glock 34 too, and some others who don’t. I don’t care, because it works for me, and that’s what matters. It is nice to be able to compare notes with some other guys though.

Glocks have a lot of advantages. They’re simple, reliable pistols. You can completely detail strip them with a 3/8″ punch. Magazines are cheap and plentiful, and hold lots of bullets. Everybody makes things for Glock. You can get whatever sights you want for your Glock. It’s pretty easy to get drop in trigger improvements, if that’s your thing. Modern 9 mm hollow points work about as well as any standard pistol caliber in terms of stopping power. And its soft shooting and cheap.

On my desk in front of me is something old school. My S&W Model 29, with the 6″ barrel, in .44 Magnum. It’s currently unloaded. I could conceal it if I want to (yes I have a holster for it), but I don’t. I think my Glocks, even my big 34, work better for carry. The Glock is lighter, narrower, holds three times as many bullets, and is easier to get good follow up shots with.

Now, if I lived in Alaska, or spent a lot of time outdoors, I might value being able to shoot big .44 magnum rounds at bears. I can stop a bear with 9 mm, but it’s easier to do it with .44 Magnum. That said, I’m in Western Pennsylvania, and I don’t hang out in bear country much. It’s not normally a big concern for me.

I bought the Model 29 back when I lived in upstate New York. I didn’t buy it for carry. That’s ok. Not all of my handguns are carry guns. I bought the Model 29 because it’s cool, and pretty, and it’s fun to shoot. Nothing brings a smile to my face faster than shooting a big bore revolver that I am confident I can control, and that’s my Model 29. I don’t care that I have better choices for carry. It’s ok. I like it anyway. I like all of my guns.

Revolvers aren’t the best choice from a military perspective, it’s true. Or if you’re in the bad-guy engaging part of cop work. Semiautos carry more bullets, reload faster, and are easier to repair when parts break. The inside of a revolver looks a lot like an old wind-up watch. Complicated. Not easy to figure out. A Glock is the kind of thing that you can repair really easily.

But, what about for the concealed carrier? It probably doesn’t matter. The most common gun fights (statistically), for a civilian with a concealed carry permit or an off-duty cop are over in about three gunshots. Three shots. My Model 29 holds twice that. Even a j-frame has a decent two-shot margin on that. Rule One of a gunfight is HAVE A GUN. Pick one that suits you. How you tend to dress. Where you tend to go. Carry something you feel comfortable with. Carry something you practice with. And hell, carry something you like. Emotional attachment will help make sure you keep that gun with you. Whatever works.

CARRY YOUR FUCKING GUN.

Tom Givens, firearm instructor, has a wonderful body of shooting statistics from former students. All of his students who had guns on them in their altercations won. The only students who ended up in a bad way were those who didn’t have their guns on them when they were accosted.

So, while less effective than a semiauto, revolvers can still work for you. If you do your part. I’m not the biggest fan of revolvers, but I’m not you. If it works for you, rock on with your bad self. I’m gonna keep carrying my Glock 34, because I like it. Even if it’s a Gamer Gun, it’s probably not going to get me killed on Da StreetzTM.

I’m gonna say the same thing about lever action guns and bolt action guns if anybody asks. Know what’s great about capitalism? You can buy whatever the fuck you want. So can I. I’m gonna buy guns I like, for whatever reason. I don’t care if you don’t like them. They’re not your guns. I think people really ought to harden up a bit about this nonsense. Doesn’t matter if everybody in the 14th Chairborne Ranger Regiment does or doesn’t like your choices. They can pick their things. Be an adult. Go pick yours.

I don’t know what your preference is, but I know two things. One, there’s somebody out there who thinks it’s dumb and that it will get you killed or some nonsense like that. Two, there are others out there who think like you do.