Tag Archives: firearms

Battle Royale: P320 vs. PPQ vs. VP9

Posted by

You’ve been waiting for it, and here it is. Parvusimperator’s take on the new crop of striker fired handguns. Well, newish. I’ve waited to see if any bugs fell out (they haven’t). I would get Fishbreath’s opinion too, but he doesn’t have a range with a good rental selection near him. Also, he’s quite fond of hammer fired weapons, because he’s old school like that.

So, let’s get down to it. We’ll look at each pistol, and then do some comparisons.

Walther PPQ
Pros: The best factory trigger on a striker fired pistol. The best. Marginally smaller than the VP9, quite a bit smaller than the P320 full size (this was what I had to rent). Very good ergonomics allowing a nice, high grip. Navy option available, with a cool factory threaded barrel and some extra bits to let you shoot it underwater (not that you care). Ambidextrous slide release.
Cons: Walther has atrocious market penetration. Frankly they have given exactly zero fucks about the American market, so Walther vendors are few and far between. This means that spare parts, accessories, and magazines are the hardest to come by of the three. One upside here is that you won’t get associated with obnoxious Walther fanbois, because there aren’t any fanboys at all, obnoxious or otherwise. Also counting against the PPQ is that it seemed to be somewhat flippy. This is admittedly subjective, but it seemed like it took longer for it to come out of recoil, negating some of the awesomeness of that trigger. More like shooting a .40 S&W, even though this was a 9mm.

HK VP9
Pros: Amazing ergonomics. HK’s grip is one of the best anywhere, with interchangeable side panels and backstraps. Will fit your hand really well; let’s you have a nice high grip. I could gush for hours about the grip. The trigger was very good. I actually prefered it to that of the PPQ and that of the P320 as far as Things I Would Carry. It’s got some take up and a noticeable break, and didn’t feel overly light or heavy. Very smooth. I felt like it had enough take up to feel comfortable carrying and light enough weight (and crisp enough reset) to shoot fast in competition. Again, ambi slide catches. Also, I liked the paddle magazine release, personally. Your mileage may vary.
Cons: The price. HK is the most expensive of the three. Also, you’ll be called an HK fanboy, so be prepared. You suck, and they hate you or something. HK has been really good to LE and Military contractholders. Civilian market, not so much. Their service has gotten way better than it was in the 90s though. You may hate the paddle releases. Accessory availability is meh, spare parts and magazines are available but expensive.

SiG P320
Pros: You may really like the modularity. The trigger lacks that safety blade thing, which is nice. It’s also really short, with very little take up and a very short reset. So it’s really easy to shoot fast, but felt a bit like having a P226 that I hadn’t decocked–I’m not sure if I’d want to carry it like that. Weird. It also feels heavier than the other two. But it’s probably a sweet gamer trigger. SiG has the least shitty aftermarket presence by far of the three, which is big points here. The sights are standard across all their P-series pistols, so those are available now for you. Again, slide release is ambidextrous. And, the P320 gets 17 in the mag, not 15. You might think this is cheating in the comparison, but the mag for the P320 is about the same size as that of the VP9 or the PPQ. And two more bullets is always nice.
Cons: I do not like the modularity. For one thing, every other gun comes with all the stuff you need to monkey around with the grip and figure out which is best for you out of the box. Even HK. With the SiG, you get the medium grip frame, and you have to go buy the others. Good luck finding ones to try in a gun shop before you buy. That’s just cheap and dumb. Further, I have some concerns about the durability of the wee inner module (the actual ‘firearm’, legally speaking). I don’t know how well it will hold up, especially if you’re doing lots of swapping. I probably don’t have anything to worry about here, but there it is. The controls are in their usual SiG place, and seem large. The slide release is super far back, even though there’s no decocker. They really should include the low-profile one so your thumb isn’t hitting it all the time. Once again, some gubbins to buy. Oh, and you’ll be called a SiG fanboy. They’re like HK fanboys, but rarer, because nobody cool uses SiGs anymore. Be sure to get the capitalization right like I’m doing, or expect a flogging.

Finally, I really, really don’t like the modularity. Yes, I’m going to dwell on it because people won’t shut up about it. Look, I don’t live in some communist hell-hole where the number of guns I can own is limited. I live in America. I like guns. I want to buy more guns. That guy behind the counter at my gun store? He wants to sell me more guns. Get with the program, SiG. I’ve never wanted to caliber-convert a 9mm to a .40 or vice versa. 9mm is cheap. .40 is slightly less so, but if I was a .40 guy, I’d want to get used to managing the recoil of the .40, and I’d want my sights to work with the ballistics of .40. Maybe a .22 conversion kit is worth it, if you want a cheap trainer with negligible recoil. But hey, when you’ve bought the new frame, new slide, and new barrel to turn your P320 full size into a compact or your 9mm into a .40, you’ve basically bought a new gun in terms of money spent. So…just buy a new gun, and have more guns. More is better. Duh. If you bought a new gun, you’d have more mags too. Or mags in the new caliber.

Okay, all that out of the way, it’s comparison time!
How do they shoot: Trigger?
PPQ is the best here. That trigger was like nothing at all. Might be almost too light, if we’re talking carry or duty use. Maybe. Hard for me to make that judgement. But it’s great for shooting. It’s like a double action pull with next to no weight. Personally, I rank the VP9 as second since it felt lighter than the P320, and I’ve grown to like some takeup. The P320 pull is heavy and short, which seems an odd combination. I’d like more takeup.

How do they shoot: Accuracy?
VP9 takes top honors here. Maybe this is that HK build quality I keep hearing about. Maybe it’s fitted tighter or there are some match parts or something. P320 comes in second, with a longer sight radius and heavier slide, edging out the PPQ with its great trigger.

How do they shoot: Recoil?
Subjectively, I thought the VP9 was the nicest shooting of the three. It was softer recoiling than the P320, and significantly less flippy than the PPQ. The P320 seems quite heavy for a plastic gun, but the grip is the usual SiG-low. It seemed jumpy, but wasn’t flippy. For purely subjective definitions of ‘jumpy’ and ‘flippy’ of course, since I don’t have a great way to measure recoil. Again, your shooting preferences will dictate your choice. Personally, I like the higher grip of the VP9. You might like the traditional SiG-style grip on the P320, which is a little lower. The PPQ was noticeably harsher and flipper. Not bad, but they’ve managed to make a 9mm feel .40-like in a handgun that isn’t a mousegun. Quite a trick.

How do the Ergonomics Compare?
The VP9 has the best ergos by far with all the side panels. It lets you get the right fit for your hand, even if you shoot better with something asymmetric. The little “cocking tabs” are nice for those with less grip strength. Or just to make you work less at it. The PPQ has a similar sort of shape as the VP9, but has only adjustable backstraps, like most pistols. Still, it fills the hand well and gives you a high grip naturally. The SiG will not let you get as high on it. It fitted my hand reasonably well, but I might have liked to play with the different frame sizes. I prefer a higher grip, or else it would have scored better here. Note also that the SiG only comes with the standard grip-frame module. If you want another size, you’ve gotta go buy it.

Were the guns grippy enough?
No. Nothing was grippy enough. That said, I like guns with barbed grips, or barring that, 20 lpi checkering. Maybe I should have these stippled.

Also, note that all three of these guns only come with two magazines, which is the bare acceptable minimum these days. I would have been much happier if they came with three magazines in the box. Not a dealbreaker, but you should be aware. All of them have crappy magazine prices. No wonderfully cheap Glock or M&P mags here.

Alright, now we come to the main event. Which should you buy? Well, being as this is America, you should buy all three. But that’s not a very helpful answer. Neither is ‘They’re all quite good, you can’t go wrong with any of them.’

Realistically, you should rent all three, and go home with whichever one you shoot best, preferably with some timed/scored drills. This may or may not be possible for you, based on what the ranges near you have available for rent, and how they’re configured.
You should also probably wait a little while and see what my friends Mr. Foxtrot, Mr. Bravo, and Mr. India come up with when they go to choose, since that design will get a big leg up in the aftermarket presence. But that means waiting. Again, rent them and draw your own conclusions.

