Tag Archives: reviews

Fishbreath Plays Total War: Warhammer

Posted by

I fear we are too late.

Under the High King’s banner, we drove the grobi scum out of the halls of our ancestors. We chased them through the badlands and put them to the az, and now they will never trouble us again. Our diplomats traveled the whole of the world, drawing together the karaks and reforging the alliances of old. We stood side by side with men for the first time in a thousand years.

But while we looked south, Chaos fell on the world from the north. Kislev fell. Nordland teeters on the brink. Men fought men in the Empire’s heartland, and now tendrils of darkness reach the very gates of Altdorf.

The High King looks north now. Umgi and dawi alike are united under his command. So we march to the lands of men, az in hand, to face those who would bring about the end of all things—servants and champions of the dark gods.

The Empire is a shadow of its old self. The Wood Elves still make war on all who stand for order. Their stubbornness may yet doom us all. We are the world’s last hope.

– Elmador Oathforged

Warhammer is an excellent setting for storytelling.

You should need no further convincing, but in the event you do, let me elaborate. From its rather humble beginnings as a miniatures wargame, Warhammer Fantasy Battles1 developed a world full of timeless themes for war stories: dramatic final stands against insurmountable odds, the evil horde sweeping through the world to eradicate all that is good and right, brave men standing athwart the tide.

Total War games are story generators. Perhaps they aren’t as effective in that role as Crusader Kings 2, but they nevertheless make interesting alternate histories. Note I say ‘interesting’, as in, ‘huh, that’s interesting’, and not ‘compelling’, as in, ‘I cannot wait to see where this goes next’. Previous Total War games were interesting, but not compelling. Factions aren’t all that different, generals are more or less interchangeable, your enemies are the ones next to you, and your territory is whatever you can take.

Not so much in Total War: Warhammer. Factions are very different—some depend on siege weapons, some depend on strong infantry, some depend on movement and trickiness, and all feel almost like different games. Generals have a deep skill tree, and that helps to turn them from collections of bits into characters. (I didn’t even have to start the game to look up General Oathforged’s name.) Your enemies may be across the world. Chaos, remember, comes out of the north, and the dwarfs start in the south. You can’t take territory willy-nilly, either. Most factions have some territorial restrictions. Dwarfs, for instance, can only occupy territory which was originally dwarfen: the settlements in the central plains are right out, but old dwarfen settlements occupied by the greenskins are fair game.

Ultimately, though, the thing Total War: Warhammer has over previous Total War games is its setting. It probably isn’t quite correct to say that everyone knows Warhammer, but a lot of people know Warhammer. There are more people familiar with Warhammer, I would say, than the 18th-century history of the Netherlands2. Even if the numbers were equal, the Warhammer setting is a fictional setting. By their very nature, fictional settings generate stories more easily than historical ones. This isn’t to say that there aren’t interesting stories out of the Netherlands’ exploits in the 1800s—just that they aren’t as memorable or as frequent as the stories out of the dawi’s fight against the grobi, or the Empire’s strife with its neighbors, or the coming together of all the civilized peoples to stand against Chaos.

So, when compared to other Total War games, Total War: Warhammer has much deeper emotional impact because of its setting. Game systems reinforce this: I’m not just fighting a war of conquest, I’m fighting wars of conquest to rebuild the Karaz Ankor and reclaim what was lost to dwarfkind thousands of years ago. Or, I’m not just beating up on my neighbors to take their stuff, I’m beating up on my neighbors because they are to the south, they won’t stop fighting me until they’re defeated, Chaos is to the North, and the Empire is the first and best line of defense against the Ruinous Powers. Or, I’m not just swarming up out of the badlands because I’m looking for a scrap—well, okay. Maybe the greenskins aren’t the best example, but even if they do fight just for the sake of fighting, they have a reason for it. It’s what they do: beat up on anyone small enough to take a beating, then find the next biggest thing, rinse, and repeat.

That, in my opinion, is what previous Total War games were missing, and what Total War: Warhammer has in spades: context.

