I'm not a fan boy. I actually run from fads and the latest trends. There are parts of modern Americana that I intentionally avoid simply because they are mainstream. I avoid hype and prefer instead to come to decisions on my own, weighing the experiences and opinions of others as influential to mine, but not dictatorial. However, there are times when the personal decisions I reach after careful consideration, intersect with trends and conventional wisdom. That doesn't mean I'm following the trend, it simply means the decision I made was a decision many others made, but I could have arrived there for different reasons. As one example, I made the decision to purchase a solar panel system for my house. All the advertisements told me this was the "smart" decision to make to offset my carbon footprint etc. I don't care about all that, I made the decision for financial and lifestyle reasons; to save money over time, and to ensure I have power when the local distribution system fails. Yes, my house is powered by solar, but for none of the reasons many others are making that same decision for.
In a similar way, I intentionally avoided owning the most popular pistol brand of modern times, simply because everyone said I should buy one. I'm looking at you, Glock. While I am the type of person who makes decisions for himself based on careful research and gathering of facts, and those facts supported the reason for Glock's popularity, it was the fanboys like a friend who told me "there's no reason to buy anything but a Glock," that made me not want to be "one of them." So, I told myself, I would never own a Glock so I wouldn't be confused as one of those people who simply follows the trend. I didn't want people I respected to confuse me with fanboys like my "Glocks-only" friend. Fast forward and now I do own a Glock, but I made that purchase for my own reasons, to fit my personal needs and to satisfy my curiosity, rather than based on widespread hype. In fact, one of the reasons I made that purchase, was because I live in California, and my preferred choices are no longer available. So, now I'm one of the millions of people who have made that same decision, but it wasn't for the hype factor. In fact, my Glock spends most of it's days in it's safe.
Enter the .300 AAC or .300 Blackout. Along comes this cartridge and the blogs and YouTube channels ignited with two camps; one declaring this the next-best thing in the evolution of the black rifle, while the other side was busy calling this new cartridge the latest "fad" that has no practical use and will soon die out. That later story resonated with the non-conformist side of me, and I didn't take notice. At the same time, there have been a growing number of blogs and YouTube channels among some of the most respected names in the firearms community, who are genuinely excited about the .300 AAC, and promptly demonstrate the factual merits of the cartridge and related platforms with videos, gel tests, ammo reviews, hunting stories etc. Naturally, those voices captured my interest, but the growing popularity and some of the outlandish claims by YouTubers about the 300 Blackout, also set off the "fan boy" alarms in my head.
I've been long debating my next rifle purchase, and I'm in the market for a larger caliber rifle round that can help me bridge the gap between target shooting and home defense, into the world of hunting. I'm an AR guy through and through, but I'm intrigued by the 7.62x39 AK-47 round. I'm not a hunter, but would like to get into that at some point. The AR10 platform is very interesting to me, but also very expensive, time is short in CA, and buying yet another platform like an AR 10 means also stocking up on more expensive ammo, magazines, and the related accessories that go with that. So what does a guy like me do? I research.
Again, I hate fads...but those I truly respect as authorities in this industry, like Hickok45, IV8888, Military Arms Channel (MAC), and others, are showing the real and practical value of this new design. That includes effective velocity and penetration for personal defense, the economy of a common platform and interchangeable parts with ARs (except the barrel), and the effectiveness at both hog and deer hunting. Others, including Nutnfancy, are publishing videos basically berating the .300 Blackout, saying it falls within a niche category that doesn't really compare with it's two closest relatives; the 5.56 and the .308. In his recent commentary on the round, Nutn basically categorized adopters of the 300 AAC as ignorant, gaming junkies who don't understand or operate in reality. Well, I don't want to be one of them. Nutn further explained that he couldn't effectively reach out at long distances in the field (with wind), as he could easily do with the .308 round, thus questioning, "why bother?" In fact just this morning I read an article on a mainstream gun site (and one I generally respect) that outright stated the 300 Blackout is already a failure and doomed to disappear soon. They claimed it isn't good enough for personal defense or hunting because it's too slow, and it's too expensive for plinking, so it's basically of no use. Ironically, the blog stated the .300 Blackout or .300 AAC isn't effective in the personal defense mission, because it's ballistics are more like a "pistol caliber." Clearly, the author of that article doesn't know what they are talking about. My initial response to that read was, "really, and how many case studies do we have to base that opinion from? How many times was a home intruder shot with a .300 AAC bullet, and walked away to live another day? Why has the AK-47 platform which has basically the same ballistics as the 300 Blackout been the mainstay for half of the globe for so long? How many deer hunts has this author been on where the deer simply shook off that .300 AAC shot to it's neck? How is a velocity of nearly 2000 feet per second by a .30 caliber bullet any less effective than a .45 ACP which travels at subsonic speeds?" You see my challenge? There's spectrum is covered from legitimate interest, to skepticism, to outlandish claims. What's a gun buyer to do? Well...consider my personal requirements.