Of course after all that, you’re still not satisfied. You want to know two things: Which one is best, and is it better than a Glock?

Fine.

Of the three, I’d take the VP9. I shot it best, I like it’s trigger for anything I might choose to do with it (including carry and competition), the ergonomics are great, and it shoots well. Plus, there’s plenty of cachet from being an HK owner. I’m a cool, badass CTU agent. Or…maybe I suck? I don’t know, I lost track of my metaphors in the aura of Teutonic greatness. But, shut up this pistol is great. You wouldn’t understand, you non-HK-owning peon. Go sit with the filth and buy your scum class tickets.

So is it better than my Glock 17? That depends. In terms of what you get out of the box, no contest. HK wins all the way. Better trigger, better ergonomics, better sights. Glock has an extra magazine, but that doesn’t quite make up the difference. The VP9 is the better pistol.

However, who the hell leaves a Glock stock? There’s a ton of aftermarket support for Glocks. Any sights you could possibly imagine, you can get. You can get bigger or smaller controls for the mag release and the slide release to fit your preference. You can get aftermarket triggers and fire control parts to make the trigger into anything you like, from a heavier duty trigger to a tuned competition trigger. You get a lot more sight options from experimenters and small outfits with Glock. Hell, you can build a Glock entirely from parts that aren’t made by Glock. So it’s simply a question of how much you like to tinker. If you want to tinker, get the Glock. It will reward experimentation. If you want to buy a pistol, add the sights of your choice, and be done, get the HK.

But really, this is America. The correct answer is to buy the Glock and the HK.

Parvusimperator Reviews the HK VP9

Posted by

Last week, I hit the range in a black mood. And I hit it not with one of my usual Glocks, but with a range rental. See, I was thinking of you, dear reader, and I picked something I thought I was sure to hate: the HK VP9.

HK tends to be like Apple, they’ve got a bunch of obnoxious fanboys that everyone else wants to beat with a tire iron. And their USPs have all the ergonomics of a 2×4, and their double action triggers suck ass. Oh, and between American import laws, German export laws, and management that historically hasn’t given two shits about the civilian market, you can’t get a lot of the cool toys that you see on the cover of a Clancy novel. Ugh.

On the other hand, Jack Bauer carried a USP Compact for most of 24, and he’s pretty badass. On a more serious level, a bunch of my internet friends have spoken very highly of the VP9, and they as a group have a lot more trigger time than me. But maybe they’re fanboys. Maybe it’s a bunch of blather about “Teutonic Precision” or somesuch. No problem. I’d drop a Jackson on a rental, and then I’d get to tell them off and get an awesome hate-fueled tirade for you lot out of it.

Things didn’t work out that way.

First thing I noticed with the VP9 was the grip. This was not a USP grip. This was not a Glock grip. No, it wasn’t even an M&P grip. It was better than all of the above. It’s really, really comfortable. Like that wonderfully contoured PPQ grip. But where the PPQ has the interchangeable backstraps, like the Glock and the M&P, the VP9 also has interchangeable side panels, so you can control thickness independently of length. For my first outing, I left everything at medium, which seemed to fit my hand ok. I’d have to spend some time with a target to see which is best. Also, the texture is nicely grippy, which I like. But it’s not super grippy, so you might also like it if you’re not a fan of 20 LPI checkering, say. Even without messing with the panels, it fit my hand well and allowed a nice, high grip.

Sizewize, the VP9 is a bit bigger than a Glock 19, but not by much. Slide is roughly the same size, but the frame is taller. It’s like someone put a Glock 19 slide on a Glock 17 frame. I know no one who has done this, but there you have it. If you’re looking to conceal the VP9, you should be aware of this. My EDC is a Glock 17 with RMR though, so I think it’s fine. The magazines only hold 15 rounds of 9mm though, which is odd. Looking at the size, I think they should be able to get more in there, but I’m no engineer. Maybe there’s a reliability question I don’t know about coming into play here. Some guys with a lot of hours on Glocks suggest downloading those magazines by a round or two in crappy environments, so maybe that’s it. Then again, some other guys with a lot of hours on Glocks have no such complaints. Such are the hazards of appeals to authority. I don’t have gajillions of rounds through Glocks, and I’ve never had any problems. Take that as you will.

Moving on, we come to the trigger. And unlike seemingly every other HK pistol on the planet, it seems like they had shooters in mind when they designed this one, because it’s great. Light, crisp, super consistent, and with a great reset. Let’s make some comparisons.

Is it better than an M&P trigger? Don’t make me laugh. The M&P trigger is made of mashed potatoes and grit. It’s godawful. Next.

Is it better than a Glock trigger? Yes. At least, the stock trigger. The stock Glock trigger is heavier and rougher than that of the VP9. Both will smooth out with age. You can make the Glock trigger into almost anything you want with aftermarket parts. The VP9 reset is every bit as solid as that of the Glock, which is high praise. Riding the reset on a striker-fired automatic is a great way to get shorter split times.

Is it better than a PPQ trigger? No. Well, not for shooting. The VP9 trigger is heavier, and has a perceptible “wall” before the break. The PPQ is basically a light rolling break all the way through. The PPQ is easier to shoot better, but I’d probably feel more comfortable with a VP9 for carry, or certainly for duty use. The VP9 also seems to have less travel overall, and I might actually like that part better, even with a little more weight.

How does the VP9 shoot? Great. So very great. Consistent trigger, a grip that works with you, and generally mild recoil characteristics make this pistol very accurate. Maybe this was that Teutonic Build Quality everyone’s always on about. I pushed the target back, and back, and back from my initial start at the usual seven yards and had a really great night, even with the target way out at the stops at 50 feet. This gun is really easy to shoot well and really easy to like. I’ll be damned if it wasn’t growing on me.

Okay, so what about the mag changes? If you don’t know, since the USP series, HK has been using little paddles on either side of the back of the trigger guard to drop the mag, rather than the usual John Moses Browning endorsed button on the side of the grip. On the one hand, it’s fighting years of muscle memory. On the other, it’s totally ambidextrous, and I’ll be damned if it isn’t faster. I also like that the VP9 really ejects magazines with authority, unlike my Glocks.

Let’s talk some of the other design features of the VP9. It has forward cocking serrations, which let you do press checks like a cool guy. It has a loaded chamber indicator, which is an extra function of the extractor, just in case you’re too much of a pussy to do press checks. There’s a bit at the back to tell you whether or not the striker is cocked. I’m not sure of the utility of this, but it’s nice in dry fire.

There are also the little “wings” on the side of the slide to assist in cocking. I kinda like those for reasons that I’m not really clear on. They do make it easier to get a good grip on the slide and rack it. Probably very helpful if you are smaller in size. Or if you had some kind of weird malfunction. I didn’t experience any, but if I had one, I’ll take any bit of extra mechanical advantage I can get on a jammed up gun.

Now, the sights. Due to some German export nonsense, the VP9 ships with sights that have that day-glo shit on them. They’ll glow in the dark, if they were charged up beforehand. Which is pretty useless if you were gonna carry it concealed and then need it at night. On the other hand, they’re infinitely better than the stock Glock vestigial sight-like-objects, and better still than the traditional white three dot sights that come stock on other things, since the HK ones might glow in the dark maybe sometimes. They were perfectly serviceable on the rental at the range, but really should be swapped out for something more to your liking. If you’re not sure what to get, there’s a VP9 LE model, which gets proper tritium night sights put on by HK USA in Georgia and also comes with an extra mag. The markup on the LE version is reasonable for what you get, if you like those sights.

So where do we stand? The VP9 is probably the most complete polymer framed handgun out of the box, which I think is exactly the goal HK was going for. All it needs are sights. Even though it’s more expensive than the competition, I’d wholeheartedly recommend it. It’s an easy gun to like. If you like striker fired pistols, this is probably best of breed out of the box. Just be aware that you don’t quite have the accessories of something like Glock or M&P. On the other hand HK will at least take care of you; they have a history of making guns for some really small markets.