To hit on a few final, technical notes, battles play quickly, moreso than even the relatively quick games in recent Total War history, but the factions are varied, tactics are interesting, and the AI has a great sense for cavalry flanking maneuvers. The Creative Assembly finally got to cut loose and have some fun, and it shows here. Presentation is generally superb all around; the writers nailed the Warhammer feel, and the art design follows along. There are some spectacular battle maps, too.

Really, it’s the perfect union of theme and mechanics. I’m glad it took this long to happen, because they got it very right. Ordinarily, when I’m looking forward to a game, I build up a picture in my head of what it’ll be like. That picture is usually not altogether accurate, so when the game finally comes out, there’s a time of adjustment. The game may not be bad, but it isn’t what I’m expecting, and so in a sense, I’m disappointed. I never had that feeling with Total War: Warhammer: it is everything I had hoped it would be. If you like games that generate stories, the Total War formula, or Warhammer, you owe it to yourself to give it a whirl.

  1. May it ride eternal, shiny and chrome!
  2. Fun fact: your author’s next favorite Total War game is Empire, because he likes to be contradictory.

Fishbreath Plays: Train Simulator vs. American Truck Simulator

Posted by

If you caught the most recent episode of The Crossbox Podcast, you may recall that I cited these two games as examples of a genre I don’t quite understand. (I’ve come to call it the Podcast Screensaver genre1.) At the same time, I said I kind of understood the appeal of Train Simulator. Namely, driving a train is at least a little unusual. Driving a truck on a highway is a little too similar to my daily commute.

Predictably—inevitably—further experience has made me change my tune.

What makes a good entry in the Podcast Screensaver genre? It needs to take a little attention, but not so much that you can’t follow the thread of the podcast. It should present occasional challenges—if it doesn’t, it ceases to be a game in the Podcast Screensaver genre, and you might as well just watch a screensaver. Ideally, it should be immersive. Most importantly, it should be pleasing to look at.

Let’s go down the list.

Takes a little attention
American Truck Simulator fits the definition more or less perfectly. If you drive a car, you know this. Driving isn’t difficulty, but it does take a constant minimum expenditure of brainpower.

Train Simulator, on the other hand, is a little harder to defend. Driving a train, though it is more exotic than driving a truck, takes basically no attention at all. You have to watch out for signals every mile or two, and if one of them is red, you have to fiddle with some brakes. Things get more complicated if you’re running a steam engine, but not dramatically more complicated.

The distribution of required attention is different, too. A driving game requires a relatively constant amount, whereas a train simulator takes extra thought when you’re coming up to a signal: you have to squint through the window to see the thing, decide whether or not to brake, and then carry out the action of braking to stop where you want to stop. This is not conducive to paying attention to a second thing. (At least, not for me.) The human mind (or my human mind) is much better at handling two constant cognitive loads (such as driving and listening) than it is at handling one constant load and one highly variable load (such as listening and train driving).

Points, then, to the truck simulator.

Presents occasional challenges
It may perhaps be a result of Train Simulator’s demographic2, or perhaps it is a result of the inherent ease of driving trains3, but Train Simulator is easy. Nor is it only easy because trains are easy. Even the scenarios labeled ‘difficult’ (for example, using a tiny British tank engine to haul a rack of passenger cars up a hill, or using an enormous American gas turbine locomotive to haul a bunch of hopper cars up a different hill, and taking a steam locomotive low on water4 to its next stop) are straightforward. I’ve seen some people on forums complain about the difficulty of these precise scenarios, while I—a train neophyte if ever there was one—had no trouble whatsoever.

American Truck Simulator is also not all that difficult, provided you’ve driven a vehicle with a trailer before. That said, there are some places where it is honestly hard, mostly relating to maneuvering trailers in tight spaces, whether they be right-angle corners or narrow loading docks.

Again, points to the truck simulator.

Is immersive
Immersion is, of course, subjective, and I can see how it might go either way. For the particular games I’ve played (American Truck Simulator and Train Simulator with 2016 and 2017 routes), it comes to a coin toss.