Rather than jump into the battle about why this or why not that, I'm simply going to share what makes sense for me personally. My story, and why I'm interested in, and actively building my .300 AAC platform.
Here's where it started for me. I'm not a hunter...yet. I'm gearing up for that, but haven't arrived just yet. Even when I get there, I don't anticipate hunting so often that I'll need to maintain a highly-tuned and dedicated hunting rifle with all the accessories that go with that. Those of you who have purchased firearms know what I mean. I could go buy a Ruger American in .308 for under $400. In addition to the rifle, I'll need safe space, slings, cases, optics, cleaning materials, magazines etc. Maybe that's the right decision for many people. I want to make my purchasing decisions with the future in mind, and I inform my mindset from actual fact, so I've chatted with people who have actually done what I hope to do. So, what are my actual needs for entering the hunting world? I've learned from actual hunters, that they most often take their game (birds, deer, elk, hogs) from within 100 yards. In fact one hunter recently told me that he recently took a deer at about 10 yards, and has never taken a shot in his life beyond 100 yards (in the field). Another hunter told me he took a deer recently at about 200 yards with a .30-06, but hesitated to take the shot because of the distance; he too prefers closer to 100 yards. I've also spent a lot of time in the wilderness where game are found, and the forests are dense with the exception of the occasional open prairie or valley, re-affirming the concept of moderate ranges for practical hunting. If you talk to hunters, they'll probably direct you to the .30-06 as an all-around round, although they will admit that the .308 is probably more than sufficient for most scenarios. In fact for north America hunting, the .308 will fit your needs almost all of the time (according to national hunting organizations and published guidelines for large game hunting). So, I learned that a 30 caliber round is sufficient, and I should plan to shoot around the 100 yard mark. That's what I "need." What about, what I have, and who I am?
So far, my collection consists of pistol caliber, shotgun, and small caliber rifle loads. That includes .44 magnum which can be a viable hunting round within the 100 yard mark (possibly further). Don't believe me? Read up on why the .44 magnum cartridge exists. I could use that .44 mag rifle for deer hunting, but I'd like to keep that rifle setup for target shooting and fun, and "hunting" rounds for the .44 mag come in at about $1.00 a piece. My current collection also means I'm already experienced in the lesser recoil world (aside from the 00 and slug shotgun experiences). If I need to send something huge downrange, I'll launch a 1 oz. slug, but each of those shots comes with a shock to my system. It's not exactly fun to become proficient with deer slugs. I'm also an AR owner. I love that platform for all the reasons you probably do as well, and I have more invested in that platform than any other. It's America's Rifle isn't it? I also live in Southern California where the biggest game I'm most likely to encounter would be deer, and potentially predators like mountain lions and black bears. I'm also cost conscious and can't buy a rifle for every possible scenario. The collector side of me does want to maintain a few firearm technologies just for the sake of having them, but I also need to limit my purchases.
Did I mention I also live in California? The political dictators of this state are arguably the most anti-second amendment that exist in the world. As of 2016, I'm looking at a looming set of anti-gun laws that are about to take effect, and if the political trend of this state continues, it's bound to get worse. The anti-gun laws here mean my platform and technology options are limited, and as of 2019, I may not be able to purchase ammunition any longer. That means every purchase matters, a lot, and every firearm comes in at or above suggested retail price. I have to consider the fact that it's difficult to purchase firearms, ammunition, and accessories, and it's become more and more difficult every year. Over the next year or so, I'll be reloading, possibly 100% of my ammunition. That means I'll need to consolidate materials and calibers as much as possible.