A VP9 LE even followed me home.

Old-School Service Rifles: Mauser Kar 98k

Posted by

While I’m primarily an AR guy, and think that’s the best overall choice right now for the vast majority of rifle-y things that a guy might do, I’m also fond of old service rifles. They tell stories. Today we’re going to look at my oldest, a Mauser Karabiner 98k.

The Karabiner 98k, or Kar 98k, was a development of the Gewehr 98, by way of the Karabiner 98b. The Kar 98b wasn’t really a carbine at all, just a G 98 with better sights. It was still a long-barreled rifle. But after World War I, the Germans finally got to figuring that maybe they should standardize on one, shortish carbine for everyone who needed a rifle, rather than worry about infantry rifles and cavalry carbines. So, in 1934, they made what was to be the last in the long line of Mauser 98 designs, the Kar 98 kurz.1 In addition to the obviously shorter length, it also has a turned-down bolt handle, which makes mounting optics easier.

The Kar 98k has that wonderful, controlled-feed action that Mauser is famous for, and that so many have copied. It holds five rounds of 7.97x57mm ammunition, and proved to be a reliable and accurate weapon. It was the standard service rifle for the Wehrmacht Heer during the Second World War, and also saw use by the Soviets and many smaller powers after the war. It was also widely copied.

Let’s look at mine. It was made in 1938 in Suhl by J.P. Sauer und Sohn. Due to the time period of manufacture being before production had ramped up, Sauer was using some older parts. For this reason, the receiver bears both Weimar Waffenamnt proof marks and Third Reich Waffenamnt proof marks, which is kinda cool. Based on the age, we can conclude that this rifle saw plenty of service. Several parts are marked by an electropen with a different serial number than what is stamped on the gun. From this, we can conclude that this rifle was on the Eastern Front, was captured by the Soviets, and spent time reissued and in their arsenals. It has an X marking on the receiver that indicates it was eventually mustered out of Red Army service, and it eventually made its way to America and then to me.

Conditionwise, the rifle is in solid, but not excellent condition. The soviet arsenals have mixed up a few of the smaller parts, and they do not have matching serials with the rest of the gun. I’m happier that way, because it means the price is lower. The wood and finish show some wear, but are generally in good condition, and the bore doesn’t show too much wear either. There isn’t any pitting, and the grooves aren’t too worn out. When I got it, I was missing a few incidentals, which I decided to pick up. I got a surplus, beat-up looking sword bayonet of the appropriate late-thirties era, with oversized 9.75 inch blade, a cleaning rod, and a new-production sling.

For all its age, my Mauser shoots really well. The action is smooth, and the trigger is pretty good for a service rifle. It’s more or less two stage, and is somewhat heavy, but not gritty or creepy. The sights are ok. If you take your time and line them up right, the rifle is very accurate. They’re a simple notch and wedge-shaped post though, so these aren’t altogether fast or precise. Hardly my choice, but I didn’t design this. As is fitting and proper, the sight has range markings out to a hopelessly-optimistic two kilometers. I haven’t tried to hit anything at this range.

Recoil isn’t terrible. It’s certainly not a .22, but it’s not abusive the way a Mosin is. When I’ve brought it out for friends, I’ve gotten neither complaints nor habitual flinches, which is a good endorsement. The bolt isn’t as fast as a Lee Enfield, but it has never given me trouble.

My Mauser is a really nifty piece of history. It’s nearly eighty years old, but it still looks and shoots great. It’s a real treat to have and to run some rounds through.

If only it could talk.

1.) Short. Because it’s actually a carbine-length carbine as opposed to a longer, rifle-length carbine.

Happy Birthday, John Moses Browning!

Posted by

Happy Birthday, John Moses Browning!

He’d be 161 years old if he were alive today. You might know him as the designer of the M1911 handgun, which is dear to my heart. You might also know him as the designer of the Browning Hi-Power, the first double-stack mag 9mm pistol. It’s the first Wondernine, about fifty years before anyone started using the term. I’m not super fond of the Hi-Power, but that’s ok. The double stack handgun magazine idea has persisted into guns that I’m more fond of. Like my Glocks.

But John Moses Browning had many more ideas that you may or may not realize belong to him. He first came up with the tilting barrel lockup system, which is now used on just about every handgun1 in production. It beat out all other designs for the first choice because it works well and it’s cheap and easy to machine. It also doesn’t need a ton of lubrication, unlike most alternatives.

John Moses Browning also patented the notion of a slide on a self-loading pistol, and all of them have that these days. It’s just so darn useful. You can look at a lot of goofy pistol designs of the early twentieth century and see designers trying to work around this patent, and the ideas went nowhere once that patent expired.

But wait, there’s more! John Moses Browning’s first commercially-successful handgun design, the FN Model 1899, was striker fired. Yes, just like the Glock 17 currently sitting on my hip. Good old Browning. Getting ahead of the game there. Even though people of the time thought it was exceedingly odd for a pistol to not have a hammer.

John Moses Browning also designed a rather solid machine gun. The rifle caliber incarnation was lighter than the maxim and plenty reliable, and was quite popular as an aircraft weapon. The .50 BMG version, the venerable Ma Deuce, is still in service today. Introduced in the ’30s, it’s been used on just about every vehicle you can think of, from World War 2 fighters to tanks, to helicopters, to ships, to jeeps. If it’s a vehicle, it’s probably had a Ma Deuce on it. It’s even been used as a sniper rifle. Carlos Hathcock got a kill at 2,250 yards with one. Which is pretty impressive for a crew-served, tripod-mounted weapon.

John Moses Browning developed a ton of other stuff too. I could go on, but the above are the biggest things that are still taken advantage of today. Happy Birthday, John, and many happy returns. We certainly have gotten many such returns from you.

1.) Or at least all the popular, cool ones.

Milspec Challenge

Posted by

Here’s one that came from Fishbreath. I’m a big AR-15 guy, and he suggested I spec one out as if I was going to issue it. So here goes. An issue AR-151, Parvusimperator-style.

We’ll start with the receivers. Both upper and lower receivers should be forged from 7075-T6 aluminum. Forged to keep it simple. The forging process is cheaper than the billet manufacturing process, and marginally stronger. Win-win. We’ll focus on the lower receiver and its components first.

The trigger group is a safe/semiautomatic/fully-automatic one. The AR-15 trigger group allows for a three-position selector without some serious modifications. The reader might wonder, ‘why not three round burst?’ My response is ‘why bother?’ The three round burst is the latest in a long line of devices designed at the urging of girly-man bean counters to force soldiers to not “waste ammo”. In the 1870s, the US Army didn’t issue the Winchester repeating rifles to the cavalry because the soldiers might waste ammo. Bolt action rifles around the turn of the 20th century had a magazine cut off, because soldiers might waste magazine after magazine of bullets. Both decisions were proven wrong. Discipline must be taught; it cannot be enforced by weapons. You might not always need ammunition, or fully automatic fire, but when you do, you really need it. So safe/semi/auto is the trigger group we’ll use. We’ll also specify an ambidextrous selector switch.

The receiver extension should be 1.14 inches in diameter, and should have six position detents on the underside. This part may also be called the “buffer tube” but it’s better to think of it as an extension to the receiver that gives more room for the bolt carrier to decelerate. It should be held in place by properly-staked castle nut. This will ensure that the castle nut will not back out on it’s own, but can be removed by an armorer if necessary. In terms of buffer internals, we’ll use chrome silicon wire springs (something like the Springco Blue model extra power spring) and an H32 weight buffer.

As for the stock, we’re going for the Crane3 SOCOM-pattern stock. This is heavier and sturdier than the standard collapsible stock, and comes with two waterproof storage compartments. These are perfect for storing batteries for the various issue electrics that will get attached to the carbine, as well as small bottles of lubricant to keep the gun running. It’s a convenient place to store some lubricant to make sure it’s available when needed.