I’ve done a little bit of driving in the American Southwest, and ATS gets that right on a reliable basis. Sunrise and sunset are also super-pretty, and the sound design is excellent. That said, Train Simulator’s Sherman Hill route also has things to recommend it, and in fact, the scenario I played there obscures one of Train Simulator’s biggest flaws.

Is pretty
This, unfortunately, is where Train Simulator falls down a bit. In terms of graphics and audio design, it lags far behind American Truck Simulator5. For a game in the Podcast Screensaver genre, visual and aural beauty are non-negotiable. The whole idea is that, while your brain is mostly focused on listening to something, you have a pleasant background scene to enjoy. If the background scene is ugly, then it all falls apart.

As I mentioned, there are moments where Train Simulator looks and sounds good. I was hauling a load of empty hopper cars up Sherman Hill at sunset. A rainstorm was overhead, but it didn’t reach the horizon, and as the sun went down, it lit the scene in a perfect gloomy orange. The sounds for the turbine locomotive I was driving were also excellent, lovely whirring, a bell which rang as clear as itself, and an air horn in the finest tradition of train air horns. Moment to moment, though, I give this one to the truck simulator.

Conclusions
As scored above, the final tally goes to American Truck Simulator, 3-0, with one tie. I should note that the difference is not quite so vast as I make it seem. For instance, the Unreal Engine 4-based Train Sim World, the next in Dovetail Games’ series, is extremely good-looking, and the sound design is just superb. That would pretty handily tip the balance in the ‘pretty’ and ‘immersive’ categories, and suddenly the score is 2-2.

Or is it? If you’ve looked at American Truck Simulator and Train Simulator on Steam, you’ll have noticed a certain crucial difference: price.

American Truck Simulator has a list price of $20. At press time, it’s on sale for $14. Going by European Truck Simulator 2, we might expect DLC prices in the $10-$20 range. Those DLCs massively expand the road network—ETS2 has DLCs for regions like France and Scandinavia—along with new cargo types, which are at least graphically interesting.

Train Simulator, on the other hand, seems bound and determined to extract as much money from its captive audience as possible. A small route runs $20 or $30, and I mean small. That’s about sixty miles of track, generally without any branches off the main line besides sidings. (Some routes, however, do give you a little more for your money. Sherman Hill has two routes over the hill.) You get one to three locomotives and a few types of rolling stock, and that’s it.

In this genre, repetition is bad. The world ought to be big enough so that by the time you see scenery again, you’ve forgotten what it looks like. If the world is small, it should be cheap to expand. Train Simulator has neither quality. American Truck Simulator has both. Buy the latter.

  1. There are evidently two classes of people unlike me: those who can simply sit and listen to a piece of audio-only content, and those who can multitask effectively enough that they need not focus primarily on a piece of audio-only content. If you’re one of those sorts of people, and you still like transport games, please drop me a line as to why.
  2. Let’s face it. On aggregate, train simulator fans are, well, old.
  3. The only major challenge is learning braking distances. Working out how to keep steam up in a steam locomotive is an additional challenge. Otherwise, it’s a vehicle which travels in one dimension, and navigation is done for you at the switching office.
  4. Well, not so low that you can’t make it if you don’t know how to use the water troughs the scenario tells you to use. Which I didn’t. (Neither knew how nor did use.)
  5. At press time, the next iteration in Dovetail Games’ train sim series, Train Sim World, is in preview-beta. Built on Unreal Engine 4, it appears to be quite a lot prettier, and a lot more sonically pleasing, than Train Simulator 2017, which is built on an eight-year-old engine.

F125 Class Frigate

Posted by

Historically, Germany has made some well designed ships in insufficient numbers. Bismarck and Tirpitz were both well designed and well regarded. Bismarck was formidable enough that the Royal Navy issued orders to avoid one-on-one engagements with her.