All that combined means the .308 bullet and a platform for it are on my list. That .308 round is a good all-around load. Don't believe me? Then why "scout rifle" concept? Anyway, what I don't need is a rifle that can reach out to 600 yards (or really even beyond 200 yards) with the same accuracy and energy as a traditional bolt action rifle chambered in .308. So again, something that mixes well with my experiences and resources, gets me access to the hunting world, but doesn't launch me into a more difficult circumstance given CA laws.
Enter the .300 AAC or .300 Blackout. Can I hunt with it? May say yes, but consider, if hunting with a .44 magnum is considered effective within 100 yards, and those bullet velocities are under 2000 FPS, then a .300 Blackout with the right bullet design within 100 yards at velocities close to or exceeding 2000 FPS should be more than sufficient. Is it economical? You bet. I can re-use one of my existing AR platforms with a quick upper swap, or a quick barrel replacement, so I can convert one of my existing rifles into an intermediate range hunting rifle. I don't need another platform. I can have a .300 upper at the ready for those rare hunting trips I do plan to take, or I can leave that .300 upper on for plinking and target shooting at my range. At around $0.50 per round for the 300 AAC via Freedom Munitions, I can have fun and not go broke. Sure, a Ruger American in .308 is under $500, but add a legitimate optic for that, and you are closer to $800, plus magazines, plus the reloading or ammo supplies that come with a unique platform and cartridge. With the .300 AAC, I can re-use an existing AR, or buy another AR that I can also re-use with the 5.56 if I want to. .300 AAC cartridges also fit into my existing AR mags, so no need to stock up on new magazines, and when I do buy a new mag, I can use it for either caliber for my ARs. Even better, since I'm planning to shoot within 100 yards, I don't need a magnified optic, but even if I choose to, a $200 Vortex beats the cost of a new rifle any day. Then there's the ammunition components. 5.56 and .300 AAC share the same primers, powder, and case...only difference is the bullet and the shape of the case. That creates flexibility again in my supplies and extends the potential uses of my investments. The only new component I need to buy is the .308 bullet. That's much cheaper than brass. What about personal/home defense? Are you kidding? If someone is comfortable going to war with an AK-47, or a Beretta 92 FS in 9mm, or a MP-5, then I'm comfortable defending my life and liberty with a .300 AAC. The ballistics have proven that viability. If the law enforcement community is comfortable with an M&P or Glock in 9mm or .40, aka pistol calibers, then I'm ok going bigger and faster with a .300 AAC. Will it penetrate type 4 body armor? No, but neither can the 5.56.
So, why a .300 AAC / Blackout for me? It just makes perfect sense financially and practically. For those who say you can't hunt with .300 AAC because of distance, I ask why pistol cartridge lever action rifles or revolvers for that matter have been used for so long with such success, and I ask why in the world the .44 magnum cartridge was created in the first place. I also ask, what on average is the distance of your shot in the field? For those who claim the .300 AAC isn't good enough for personal defense, I ask, then why do law enforcement officers carry pistols? Would you be willing to stand in front of a .44 magnum or even a .357 magnum round fired within 15 yards with follow-up shots coming more rapidly than you can crank out with your bolt action .30-06? I doubt it.
Let's be real. The .300 AAC is a great invention. It provides an economical and effective bridge between personal defense, sport shooting, and hunting, all on America's favorite platform and using most of that platform's same components. The one legitimate argument I have heard against the .300 Blackout is the availability and price of ammunition. I'll give you that. It's more expensive to shoot than 5.56 and harder to find sometimes than .22 LR. Let's hope that changes soon.
Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Firearms Myth 12: Magazine Capacity Restrictions Work
This video says it all. Liberal Democrats, especially in California, continue to tell us that murderers and terrorists can be stopped or their murderous rampages reduced if we restrict magazine capacity to only 10 rounds. This video destroys that myth. There's really nothing more that I can say.
Limiting magazine capacity does nothing to protect the innocent, it only enables the murders around us while restricting law abiding citizens from effective defense.
2A Safely
Limiting magazine capacity does nothing to protect the innocent, it only enables the murders around us while restricting law abiding citizens from effective defense.