There are a few other gubbins we need to specify. We’ll specify an ambi bolt catch and an ambi mag catch. Installing these in a convenient manner will take some reworking of the lower, but it can be done. Knight’s Armament and several of the fancy billet receiver companies have already done this. I’m not overly particular about most other small parts. Appropriate aluminum pins, etc. are fine. The one other thing to call out is the pistol grip. I hate the A2-type grip, so that’s right out. It’s too small and it has a pointless nubbin in a stupid place. Fortunately, there are lots of alternatives out there, and almost all of them are better. I’m a fan of the TangoDown BG-16 grip, as it fits the hand better and doesn’t have a stupid nubbin on the front in the wrong place, so let’s go with that.

That takes care of the lower. Onto the upper. We’re going to call for a 14.5″ barrel. Why 14.5″? Because it’s a military standard with lots of available data, and it’s shorter and handier than a 20″. This is a general issue carbine, so barrel length is going to be a compromise. Plus, that hot deathray M855A1 ammunition is designed around a 14.5″ barrel. It will have a 1:7 twist rate4 and a lightweight profile. Why a lightweight profile? Because I don’t see a point to anything heavier. A lightweight barrel was perfect for full-auto ambush drills in Vietnam. A lightweight barrel will take something like 900 rounds before it fails, and that’s if you reload as fast as you can and never stop firing. That’s about three times a basic ammo load for the average soldier. This is more than adequate for a select fire carbine. It’s not a support weapon built for sustained automatic fire. The barrel should be made of 4150 chrome molybdenum steel. And yes, Virginia, it will have a chrome lining.

The gas system should be a carbine-length one, or about seven inches from the receiver to the gas block. Again, this is the standard on a 14.5″ barreled gun. The gas block should be a low-profile unit held onto the barrel with a pair of taper pins. This is the most secure method of securing a gas block to a barrel. It should also have a bayonet lug at the front, since the length is right for a bayonet. And bayonet fighting teaches a lot of good things to troops, plus it’s occasionally very useful on the battlefield. Just ask the British. For they bayonet lug to work, the gas block has to be as long as a front sight block, but this isn’t hard to do.

For handguard, we actually want a 9″ long unit, even though our specified gas system is only 7″ long. This will cover most of our low profile gas block, giving us more room for a grip and accessories, but still let us access the bayonet lug. We want a quadrail handguard, because picatinny rails are the standard accessory mount. There are some alternatives out there, namely keymod and mlok, but they don’t totally replace the picatinny rail. We see no reason to adopt two mounting systems, so we’ll stick with the picatinny. I went back and forth quite a bit on which handguard design to call out here. I’m rather fond of the notion of a monolithic design, where the rail and upper are one continuous piece. However, this is generally heavy, and doesn’t let us change the handguard out at all. One of the joys of the AR design is just how modular it is. We’re using a very different handguard design than my father would have found on an AR-15, and we’d like our sons to be able to apply their own wisdom. So let’s skip the monolith, cool though it might be. We want a durable design though, and since we’re covering our gas block, we’ll need something tube-style, i.e. free float. No mall ninjas, we’re not getting a free floated barrel for accuracy benefits. It’s a service carbine. Don’t kid yourself–no one cares about tiny group improvements. We just need it to work with our gas block system. We’ll take the Daniel Defense DDM4 rail, in the 9″ length. This is an off the shelf product, just like everything else on our list. It’s lightweight, sturdy, and easy to install. It will still let us access the bayonet lug, but give us plenty of room for lights and lasers as needed. It also has quick detach sling swivel sockets built in, which is convenient. Saves us a part.

So far, so good. There are a few more notes that we’ll make for the upper. The muzzle device should be a three-pronged-style flash hider, since these seem to work the best. It should also be a suppressor adapter. Since we haven’t specified a suppressor, we won’t specify a muzzle device. But a good example would be the Surefire SF3P, which would work with Surefire’s excellent line of suppressors.

You may have guessed we’ll be using a “flat-top” or “A3-style” upper receiver, and you’d be right. That’s prime optic mounting real estate. And we’ll have the standard folding dust cover on there too. Yawn. Tell me something interesting, you say? Fine. We’re specifying our uppers to not have a forward assist. Why? Because it’s a stupid, useless, protruding, weight-adding piece of junk. Get rid of it. It makes the design simpler. It makes the design lighter. It’s how Stoner originally intended it to be. And stupid Army was wrong to insist on such a device. If you’re in a situation where you need to force the bolt closed, then your gun is FUBAR, and unsafe to use. Any case so screwy that you have to force it into the chamber because the buffer spring won’t do the job has no business in your gun. Yes, you can force a fucked-up, bulged case into an M1903, M1 Garand, or M14, but that doesn’t make it a good idea. Or even a military requirement. The M1918 BAR has no such capability, but troops loved the BAR all the same. Look, when both John Moses Browning and Gene M. Stoner don’t think it’s needed, it’s not needed.

Didn’t see that coming, did you?

Now for the guts of the rifle. But first, the charging handle. Surprise, the stock one is fine. It doesn’t need ambi anything. It’s already ambi. It’s on top of the freaking gun, for crying out loud. Fine as is.

Anyway, the guts. Or, more specifically, the bolt carrier group. We’re going to call out somewhat nonstandard parts here. No, we’re not going to retrofit a piston. There’s already one there. It’s inside the carrier, you dumb idiot. We’re going to use a specialty bolt carrier and bolt, specifically the Lewis Machine and Tool Enhanced Bolt Carrier and Enhanced Bolt. Why? Well, let’s take a look at our system, here. We have a shorter gas system length than Stoner originally specified, so we’re getting more gas pressure than Stoner originally designed around. The M193 ammunition that was originally used had an average chamber pressure of 52,000 psi. But we’re calling for something like M855A1, which takes advantage of more consistent modern powders to increase the average chamber pressure to 63,000 psi, which of course means more gas pressure for the system. Plus, we like suppressors, which means yet more gas pressure. What does all this gas pressure mean? Well, it means we’ve got more velocity on the bolt, which increases the likelihood that the bolt will try to unlock to early, which puts a shear and bending load on the bolt lugs. Surprise, this is bad for bolt life. The Enhanced Bolt Carrier has more vents and a revised cam path to reduce pressure and slow unlocking of the bolt. The revised bolt has a different extractor, using two springs instead of one, which is designed to give longer spring life. The lugs are redesigned for added strength as well. The end result is a longer-lasting system. Plus it’s a slightly not-stock part, so I’m not just picking a rifle off the rack here and calling it good.

So how is the rifle issued? Well, it comes with an issued optic, which we haven’t chosen yet. But there will be an optic. There will be a two-point, quick-adjust sling. More convenient than a standard carry strap type sling that your grandfather had on his M1 Garand. There are three rail panels issued. I prefer the Tango Down units, but the exact model isn’t very important. Just something so that the picatinny rail doesn’t cut your hands up after lots of campaigning. The rifle is also issued with a set of folding back up iron sights. Specifically the Troy industries M4-style front and their standard (non-dioptic) rear sight. The rear sight is “A1 style”, i.e. it’s has two apertures, but is not adjustable for elevation. Nor should it be. It should be durable and simple. It should be zeroed and kept safely in reserve. It should not be complicated. It is a backup sight on a carbine, not iron sights on a National Match rifle. Keep it simple.

The carbine is issued with iron sights and optic fitted and properly zeroed. Since we’re not dumb, our weapons racks are designed to hold the carbines with optics mounted, so soldiers can trust that the carbine they draw from storage has a good zero.

Some of you may be wondering what I would do if you made me get an AR-15 that I couldn’t piece together as above. What if you had to buy something off a shelf, all-up, Parvusimperator? Simple. I’d call Knight’s Armament Corporation, and ask if they give a bulk discount on large carbine orders. So there. Smartass.