In general, modern German Frigates1 are high capability ships. I’m quite fond of the Sachsen class, which are excellent ships with a fine SAM suite. Unsurprisingly given the feature set and the small production run, they’re quite expensive. They may or may not be the right choice for you depending on your budget, priorities, and the other ships in your Navy.

But all things must come to an end. And the long chain of well-designed German ships came to an end with the F125 class.

I do not understand the F125 class at all. They’re the biggest “Frigates” in the world, with a displacement of 7,200 tonnes. They are also massively expensive. I am not opposed to large frigates or expensive ships. But I want something for my money. The FREMMs that Fishbreath is fond of and the Sachsens I alluded to earlier are both high capability ships. They’re suitable for any standard mission you might expect from a modern maid-of-all-work from air defense to antisubmarine warfare to land attack to antiship work. The F125s aren’t.

Looking at the F125, it is clear something is missing. And that something is the VLS. The VLS is where you put your surface to air missiles. And, if you’re smart like the Germans, you’ve got a VLS like the Mark 41 that can also take cruise missiles. So the VLS gives your ship the ability to defend itself from incoming antiship missiles and to strike targets over 1,000 miles away. Without it, the F125 is like a clawless, toothless tiger.

The F125 does have the RIM-116 point defense missile system. This is presently the best CIWS in the world. But it is no substitute for proper SAM capability. The CIWS is only able to protect against a small scale attack. It is not capable of contributing to the anti-air umbrella of a task force or providing protection to nearby ships. This might be fine for a small corvette or patrol craft, but the F125 is expensive and important. To put it plainly, the F125 will require escorts, like an aircraft carrier does.

Of course, an aircraft carrier carries aircraft. There’s a reason it has no space for missiles. But the F125 isn’t an aircraft carrier. There are no squadrons of Sea Typhoons ready to scramble from a flight deck. The F125 has one 127mm gun, some smaller remotely operated guns, four RHIBs, a submarine ROV and a pair of helicopters. It has a mere eight Harpoon launchers, and a small crew of only 110. I don’t know what happened to the space. I wish I could tell you.

Such a simple ship should be cheap, but it isn’t. In the tradition of other recent German projects, every gold-plated technological innovation has been thrown at it. The radars are split between the two superstructure islands. Command and control has been split as well. Plus, the ships have plenty of fancy modern stealth shaping. All wasted on a useless hull.

The F125 is optimized for the not very difficult mission of antipiracy hunts off the Horn of Africa. What a spectacular waste of Reichsmarks er, Euros.

1.) Fishbreath would probably quibble about the use of the term Frigate here. Most German frigates follow the European standard of being a destroyer in all but name.

Parvusimperator Reviews Trijicon HD Sights

Posted by

I decided I should replace the stock sights on my PPQ. The PPQ is a really great gun out of the box, but it comes with crappy plastic three dot sights. I don’t like the three dot sight picture, so let’s see what’s on the market.

I could have gone with a black rear and fiber optic front from Dawson, like I did on my VP9, but I wanted something different. Plus, Dawson’s manufacturing tolerances annoy me. The VP9 is made by just one company, HK. With just one set of specs and tolerances. This ain’t no 1911, where dovetail dimensions differ from manufacturer to manufacturer. I understand that adjustment is going to be needed on a 1911. But this is the age of computer aided design and CNC machines. I should not have to spend a large amount of time with files fitting sights to my modern pistol. To hell with that.

Instead, I went with the Trijicon HD Sights. These are an attempt to get sights that work in both high and low light conditions. They have a plain black rear with two tritium lamps, but no white rings around the tritium, so as not to provide distractions. The rear sight also has a wide, U-shaped notch. The front sight has a tritium lamp surrounded by a high-visibility thick plastic ring, in orange or yellow. That ring is made of traditional glow in the dark stuff that gets “charged” with light. As a result of the ring, this is a wide post for the front sight. That’s really been my only hesitation with these. I like narrower fiber optic posts. But, given that the rear sight is commensurately wider, I still get nice broad light bars on either side.