2A Safely
Firearms Myth 11: Gun Laws Prevent Terrorists from Murdering Innocent People
I know, it's absurd. It's ridiculous that I have to correct the record because of those who claim that gun laws and restrictions imposed upon law abiding citizens would prevent terrorists from committing mass murder. After all, murder and terrorism are already illegal, right? We have already told murderers and terrorists that they can't be here in California, that they can't murder people, and they can't commit acts of terrorism. That's the point isn't it? It doesn't really matter how they murder or terrorize. The point is it's illegal and immoral to do either. Adding another ban to how someone may commit murder or an act of terror is just silly because if someone decides they are going to act that way, they are going to do so in direct defiance of any existing law or moral code that exists. There. Argument over, right? Sadly no. There are those among us, including elected officials who actually have the power to author and vote on law, who believe that by adding more laws and restrictions on firearms, that they can stop murders and terrorists.
Now, I get it that making it harder for someone to commit these actions by restricting their access to the tools they may use has merit. But is creating new law that only law abiding citizens will follow the right solution? There's also only so much we can do in a free society. We allow people to purchase and drive motor vehicles, and we do so trusting that they will operate those vehicles in a safe manner. But sometimes people don't. They abuse that freedom and a tool for transportation can suddenly become a deadly weapon. We can't take away cars in general because a few people abuse that right. We simply cannot prevent people from doing bad things if we want to live in a free society. Here's the deal, we cannot keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and terrorists and we cannot prevent them from using firearms. Once firearms were invented, they became part of our reality. Look at illegal drugs. Our nation declared a "war on drugs," and we've done everything from legislation to education to direct disruption to prevent people from obtaining and using illegal drugs. Has it worked? No. That's because in this world we live in, there will always be a black market supply for those who want to obtain banned substances. Criminals will always be with us and they will do criminal things. Firearms are no different in this respect. They are here and will always be here. I'm not advocating for legalizing drugs, please don't think that. I'm simply using drugs as an example of a banned substance that still finds it's way into the fabric of everyday life. I've personally never used any illegal drug. I don't exactly know how to obtain drugs, nor do I have any idea on how much they cost, nor how much to buy (quantity). I'm totally ignorant on the topic. However, I guarantee you that if you gave me 48 hours, I could find and buy illegal drugs. Guaranteed.
Here's another example. It is illegal to buy, sell, import, or manufacture standard capacity magazines in California. By standard I mean magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. However, that ban does not exist in our border states. Arizona and Nevada are a quick few hours drive from where I live. If I wanted to, I could easily cross that state boundary, purchase standard capacity magazines, and keep them at my house. By California law, I would be committing a felony. But murders don't care about felonies and terrorists aren't planning on being captured and prosecuted. I could also cross the international border to the south and obtain illegal materials that way. The only thing that a magazine ban does is restrict access to law abiding citizens, granting the upper hand to murders and terrorists. They will get them and will use them, guaranteed.
My point is, laws only work for those who want to obey them. Firearm ownership in America is a civil right enumerated within our Constitution. It's to be held in the same regard as all other civil liberties. It is a reality that we have the right to life and the right to defend our lives and liberty using an effective tool such as a firearm accordingly. It is perfectly legal to use a firearm in self defense situations (as defined by the law), yet Democrats are constantly placing restrictions upon the tools that would enable law abiding citizens to execute their rights under that legal protection. It's absurd. Firearms exist. They are part of our reality. We cannot change that. No one would advocate that we as a nation dissolve our military to slow down the international arms race and conflicts that arise. Doing so would make us an instant victim. So it is on the personal level with firearms. Once they came into existence and criminals could obtain them, it became necessary for individual citizens to be able to use the same platform for defense.
Here's a quote from liberal Democrat and California State Senator Loni Hancock from Berkeley who voted in favor of new firearms restrictions in 2016 that would ban owning standard capacity magazines, citing the San Bernadino terrorist attacks as justification. As I mentioned before, purchasing, selling, importing, and manufacturing standard capacity magazines is already illegal, but if you owned one prior to the enactment of that ban, you still can. However, Democrats are trying to change that. This quote comes from the Los Angeles Times on in an article posted on May 19, 2016, again where Senator Hancock tries to relate the San Bernadino terrorist attack as justification to impose new restrictions.
"If the shooters had a 10-round magazine, 4 [out of 14] of the victims would still be alive." - Loni Hancock (D)
I didn't realize the Senator was clairvoyant. That myth has been busted so many times it's silly that Democrats are still citing it, and yet they are. Anti-gun laws do not prevent murderers from murdering people. The Senator is forgetting the fact that these terrorists obtained the firearms via an illegal method and used them to commit illegal acts including mass murder and terrorism. They also had constructed or were in the process of constructing explosive devices at home, likely with the intent and in the process of breaking several other laws. Why would they break all those laws only to accept and submit to a 10 round magazine restriction? According to this Senator, the implication is that these terrorists would obey magazine restriction laws and would have stopped after firing 10 rounds. This Senator's statement is so absurd that I can't believe I just typed that. How did this person get elected? They obtained and modified their firearms illegally!!