1.) I’ll be using AR-15 as the generic term here, so as not to sound like I’m specifying brand or model details. Also, the AR-15 designation came first.
2.) 5.6 oz weight.
3.) NSWC Crane designed, produced by LMT and B5 Systems.
4.) I.e. one complete rotation in seven inches of travel

Parvusimperator Reviews the Walther PPQ

Posted by

Spectre premiers this week. What better time to talk about Walther’s fine modern pistol, the PPQ? In general, Mr. Bond arms himself with the Walther PPK, after a long and rather famous discussion between Ian Fleming and one Geoffrey Boothroyd.1 Yes, dear readers, there was a time when .32 ACP was considered to have plenty of stopping power. But that was then. I’m not very fond of the PPK, and don’t think it has any place other than possibly in my date’s thigh holster, if she’s wearing an evening gown. For a time, the Pierce Brosnan Bond used the P99, which is a right proper double stack service pistol in 9mm Parabellum.

The P99 is an interesting looking design, and is a double action semiautomatic pistol. It’s the direct predecessor of the PPQ, as it has a very similar shape, and shares magazines. Of course, being a double action design, the trigger isn’t good, and Walther made a couple of efforts to improve this. Interestingly, it’s striker fired, but Walther gave it that familiar double action feel.

Walther has a fine history of target weapons, in addition to service pistols. I first set about trying to learn pistol marksmanship seriously in a basement range, armed with an Olympic-grade Walther CPM-1. It’s still the nicest pistol trigger I’ve had the pleasure of firing. So Walther clearly knows how to make a quality trigger. One other historical note is that Walther had one of the earliest double action service pistols in the P38.

The PPQ is based on the latest models of the P99, the P99QA. It has the same sculpted grip, the same slide design, the same giant trigger. However, the PPQ has a somewhat different striker mechanism. It is no longer double action like a P99. Unlike a Glock, which has a partially cocked striker, the PPQ features a fully cocked striker. Since you don’t have to work against the striker spring, the trigger can be made very nice. Trigger travel distance is 0.4 in (9mm, conveniently enough), and has a sharp 0.1 inch reset. This is the shortest reset of any striker fired pistol around, and it’s very easy to feel. Trigger pull is very light, and there’s no ‘wall’ that you feel in a Glock trigger. So it’s pretty close to a rolling break. You can find that break point if you’re going slow, but it’s super easy to go right past it. This is the best trigger available on a striker fired pistol. But for the pretravel, it feels very 1911-like. And that’s probably the highest compliment I can pay.

The PPQ grip curves quite a bit. This looks a little strange at first, but it fits the hand really well. Again, it’s right up there with the 1911 in feeling very right. The 1911 does this with steel, wood, a single stack of .45 American Combat Pistol rounds, and a big slice of apple pie. The PPQ has to work with a double stack of 9mm rounds and a bunch of plastic. But those curves in the plastic mean the pistol fits your hand really well. Kinda like a certain fraulein I met on a trip to Europe not too long ago…

Moving on, the PPQ uses 15 round magazines. There’s also a factory extension available for +2 capacity. Since the model I got was a PPQ M2 Navy, Walther included one regular-baseplate 15 round magazine and one magazine with extender. The Navy model also comes with a factory threaded barrel. M2 denotes a switch from the lever release in the trigger guard to a traditional button style mag release in the handguard. The mag release catch is positioned well, and is easy to depress without being so raised that you’ll hit it accidentally. Much ink has been spilled on which mag release is better. I don’t really have a preference. I will say that the button is a little more familiar to me than the lever, and it’s more popular by far in America. Since it was in the case ready to go at the shop today, I didn’t agonize too much over the mag catch.

In my reviews of my Glock 17 and my M&P40, I mentioned market share. No getting around it, Walther doesn’t do a ton of marketing here in America, and as a result they don’t have a ton of market penetration. That said, the PPQ is popular enough that several of my favorite holster makers, including Dale Fricke, make holsters for it, and both 10-8 and Dawson make sights for it. Trijicon also makes their fine HDs for it. And my slide miller of choice, Mark Housel (L&M precision) will mill the slide for an RMR. So I should be set with whatever I need, though I don’t quite have the ubiquitous options that I had with Glock. I also have to suck up higher mag prices. Sizewise, the PPQ is about the same size as a Glock 19. Big enough to be very shootable, small enough to conceal easily. There’s also a long barrel version available.

How does she shoot? Great. Really, really great. That fabulous trigger really makes precise shots or fast shots easy. It makes up for less than perfect trigger control on the part of the user. My one objection is that the texture could be more aggressive, which seems to result in a flippy 9mm. Nothing that bearing down on the grip won’t cure, though. This is also a very early review. I may come to prefer the less texture; some professional shooters like a less grippy gun so they can correct a non-ideal grip from draw as they bring the gun up.

Bond should carry this gun, and not some lame pocket pistol. It’s that good. Accurate, fits nicely in the hand, conceals easily. It really works with the shooter to get great results.

1.) Fleming originally thought fit to equip Bond with a Beretta 418, a .25 ACP pocket pistol that you probably never heard of. It is a phenomenally wussy handgun, and I shall waste no more characters discussing it.

Luchtburg Picks A Carbine

Posted by

The Luchtbourgish procurement apparatus has been slothful over the last year—the members of the Procurement Board have made their preferences clear on a number of challenges, but the secretary has yet to finish typing up most of the proposals. He’s hammering one out right now for you.

The Luchtbourgish Individual Carbine Competition has a few extra constraints imposed by Luchtburg’s defense priorities. One: Luchtburg has a vast stockpile of 7.62x39mm ammunition left over from its time as a Russian client state. Any proposal for a weapon chambered for a different cartridge will have to account for the price of acquiring new ammunition stockpiles, and other new infantry weapons to replace other 7.62x39mm . Two: Luchtburg is a jungle country, and a heavy bullet is desirable1. Three: Luchtburg’s land army is small2, and so the price of an individual rifle is less important than it might be otherwise.

With those constraints in mind, I can easily eliminate 5.45x39mm and 5.56 NATO. Neither are bad cartridges, and both are perfectly acceptable choices. They are not, however, the right choice for us. Disposing of 7.62×39 to acquire a new cartridge would be expensive—conservatively, the cost of a modern corvette out to a ten-year horizon, and probably another FREMM over the 25-year lifetime of the Procurement Games. It would also violate another constraint: jungle effectiveness. I can also eliminate full-size rifle cartridges, for the same reasons that parvusimperator does. I’ll leave the takedown to his post. (Look back through the militariana tag for the post about SCHV rounds.)

So, that leaves me with the intermediate intermediate cartridges, if you will: 7.62×39, the great granddaddy of the field; the modern American contenders, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, and .300 Blackout; and lesser-used wildcats. The latter class is right out on production scale grounds. We’ll be buying, at the least, several hundred million cartridges, and sorting out production at the same time as a new rifle is not something Luchtburg wants to do.

The modern American contenders present more interesting problems. I’m a huge fan of 6.5 Grendel based on its ballistics, and of .300 BLK and 6.8SPC based on larger bullets and similar magazine capacities to 5.56, along with specialty loadings for various purposes. The thing about .300 BLK and 6.8SPC is, I’m not sure that their main advantage over 7.62×39 is inherent. You could just as easily load 7.62×39 with a heavy, subsonic bullet for use with a suppressor, or load it with a lighter bullet and hotter powder for ballistics more similar to 6.8SPC. I don’t think it’s quite possible to match Grendel, which is much less a compromise round than the other two American contenders. Generally speaking, though, I don’t think that 7.62x39mm is less capable by design. It’s less capable by less development. The expense of developing new loadings down the line is offset by not having to buy new training ammunition, or new squad automatic weapons3.

You may have noticed that I’ve rather biased the contest toward 7.62×39, and may additionally have noticed that this seems not to leave me with many good options: old AK variants, the AK-103, and (questionably) the AK-124. Russian-built arms, dependable but not generally known for their accuracy are not a particularly good fit for Luchtburg’s well-trained, well-supplied, well-maintained professional army. Fortunately, there is another contender, and it is the victor.

Enter the Swiss Arms SG5 553R. A member of the SG 550 family, it’s based off the current issue arm of the Swiss military, a pedigree that carries weight in the halls of Luchtbourgish government6. SIG/Swiss Arms is a large conglomerate, no stranger to handling large contracts, and is not Russian—a point in its favor when it comes to support and services. The design has been in service long enough to work out its kinks. As a bonus, it accepts AK magazines, meaning Luchtburg can dip into its stock of those, too. The short version is very short, and with the folding stock, is suitable for issue to vehicle crews and others who work in cramped spaces.