The tritium makes the Trijicon HDs expensive. But Trijicon is at least nice enough to make them for just about everything. In addition to the common guns, namely Glocks and M&Ps, Trijicon makes HDs for SiGs, the PPQ and other Walthers, the VP9 and other HKs, and even Fishbreath’s PX4. Dawson doesn’t even make sights for the PX4.

A quick aside. Mounting sights on the PPQ was super easy. The factory front sight is held on by a small screw that holds two plastic wings apart. To remove, just take out the screw and squeeze the wings with some needle-nose pliers. Done. The replacement front sight is affixed with a screw, like a Glock. I know this is supposed to be less sturdy than a dovetail, but it’s a hell of a lot easier to install.

The rear sight is kind of interesting. There’s a reverse-threaded screw with a square head on the right side of the sight. There’s a spring-loaded detent in the frame that has a slot cut in it to lock in with the screw, and it presses the sight into the square-cut slot. I’m not aware of anyone else who’s done this, and I have no idea how sturdy it is. But since I don’t use my rear sights as a hammer, I’m not too worried. Again, it was super easy to swap out the sights.

Then, I took it to the range to compare it with the aforementioned Dawson sights on the VP9. Both the VP9 and the PPQ have excellent ergonomics and triggers, so I figured this was as good a test as any.

The result was pretty much as I expected. For quick stuff in close-ish, the Trijicon HDs were competitive with the fiber optic for speedy sight acquisition. At range, it was a little harder to focus on the top edge of the sight on the HDs, since the bright dot is quite a bit bigger. Also, the wide front post covers more of a smaller target at range.

I’m a firm believer that for whatever sights you have on your gun, there exists some lighting condition and shooting problem to screw you over. In this case, you get pretty quick acquisition and good low-light capabilities, but make the long distance problems more difficult. It’s a pretty reasonable trade. I really like these as general purpose pistol sights.

Of course, if you aren’t sold on needing/wanting tritium, you can get nice, high visibility sights for a lot less money. This comes down to what are you comfortable with. Which optical conditions do you want to screw you over? Or, you could put a U-Boat1 on your carry gun, and always be ready to illuminate the living daylights out of an obscure target. But then there’s extra weight and bulk to play with.

Unfortunately, the best way to know if sights are right for you is to try them. Happily, some of the nicer gun stores have a set in a countertop display, which is pretty neat. If you want tritium, I don’t know of another commercially available solution to also get high visibility built in, short of having someone custom build them. They’re way better than any other tritium sight I’ve tried.

1.) Surefire X300U

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.

Parvusimperator Reviews the M1 Garand

Posted by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parvusimperator Reviews the Vickers Glock 17 (RTF2)

Posted by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The K21 IFV

Posted by

And now for something a little different. Let’s look at the South Korean K21 IFV.

In a lot of ways, this is an old-school traditional style IFV. It’s lightweight, coming in under 26 tonnes. It’s even amphibious. That said, it has some unique construction features. To keep overall weight down given the protection level (which we’ll get to later), the Koreans use fiberglass for the vehicle structure. This is a first for a military vehicle. And while we don’t know a lot about the long-term durability of fiberglass in a military vehicle, it does keep weight down while not jacking the price up too much. It’s a good idea. The K21 also has two (presumably sectioned) rubber inflatable bladders under the vehicle skirts to provide extra buoyancy and stability in the water. This is much nicer than the giant canvas erectable overskirt on the M2(A0) Bradley. And, it means that the K21 can actually cross rivers, like the BMPs. And, just about nothing else these days.

Protectionwise, the K21 is built for the Korean peninsula. It’s got frontal armor against the 30×165 mm APDS threat that’s likely from North Korean IFVs. The rest is protected against 14.5 mm HMG rounds, and the roof is protected against shell splinters. This armor compromise was likely necessary to achieve amphibious capability, but it’s rather marginal by modern standards, as it lacks extensive RPG protection. It should work in the Korean peninsula, and that’s what matters. I don’t know how much more weight the suspension is rated for, so I don’t know how easy it would be to up-armor the K21. But if we can tack a whole bunch of ERA and applique armor on a Bradley, it could be done here, if we wanted.