Another blatant lie from a California Democrat in the same article can be found from State Senator Isadore Hall (D-Compton) who's deception and/or ignorance led to a proposed bill that would enact restrictions and bans on center fire rifles that accept detachable magazines, effectively defining them as "assault rifles" and making them illegal to purchase and forcing owners to register them with the state DOJ. Here's this Senator's lie, also taking advantage of terrorist activity to push their personal agenda:
"These types of firearms have no legitimate use for sport hunters or competitive shooters. They have been designed to facilitate the maximum destruction of human life." - Sen. Isadore Hall
Sigh. Where do I begin? Dear Senator Ignorant, have you ever heard of predator and varmint hunting? Yeah, those are entire categories of hunting which ammunition manufacturers and gun companies design products to enable. As one such example, the Mossberg MVP line of rifles stands for Mossberg Varmint and Predator. That bolt action center fire rifle accepts detachable magazines and is chambered in the same caliber as AR-15s. The AR platform itself is extremely popular for varmint and predator hunting due to it's reliability and ergonomics. Another example comes from ammunition manufacturer, Hornady, who makes a line of ammunition called "varmint express" in the caliber these modern sporting rifles are optimized for. Modern sporting rifles are used to dispatch varmints and predators for many purposes including to protect life and property. These AR-15 and the Mossberg MVP platforms and others like them are perfect for the job because the caliber is right, and they are effective. Seriously Senator Hall, before writing and voting for legislation, do some basic homework to understand the issue, the industry, and the people you are impacting.
Secondarily, there is an entire world of competitive sport shooting called "three-gun" in which shooters leverage three platforms (pistol, shotgun, and sporting rifle) to see who can shoot the most accurately and quickly under pressure. Look it up. It's an extremely popular competitive sport. The AR platform is the sport rifle of choice among law abiding three-gun shooters. It's an exceptional platform for competition shooting. The assertion from this Senator that there is no legitimate competitive use for these rifles is just a blatant lie. The Senator can't be that ignorant, so I have to assume they are a liar trying to mislead and manipulate the public.
Finally (for this Senator at least), the idea that a modern sporting rifle is designed for the "maximum destruction of human life" is another absurd statement. Nuclear weapons were designed for the maximum destruction of life. Bombs are designed for the maximum destruction of life. Legalizing abortion is designed for the maximum destruction of life. Chemical weapons are designed for the maximum destruction of life. Shotguns are far more destructive than center fire rifles. A rifle that fires one small caliber bullet at a time is NOT designed for massive destruction. It's designed for moderate distance, mass production, and cost effectiveness. Let's not forget, this is a small caliber rifle that the Senator is speaking of. It's on the lowest end of the scale of legitimate "hunting calibers." Go look it up. Google "hunting caliber" and check for yourself. In fact, many in the hunting world dismiss the 5.56/.223 round these modern sport rifles are optimized for, as an illegitimate, underpowered, glorified .22 rimfire round. How can this bullet, so scrutinized by the hunting world for it's lack of caliber and range, be described as "maximum destruction of human life?"
Finally, let's look at the place in the nation with the highest murder rate: Chicago. That city has some of the most restrictions on firearms in the country. Chicago is notorious for suppressing civil rights defined by the 2nd Amendment. Yet that city leads the nation in murders committed using firearms. In fact, news headlines just yesterday stated that May broke records in Chicago for the number of shootings and murders committed using firearms. How can it be that in that city where firearms are basically outright banned, that murderers continue to use them? Because legislation doesn't prevent law breakers from breaking the law. In fact, it appears based on the Chicago experience, that the more restrictions on firearms that a community imposes, the more murders are committed using them.
Look, I get it Democrats, you want to ban firearms. Ok, just admit that and make that your agenda. Let's battle over removing a civil liberty from the US Constitution and put this issue to bed. Stop intentionally lying to the public and enforcing all these restrictions that do nothing but put the community at risk. Do your homework. Learn reality, embrace it, and then act.