It does have some downsides—for one, we’ll probably want to pay for a longer-barreled version. The extant ‘long barrel’ version only has twelve inches of barrel length. We’ll probably want 16″, or maybe even a 20″ (although whether the squad marksman will also use 7.62×39 depends mainly on how our cartridge development project goes7). For another, it’s a precision-machined Swiss masterpiece. That kind of quality comes at a price. It’s hard to find contract price figures, but I’d expect to pay north of $1500 per rifle. Finally, there’s very little data on the SG 550-series in the sorts of terrain we’ll be using it most often: jungle, seaside, and aboard ships, none of which feature heavily in Switzerland’s landscape. It’s possible that those rather harsh conditions will reveal some flaws not otherwise known.

With all that being said, though, it’s a gun with very little downside for us: it isn’t as thrown-together as a Kalashnikov, so it costs a pretty penny, but the nice thing about small armies relative to defense spending is that they can afford to be well-equipped. The SG 553R is a modern rifle with a fine pedigree, and it’s the thing to take Luchtburg into the next 25 years.

I admit, this one was something of a foregone conclusion, given the constraints I imposed upon my choices, but that, I think, is a lesson in itself: procurement choices are ordinarily dictated by factors other than the raw quality of the platforms. (Else I might have ended up with SCARs.) We merely continue in that long tradition8.

1. Undoubtedly parvusimperator will quibble about the effectiveness of a fast, small bullet, but penetration of a barrier to hit something directly behind it is a very different game from penetration of a barrier to hit something 50 yards behind it. That’s the story in a jungle.
2. 75,000 rifles would cover every front-line combat formation, including vehicle crew, with about 10,000 to spare. 200,000 rifles would cover every reservist as well, with plenty of headroom.
3. Modernized PKMs will serve for now.
4. Izhmash would certainly sell them to me, but it’s unclear whether they’re vaporware or actually in testing right now.
5. Formerly SIG, but they’re currently organized as separate manufacturers. I think. The web of firearms manufacturer acquisitions and spinoffs is dizzying to untangle.
6. Several of the generals on the procurement board carry surplus K31s as hunting rifles.
7. You need speed and ballistic coefficient for that, and it’s hard to get both out of 7.62×39 at the same time.
8. Although my frigate choice was a lot more wide-open, as was parvusimperator’s carbine choice. It’s probably also true that your headline capabilities are the ones where you get to be a bit choosier.

PDWs Suck

Posted by

Time for me to tear down a childhood hero. Time for me to expose that the emperor has no clothes. PDWs suck. They’re pointless. They’re stupid. They don’t serve any good purpose and oughtn’t be procured. Let’s define our terms. Personal defense weapons (PDWs) are generally considered to be a class of submachine guns like the FN P90. They’re about as big as a regular pistol-caliber submachine gun, and fire a round that’s designed to be tiny but still penetrate soft body armor.

The FN P90 was introduced in 1991. It was supposed to be issued to “rear echelon” troops, people like clerks, mortar gunners, and vehicle drivers. People who might get in a firefight, but whose primary duties don’t include being very proficient with an assault rifle. This idea is not without historical basis. The M1 Carbine filled basically the same idea, and was well liked by American troops, since it was smaller, lighter, and just generally handier than an M1 Garand or M1 Thompson that frontline infantry usually carried. The P90 was designed to build on the success of earlier submachine guns like the HK MP5, but it was chambered in a new bullet. Instead of shooting already-standard 9x19mm Parabellum, the P90 fired a new 5.7x27mm round that was designed to defeat the soft body armor that Soviet troops were starting to get issued. There were, however, a few problems. First, in that same year, the Soviet Union collapsed, so all those European governments madly slashed defense spending and proceeded to sing kumbaya in a big circle that would eventually be called the EU. Nobody wanted to buy a new gun that needed a whole new non-standard bullet. And there, FN ran into more problems. First, everyone knows that if you want a round to be a standard NATO thing, you have to get America on board. Both 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm were American designed rounds that spread1 to the rest of NATO. And not only did FN fail to get America on board, but before FN could lock up a bunch of contracts, HK brought out the MP7, with it’s own itty bitty high velocity round, the 4.6x30mm. Now, there was a question of which standard to go for.

Meanwhile, the window on the concept’s usefulness was rapidly closing. Other developments would come in and make the P90 and MP7 obsolescent and pointless. That development was the M4 Carbine. This was introduced in 1994, and led to a whole series of what we might term assault carbines, if we liked to classify things. Once the US Army showed the success of the concept, other manufacturers followed suit and introduced short-barrel versions of their existing assault rifles. To be fair to previous engineers, there were a large number of compact versions of the M16 developed for close quarters battle in Vietnam. However, these weapons weren’t the most reliable, and tended to be special forces only. The M4 was a refined and reliable execution of the concept, and saw widespread issue to regular, second-line troops. Eventually, it actually came to replace the M16 for general issue; soldiers in the US Army are issued M4s almost exclusively. For those of you wondering if we can go shorter, we surely can. There’s the Mk. 18 CQBR with a 10.3 inch barrel (instead of the M4’s 14.5″ barrel). Other weapons like the G36C and the AKS-74U also have very short barrels. And that brings a pretty big set of nails in the coffin of the PDW.

To see why, let’s take a look at the big picture first. The compact carbines like the Mk 18, G36C, etc. all share the vast majority of features with their larger parent designs. That means armorers don’t need training to work on a new design, brand new contracts don’t have to be inked, a whole new set of spares doesn’t have to be stocked, and the army doesn’t have to have yet another caliber. All these things are positives that directly affect the bottom line. They also improve combat effectiveness; everybody can use the same magazines firing the same ammunition. Plus, even out of a short barrel, assault rifle rounds like the 5.56 or 5.45 are a lot more effective than 5.7mm. The 5.7mm does penetrate soft armor, but most armies are issuing hard plates now, so that’s of limited value. And what good is penetrating the armor if the terminal effects suck? And 5.7 has atrocious terminal effects. It does a very poor job of getting bad guys to stop what they’re doing and die. Against unarmored threats, conventional pistol rounds like 9mm perform far better. Put another way, 5.7 fires a bullet about two-thirds the weight of a 5.56 round at half the muzzle velocity. And we’re having arguments about whether or not 5.56 is effective enough! So, why would anyone use a much lamer version of it?

The proponents of the PDW will argue that I’m missing the point. Since PDWs are designed for “Second Line” personnel, we can assume that these personnel will not be very good at shooting, and will miss often, so we should give them a weapon that is light and has lots of bullets. The loaded P90 doesn’t give up much weight or bulk on a compact carbine, or even an M4. And spraying wild panic fire is a sign of poor training. But even if we were doing that, assault rifles were designed to perform the same function: to provide conscripts with effective automatic firepower that could also reach out to the longest normal infantry combat ranges (3-400m). Conscripts aren’t very good at shooting, but we gave them effective rounds anyway. Bullets should do their jobs if we (or luck) do ours. We got rid of submachine guns for general issue a while ago because they don’t do anything that a carbine can’t, and submachine guns at least share rounds with pistols. An M4 or Mk. 18 can spray and pray with the best of them, and it’s round is significantly more effective than either 9mm or 5.7mm. And while the 30 round standard assault rifle magazine is smaller than the 50 rounds in the P90, “second line” personnel can share 5.56 with the “front line” personnel. They can’t share 5.7. The logistics gains plus combat efficacy if those rounds hit mean that the smart buy is the carbine.

Sorry, Stargate fans.

1.) Some might say were forced, but not I.

Parvusimperator Reviews the SCAR-16S

Posted by

I picked up a SCAR 16S a few weeks ago. I got it because I wanted a factory carbine in 5.56mm that wasn’t an AR-15–I have a few AR-15s already, and I really enjoy putting together AR-15 project guns. And if I wanted something different, I was going to get something significantly different. Plus, the SCAR 16 was the coolest gun in the world when I was in high school. I wanted one so bad. Well, now I have one.1 What’s it like, and how does it stack up to a comparable AR-15?