Okay, I’m not a fan of the armor. I like heavy. But I do like the armament. The K21 has a 40 mm Bofors clone, complete with a modern MBT-grade fire control suite and full stabilization systems. Big punch. Optics for fire control are like those on the K2 Black Panther, so they’re excellent third-generation thermal viewers and modern laser rangefinders. The commander’s sight is, of course, fully independent. Note that the turret is a conventional, two-man affair. Modern MBT fire control with a big 40 mm autocannon? Yes, please.

Let’s talk a little more about that 40. The 40 mm Bofors round means you comfortably outgun just about every IFV in the world. Aside from a few tank-like things like Namer1, you can kill any IFV you want with frontal hits, and you can punch through any MBT’s turret side. Plus, you get a really big HE shell, and the good folks at Bofors have already developed plenty of advanced rounds for you, including the 3P (Programmable, Proximity-fused, Prefragmented). The downside of course is that the rounds are very big. This is the 40x364R mm round, and it’s a beast. Which means ammunition stowage and handling is a massive pain. In the CV9040, the Swedes have a triple-feed ready rack that holds a whopping 24 ready rounds2, and there’s 210 more in various racks with various levels of accessibility. The ready rack has to be topped off from the semi-ready-rack (which holds 48 rounds) by hand, and then the dismounts have to refill the semi-ready-rack from under the turret basket, where most of the rounds are stored. It’s a massive pain, but it’s workable. If the year is 1935, you can’t do better.

The South Koreans took a different, more modern approach with the K21. They still use the 24 round ready rack, but built an autoloader in the turret floor to replenish it. Underfloor storage is about 200 rounds. The system looks like this:

Neat, huh? Way better than that goofy ikea manual reloading process on the CV9040. This is a 40mm system I can get behind. This will actually let you keep fighting for a while, and with a really powerful round to boot. Be still my beating heart.

The K21 also has a 7.62×51 mm coaxial machine gun. It’s a clone of the M60D. There’s also provision for a two-tube launcher for South Korea’s latest ATGM, but I can’t confirm if these have been fitted yet. Or maybe I just don’t have pictures. This missile should be a lot like the Israeli Spike LR, in being a top-attack, fire-and-forget missile. I don’t know if the Koreans had Israeli help, Israeli licensing, built a copy themselves, or just came to the same conclusions Rafael did about ATGM design. Still, it should be a good missile choice. Much like the Puma, if the Germans would get off their butts and finish the integration already, dammit. Seeing as the South Koreans actually have proximate threats, and they spend Real Money on defense, they’re much more trustworthy on such matters. I wonder what ‘Get ‘er done!’ translates to in Korean…

The K21 does not currently feature any kind of active protection system. The Koreans are planning to integrate that as a follow up. Given the threat level on the Korean peninsula, I approve of this plan. Historically, programs that choose not to do everything immediately, and get a working, good enough version in the field and then add on extras tend to do better. There are plans to integrate a hard-kill active defense system on an improved version in the near future. There are also plans to try to reduce the weight further. All in all, this project actually seems well managed for once.

Dismounts are another area where the K21 shines. It holds nine. NINE! That’s a squad! How can they do this on a 6.9 m long vehicle? Simple, they compromised. Given that the most likely confrontation is a conventional war with North Korea, who’s not likely to bury giant IEDs, the South Koreans stuck with old-school bench seats in the back. They’re not fancy shock-absorbing, blast-resistant seats, but they’re more compact. So you can keep the protected volume (and hence, weight) down, and still carry an actual, usable squad of dismounts. Good on you, Korea! Here’s to real wars and not stupid COIN-y “police actions”.

A word on costs. The K21 costs $3.95 million. Given the electronics, this is a very good price. Almost like good project management helps you come in on budget.

There are some other variants out there that you might be interested in as well. There’s a “medium”2 tank version available with a crew of three and a 105mm low-recoil gun. Perfect for your assault gun needs. It also gives you something with a reasonable gun that can cross rivers with your infantry carriers.