If you don't like living in a society where firearms are a civil liberty, then move to a society where they aren't. In Canada for example, firearm ownership is a privilege, not a right. Go there. It's close and you can still visit us.
2A Safely
Now, I get it that making it harder for someone to commit these actions by restricting their access to the tools they may use has merit. But is creating new law that only law abiding citizens will follow the right solution? There's also only so much we can do in a free society. We allow people to purchase and drive motor vehicles, and we do so trusting that they will operate those vehicles in a safe manner. But sometimes people don't. They abuse that freedom and a tool for transportation can suddenly become a deadly weapon. We can't take away cars in general because a few people abuse that right. We simply cannot prevent people from doing bad things if we want to live in a free society. Here's the deal, we cannot keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and terrorists and we cannot prevent them from using firearms. Once firearms were invented, they became part of our reality. Look at illegal drugs. Our nation declared a "war on drugs," and we've done everything from legislation to education to direct disruption to prevent people from obtaining and using illegal drugs. Has it worked? No. That's because in this world we live in, there will always be a black market supply for those who want to obtain banned substances. Criminals will always be with us and they will do criminal things. Firearms are no different in this respect. They are here and will always be here. I'm not advocating for legalizing drugs, please don't think that. I'm simply using drugs as an example of a banned substance that still finds it's way into the fabric of everyday life. I've personally never used any illegal drug. I don't exactly know how to obtain drugs, nor do I have any idea on how much they cost, nor how much to buy (quantity). I'm totally ignorant on the topic. However, I guarantee you that if you gave me 48 hours, I could find and buy illegal drugs. Guaranteed.
Here's another example. It is illegal to buy, sell, import, or manufacture standard capacity magazines in California. By standard I mean magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. However, that ban does not exist in our border states. Arizona and Nevada are a quick few hours drive from where I live. If I wanted to, I could easily cross that state boundary, purchase standard capacity magazines, and keep them at my house. By California law, I would be committing a felony. But murders don't care about felonies and terrorists aren't planning on being captured and prosecuted. I could also cross the international border to the south and obtain illegal materials that way. The only thing that a magazine ban does is restrict access to law abiding citizens, granting the upper hand to murders and terrorists. They will get them and will use them, guaranteed.
My point is, laws only work for those who want to obey them. Firearm ownership in America is a civil right enumerated within our Constitution. It's to be held in the same regard as all other civil liberties. It is a reality that we have the right to life and the right to defend our lives and liberty using an effective tool such as a firearm accordingly. It is perfectly legal to use a firearm in self defense situations (as defined by the law), yet Democrats are constantly placing restrictions upon the tools that would enable law abiding citizens to execute their rights under that legal protection. It's absurd. Firearms exist. They are part of our reality. We cannot change that. No one would advocate that we as a nation dissolve our military to slow down the international arms race and conflicts that arise. Doing so would make us an instant victim. So it is on the personal level with firearms. Once they came into existence and criminals could obtain them, it became necessary for individual citizens to be able to use the same platform for defense.
Here's a quote from liberal Democrat and California State Senator Loni Hancock from Berkeley who voted in favor of new firearms restrictions in 2016 that would ban owning standard capacity magazines, citing the San Bernadino terrorist attacks as justification. As I mentioned before, purchasing, selling, importing, and manufacturing standard capacity magazines is already illegal, but if you owned one prior to the enactment of that ban, you still can. However, Democrats are trying to change that. This quote comes from the Los Angeles Times on in an article posted on May 19, 2016, again where Senator Hancock tries to relate the San Bernadino terrorist attack as justification to impose new restrictions.
"If the shooters had a 10-round magazine, 4 [out of 14] of the victims would still be alive." - Loni Hancock (D)
I didn't realize the Senator was clairvoyant. That myth has been busted so many times it's silly that Democrats are still citing it, and yet they are. Anti-gun laws do not prevent murderers from murdering people. The Senator is forgetting the fact that these terrorists obtained the firearms via an illegal method and used them to commit illegal acts including mass murder and terrorism. They also had constructed or were in the process of constructing explosive devices at home, likely with the intent and in the process of breaking several other laws. Why would they break all those laws only to accept and submit to a 10 round magazine restriction? According to this Senator, the implication is that these terrorists would obey magazine restriction laws and would have stopped after firing 10 rounds. This Senator's statement is so absurd that I can't believe I just typed that. How did this person get elected? They obtained and modified their firearms illegally!!