The SCAR was designed by FN for SOCOM. It was to be the ultimate carbine for their requirements, replacing the Mk. 12 CQBR, the M4 and the Mk. 18 SPR. It was intended to be highly modular, and featured a quick-change barrel. The SCAR 16 shares 90% of its parts with its big sister, the SCAR 17, which is chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO. Currently, SOCOM is focused it’s resources on buying the SCAR 17, since it’s hard to find anything quite as good in 7.62 NATO, and they can get M4s for “free.”2 A variant of the SCAR, the FN Advanced Carbine, was entered in the individual carbine competition, but that competition was cancelled. The SCAR has proven reliable and popular with SOCOM, especially with the SEALs. However, it hasn’t been a big enough improvement over the M4 (which itself is improving) to warrant procurement by Big Army. Enough history, let’s get on to the civvie version!

Disclaimer: A SCAR is not an AR-15.

You might think this is totally obvious, but I think it bears repeating. People are used to AR-15s, and a lot of SCAR reviews out there call out the SCAR for not being 100% AR-15-like. Well of course it’s not. If you want an AR-15, go buy one of those. I love AR-15s. I think they’re great. I won’t stop you. But this is different in a lot of ways–some good, some bad.

The SCAR 16S is chambered in 5.56x45mm, and comes with a 16″ lightweight barrel. Works for me. It’s 1.5″ longer than the standard barrel length in the military version, but I have to deal with the NFA and they don’t. Also unlike the military version, it comes with the excellent FSC556 muzzle brake instead of a flash hider. Since it’s got a 16″ barrel, muzzle devices can be swapped by the owner if desired. Otherwise, it’s basically the same gun as the military version.

THE GOOD
The stock is pretty awesome. Since there’s no buffer tube,3 the stock can fold. It’s also telescoping, and has a nifty adjustable cheek riser. The SCAR can be fired while the stock is folded, which makes you feel cool. And also, kinda goofy. The stock has six positions of telescoping goodness, and the riser has two positions. I’ve heard stories that soldiers had issues with the stock breaking. I’m not sure how much of this is because soldiers can break anything, and how much is due to engineering problems that have been worked out but mine is pretty sturdy. I haven’t actually tried to smash it to bits or do anything stupid with it like break rocks, but I also haven’t babied it. I’m no soldier, so take that as you will.

I like the reciprocating charging handle. You can mount it on the left or the right side of the gun. Some people have scraped knuckles on their optic when using it, but this hasn’t happened to me. I have an Aimpoint Comp M4S mounted on my SCAR, and I tend to wear gloves at the range. If you don’t wear gloves and have a different optic, your results might be different. Some people have also complained that the charging handle has hit their hand while shooting. I’m not honestly sure how this can happen if you’re not trying to make it happen, but maybe that’s because I don’t hold my carbine like a complete moron. I’ve also not seen anyone post a picture anywhere of their hand position when the charging handle hit it. The reciprocating charging handle makes diagnosing whether your magazine is empty or if your weapon has jammed easy. Plus it makes locking the bolt back for administrative or remedial action simple. On the left side, you can pull the bolt back, and with your hand palm down, can trip the bolt catch to lock the bolt in position with your thumb. Simple, convenient, one-handed operation.

The bolt catch is only on the left side of the gun, but the safety and mag release are ambidextrous out of the box. As mentioned before, the charging handle can be configured on the left or the right side, per the user’s preference. The safety is nicer than the AR-15, since the 45 degree position is fire, not the 90 degree one. The shorter throw is nicer to work with. I know, it sounds silly, but it still works better. It’s a bit nicer for the military, since full auto is at the 90 degree position rather than the 180 degree one. Triggerwise, there’s a “combat trigger” in there that’s designed to resist abuse and desert sand and always trip a primer. So it’s not bad, but it’s not good. It’s a trifle gritty and somewhat heavy. There are aftermarket triggers from Geissele and Timney that make things better, of course.

Unlike a lot of the higher-end AR-15s, the SCAR comes with a quality set of folding backup iron sights. The rear sight is adjustable for range and windage, and has two apertures. The front sight is mounted conveniently on the gas block. Minor annoyance: it blocks the front of the picatinny rail, so you can’t slide an accessory over it. Most things you’d want to mount on the top rail don’t need to slide on like that, but there it is.

I should also mention the quick-change barrel. I think the military may like this one more than me. It takes me a long time to shoot out a barrel, and I don’t often think of swapping them. However, I do like that I don’t need a vise to remove or replace a barrel, unlike when working with the AR-15. It’s a minor thing, but the design is cool, and it saves me having to figure a way to improvise a vise in my apartment.

THE BAD
First thing I’m going to call FN out on here is being cheap. The gun came to me in a cardboard box, with some cardboard padding. Lame. With an MSRP well north of two grand, the least they could do is throw in a halfway decent plastic case. Ideally, it’d be a lockable travel-ready case, but I’d settle for almost anything nicer than this lame cardboard thing. It’s not even a cool looking box.

They’re cheap again with the stupid A2-type pistol grip. No one likes these. They’ve got a nub in a stupid place. This is an expensive gun intended for civilians. Would it kill you to put a better grip on there? There are lots available, and while preferences vary, almost all of them are better than the basic A2. It’s something the premium-ARs tend to get right. First thing I changed was the lame grip. Fortunately, AR-type grips work on it, so I grabbed one and made the switch.

The SCAR is in some ways stuck in the early 2000s. Just like the stock M4, it comes with seven inches of handguard space. This is enough for your hand. There’s room for accessories, but it gets a little cramped. You also don’t have much choice in where you’re going to put your hand. AR-15 ergonomics have moved on so people can grip out further if they want, and so that there’s more space for hands and accessories. For the record, this is why so many military guys went to vertical foregrips. Once they loaded their M4s with all their kit, there wasn’t enough room left for their hands. Being a civilian, I don’t have this much crap to hang off my gun. I might like to get my support hand out a bit more though. There are extensions, but they add weight forward. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch, and the SCAR is probably heavier than most AR-15 carbines out of the box. That said, I might give a handguard extension a try.

THE ENGINEERING
Clearly, the SCAR doesn’t use the same sort of operation as the AR-15. The SCAR is tappet driven: gas drives a small piston which smacks the bolt carrier assembly and drives it backwards. The bolt carrier assembly is reassuringly beefy, and most of the weight is above the bolt. Since there’s no gas flow required, the bolt itself is pretty thick and sturdy. It doesn’t have any obvious narrow points where stress issues might arise. Field stripping is easy, and requires no tools. Those of you who have seen pictures of the SCAR might note that the different shades of tan don’t match. This is by deliberate request of SOCOM, as it’s supposed to break up the outline of the rifle. I have no idea if this actually works.

SHOOTING THE SCAR 16S
It’s a light recoiling carbine. Duh. The FSC556 muzzle brake does a great job of helping you keep the rounds on target. Unsurprisingly, the recoil impulse is different from that of the AR-15, but it’s not unpleasant, like any other carbine. It handles well, and while shooting with the stock folded isn’t very practical, it puts a big grin on your face. I’ve found that even though I’m not using a thumb over barrel grip, the Magpul AFG is pretty comfortable on the handguard. The trigger snob in me would like a better trigger, but this one is serviceable. I’ve shot many worse triggers (mostly courtesy of Fishbreath).

VALUE COMPARISON
I’m not going to compare the SCAR to a quality entry level AR-15 like the M&P15 sport or the Colt LE6920. Those are much cheaper and still shoot 5.56mm, but don’t have any rails or quality furniture. No, such things aren’t necessary, but they’re nice. And I always think cross-market comparisons are stupid. If you’re thinking about a SCAR, you might be wondering how it compares to the premium AR-15 options. Even though we take away most of the price differential, the AR-15 has been out longer and is very popular, so it’s got a lot more development. There are a number of modular handguard options, which are lighter, but tend to get hot faster. Pretty classic tradeoff. The SCAR’s handguard is sturdier, since there’s no joint. But, you’re pretty much stuck with it. The AR has more ergo options, but the SCAR has a better manual of arms for troubleshooting. Overall, the AR-15 is a more mature platform, so if you only had to get one, I’d tell you to go that route. Probably. But the SCAR is way cooler, and if you already have an AR-15 (or several), or just like the SCAR, you can’t go wrong with one.