So, what do we think? Well, but for the protection, it’s great! And if it had a hard-kill APS, it might be a reasonable compromise on protection, given that it can float. Armament is great, as is dismount capacity. We’d probably prefer to forget about amphibiousity and load it up with a modern, multilayer ERA kit like what’s on Bradley, and call it good. That gun system is really hard to argue with, especially when you add the ATGM capability. This thing rocks.

1.) Not technically an IFV, but you get the idea.
2.) I would call it a light tank, but medium tank probably looks better in the ad copy. It’s the same weight as a regular K21 and is just as amphibious.

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.

Remote Turret: Russian Epoch

Posted by

We’ve spent some time earlier talking about remote turrets in our analysis of the Land 400 finalists. The German Lance turret is a pretty solid design. The Russians have a fancy new remote turret too. They don’t need to make a design with a bunch of different option s for export, so they settled on a somewhat different feature set. It’s in use on the T-15 Armata Heavy IFV and the Kurganets 25 IFV, so let’s take a look.

Unlike most other remote turrets, this new turret, called the Epoch, is pretty big. Russian big. It also contains a whole bunch of lessons from Russian experiences in Chechnya, as well as American experiences in Iraq. Epoch holds ATGMS, a 30×165 mm cannon and a 7.62x54R mm machine gun. And it’s loaded with ammo. The Bradley’s designers would be proud and jealous. There are 500 (no that’s not a typo) ready rounds of 30 m ammo, plus 2,000 ready rounds of 7.62x54R. Lots of ammo is good. The Russians have tended towards large ammo capacities, and just in case they had second thoughts, watching the American Bradleys go Rambo with their 300 rounds of 25 mm in Iraq convinced them that combining an HE firehose with staying power is aweseome. Reloading is for chumps. For the 30 mm, there’s a 340 round magazine and a 160 round magazine, and a dual-feed system for the 24A2 autocannon. We’d expect the bigger magazine to hold HE.

The autocannon and the coaxially mounted machine gun are both biaxially stabilized, and the turret is electrically driven. More interestingly, the Epoch is designed for high angle fire. This isn’t for indirect fire, this is because the Russians remember insurgents in Grozny hiding on the upper floors of buildings. That’s no place to hide now.

Additionally, the Epoch has provision for four Kornet-EM launchers, with two tubes on either side of the turret. I’m somewhat torn here. On the one hand, these are modern missiles, and four is the right number of missiles. More is better. On the other hand, while it has a relatively large tandem warhead, the Kornet is a laser-beam riding, SACLOS-guided missile that takes a direct flight path. It isn’t top-attack, and that’s just lame. Javelin or Spike would be better here. Even the newest TOW model, the TOW-2B, has an overflight top-attack profile. I really don’t like the idea of directly attacking enemy armor, now that the turret might automatically be rotated to present the strongest armor, and how light composite arrays and multilayer ERA arrays are getting. We’ve just had a nasty urban warfare campaign in Iraq which has convinced everybody to augment the side armor of their tanks. Time for some cleverness in your missile design, KBP.

The Epoch has two obvious sighting units, one for the gunner and an independent one for the commander. They appear to have day and thermal viewing units plus laser rangefinders. I don’t know the magnification levels, and I also don’t know how good the thermal viewers are. Historically, this hasn’t been something the Russians are good at. I don’t know if the sensors are quietly being provided by the French, or if the Russians have finally figured things out. This is probably not a dealbreaker though; as I mentioned in the T-14 review, it’s easy enough to change these out.

Moving on to other questions, the protection levels aren’t published, and don’t appear to be all that heavy. Probably good against machine gun fire and shell fragments, but not much else. This is acceptable, given that it’s unmanned. More protection would be better so a support fires kill by enemy IFVs is harder to achieve. It’d be hard to augment it much further given how many systems are externally mounted.

Overall though, this turret is a really good design. I like built-in combat persistence, and most of my serious gripes would be easy enough to work around. Here’s another good, modern design.