1.) Okay, I have a civvie semiauto-only one. Shut up, it’s still awesome.
2.) By “free”, I mean paid for by the parent service, not the SOCOM branch. E.g. paid for by the US Navy, but out of the big budget, not that of the SEALs.
3.) Remember that part where it’s NOT an AR-15?

Pistol Project Plan: Rock the Glock

Posted by

I’m a Glock guy. The first handgun I ever got, after getting a stupidly-hard to get NY State pistol permit was a Glock 19 Gen4. And I love it. Since then, I’ve gotten a bunch of other Glocks. I’ve got a Glock 17 Gen4, and I wanted to make this my latest project gun. First, let’s talk a little Glock history, and why I like them so much.

Gaston Glock designed his pistol to meet the needs of the Austrian Army for a new service handgun to replace the Walther P38. Gaston brought in a number of pistol experts to help him with his design; he was not a pistolsmith by training but brought extensive experience in advanced synthetic polymers, which would go into the construction of the pistol. The fancy glass-reinforced plastics used in the frame of the Glock pistol helped drive costs down, and since there are only four small points of metal-on-metal contact between the slide and the frame, Glocks don’t require much lube. Gaston also introduced ferritic nitrocarburizing as an anticorrosion treatment. The result was a pistol whose reliability and durability would become legend. The Glock 17 (so called because it was the seventeenth design), beat out the HK P7M8, HK P7M13, HK P9S, SiG-Sauer P220, SiG-Sauer P226, Beretta 92SF-B, an updated FN Hi-Power, and the Steyr GB. The Glock 17 was also accepted into Norwegian and Sweedish service shortly after winning the Austrian competition. The US DoD was even interested in trialing the pistol in their competition, but the DoD requirements would have meant retooling production in a short timeframe, so Glock declined.

So that’s why everyone loves the Berreta 92, right? The US Army called that gun the M9, and it became the most popular 9mm semiautomatic in Ameri–oh, wait. No, it didn’t. How did Glock do it? Once they had a whole bunch of NATO member military contracts in the bag, they went after the American law enforcement market with gusto. And their timing couldn’t be better. See, it was the 80s, and it was starting to dawn on the police forces of America that six rounds of .38 in a wheelgun and another six in a speedloader in your pocket wasn’t quite enough firepower1. Officers were looking to trade up, and Glock was ready with a super reliable pistol that was tolerant of neglect and could be made way cheaper than the steel-framed competition. Plus, Glock (possibly to overcome the language barrier or something), set up a pretty savvy marketing department, sending plenty of friendly reps to departments. Many of their reps were former police officers, and they brought tons of new pistols to try out on the range, along with plenty of swag. They offered low cost guns and top dollar for trades to appease the accountants, and were easy to get in touch with. So they captured market share in a big way. Currently, something like 65% of US Law Enforcement uses Glocks, including the FBI. Glock pistols are also super popular among the competitive shooter crowd, being the most popular brand by far at USPSA matches.

Glock currently makes pistols in about any reasonable pistol caliber you could want, and a couple oddball ones like 10mm Auto, and they’ve updated their pistols to bring new features to the consumer. Their current models are the Gen4 line, and it brings a bunch of notable improvements. Let’s take a look, and I’ll compare the Glocks to my M&Ps where appropriate. The Gen4s have backstraps now, with two different sizes (medium and large, “small” is accomplished sans backstrap), and they also have two backstraps with a beavertail, in case you get slidebite. Or you may just find those suit you better. Some people (including Fishbreath) aren’t really a fan of Glock’s grip angle. I personally don’t really care, though I’ve actually found myself getting back on target faster with Glocks when compared to other polymer framed handguns, so maybe it helps me keep muscle tension or something. In any case, you can change it now. The backstraps aren’t quite as good at changing the gun size as the M&P ones are, as they do nothing about the girth of the grip. This is not a problem for me, as I have large hands (I use the ‘large’ size backstraps). Others may find this an issue.

The Gen4 Glocks also have introduced a new texture on the grip. It’s much more aggressive than the old texture, or than the texture on the M&P grip, and I find this a significant win for the Glock. I like grippy, aggressively textured guns, and Glocks currently oblige me. If I wanted, I could have the grip stippled, but the current Gen4 texture serves me fine. It’s also not so aggressive that it will tear your hands apart after a long day of shooting.

Glock sights are, frankly, awful. They’re the white-dot-in-a-U design, which I guess is popular in Europe. I do not like them. They are cheap, and are bad enough to make some kind of sight replacement almost a requirement. This might almost be a service to the consumer, as there are many far better sight options out there. In this case, I’ll be getting my slide milled for an RMR, because red dots are awesome, and my M&P proved how good the setup was. If I wanted something else, I could get it for a Glock.

Ubiquity is something that’s great about Glocks. Anything you want for them, you can get for them. Holsters and sights and other accessories come to Glock first, because they’re so common. And Glock magazines, being made of metal-lined plastic, are stupid cheap, and easy to find on sale. More mags is always good, because magazines are a disposable commodity item. Mags wear out. Stock up.

While Glock beats out the M&P in terms of ubiquity, the M&P still takes second place, and is by no means bad (Seriously, compare prices of M&P40 mags with those for, say, a PX4). However, the Glock soundly beats the M&P on the stock trigger front. The M&P stock trigger, as I’ve mentioned, is a mushy mess. The Glock trigger is perfectly reasonable, especially considering that it has to be safe. There’s takeup, which is decently smooth. There’s some mush here, but it’s not altogether bad. Break is somewhere between the crisp and rolling variety. Finally, the reset is crisp and offers both audible and tactile feedback. The Glock trigger is not as good as a 1911 trigger, full stop. On the other hand, it doesn’t have a manual safety like a 1911, and it’s a lot cheaper than any actually worthwhile 1911. Technically, it’s a very light double action only trigger, that’s about two-thirds of the way precocked. Some trigger weight and resistance comes from the fact that you’re still doing a little bit of the cocking work on the striker with your trigger pull. Despite the downsides, the Glock trigger is firmly in the ‘good enough’ camp, and is more or less the standard for comparison.

There are a ton of fancy light competition triggers out there, as well as some parts to make the pull heavier if you want it to feel like an old school double-action only revolver (like the NYPD). I don’t much like making my triggers worse, and I shoot the stock one fine. Since I like to carry most of my Glocks, I won’t switch to a lighter trigger. The stock one is safe. I may try one of the fancy competition kits on my Glock 34 though.

On the M&P, I ended up swapping out the mag release for an extended one. The Glock Gen4 comes with an extended magazine release which is about perfect. It’s long enough to be easily pushed without switching your grip, but short enough that you won’t accidentally trip it when it’s in the holster. It’s a good compromise between a giant competition button and the tiny things that usually come on handguns. I see no reason to change it.

The Glock slide stop is a touch smaller than the one on the M&P. It is not ambidextrous, which isn’t as nice. Not shooting lefty most of the time, I don’t care. And I can always trip it with my trigger finger or slingshot the slide if I’m shooting weak-side. I will say that despite the minor-looking change on the factory “extended” slide stop that comes on the Glock 34 (really, it’s more of a reshaping than anything else), it’s actually a big improvement over the stock one for manipulations. I’ll probably get that upgrade for the rest of my Glocks.

Okay, I know you’re dying to know: which do I like more? That’s tough, but I think the Glock wins out overall. The stock trigger is better, even after applying the upgrade kit to the M&P. There are a lot more possible trigger upgrades for the Glocks, even though that’s not really my thing. Plus, I like the grippier frame better.

1. See: the 1980 Norco shootout and the 1986 Miami shootout, which I’ll probably do a write-up of someday.