Another blatant lie from a California Democrat in the same article can be found from State Senator Isadore Hall (D-Compton) who's deception and/or ignorance led to a proposed bill that would enact restrictions and bans on center fire rifles that accept detachable magazines, effectively defining them as "assault rifles" and making them illegal to purchase and forcing owners to register them with the state DOJ. Here's this Senator's lie, also taking advantage of terrorist activity to push their personal agenda:
"These types of firearms have no legitimate use for sport hunters or competitive shooters. They have been designed to facilitate the maximum destruction of human life." - Sen. Isadore Hall
Sigh. Where do I begin? Dear Senator Ignorant, have you ever heard of predator and varmint hunting? Yeah, those are entire categories of hunting which ammunition manufacturers and gun companies design products to enable. As one such example, the Mossberg MVP line of rifles stands for Mossberg Varmint and Predator. That bolt action center fire rifle accepts detachable magazines and is chambered in the same caliber as AR-15s. The AR platform itself is extremely popular for varmint and predator hunting due to it's reliability and ergonomics. Another example comes from ammunition manufacturer, Hornady, who makes a line of ammunition called "varmint express" in the caliber these modern sporting rifles are optimized for. Modern sporting rifles are used to dispatch varmints and predators for many purposes including to protect life and property. These AR-15 and the Mossberg MVP platforms and others like them are perfect for the job because the caliber is right, and they are effective. Seriously Senator Hall, before writing and voting for legislation, do some basic homework to understand the issue, the industry, and the people you are impacting.
Secondarily, there is an entire world of competitive sport shooting called "three-gun" in which shooters leverage three platforms (pistol, shotgun, and sporting rifle) to see who can shoot the most accurately and quickly under pressure. Look it up. It's an extremely popular competitive sport. The AR platform is the sport rifle of choice among law abiding three-gun shooters. It's an exceptional platform for competition shooting. The assertion from this Senator that there is no legitimate competitive use for these rifles is just a blatant lie. The Senator can't be that ignorant, so I have to assume they are a liar trying to mislead and manipulate the public.
Finally (for this Senator at least), the idea that a modern sporting rifle is designed for the "maximum destruction of human life" is another absurd statement. Nuclear weapons were designed for the maximum destruction of life. Bombs are designed for the maximum destruction of life. Legalizing abortion is designed for the maximum destruction of life. Chemical weapons are designed for the maximum destruction of life. Shotguns are far more destructive than center fire rifles. A rifle that fires one small caliber bullet at a time is NOT designed for massive destruction. It's designed for moderate distance, mass production, and cost effectiveness. Let's not forget, this is a small caliber rifle that the Senator is speaking of. It's on the lowest end of the scale of legitimate "hunting calibers." Go look it up. Google "hunting caliber" and check for yourself. In fact, many in the hunting world dismiss the 5.56/.223 round these modern sport rifles are optimized for, as an illegitimate, underpowered, glorified .22 rimfire round. How can this bullet, so scrutinized by the hunting world for it's lack of caliber and range, be described as "maximum destruction of human life?"
Finally, let's look at the place in the nation with the highest murder rate: Chicago. That city has some of the most restrictions on firearms in the country. Chicago is notorious for suppressing civil rights defined by the 2nd Amendment. Yet that city leads the nation in murders committed using firearms. In fact, news headlines just yesterday stated that May broke records in Chicago for the number of shootings and murders committed using firearms. How can it be that in that city where firearms are basically outright banned, that murderers continue to use them? Because legislation doesn't prevent law breakers from breaking the law. In fact, it appears based on the Chicago experience, that the more restrictions on firearms that a community imposes, the more murders are committed using them.
Look, I get it Democrats, you want to ban firearms. Ok, just admit that and make that your agenda. Let's battle over removing a civil liberty from the US Constitution and put this issue to bed. Stop intentionally lying to the public and enforcing all these restrictions that do nothing but put the community at risk. Do your homework. Learn reality, embrace it, and then act.
If you don't like living in a society where firearms are a civil liberty, then move to a society where they aren't. In Canada for example, firearm ownership is a privilege, not a right. Go there. It's close and you can still visit us.
2A Safely
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Firearms Myth 10: Gun Rights Group X Doesn't Represent Me
Like all the other myths I've written about, this one also drives me crazy. When you talk to a gun owner out there about firearms lobbyists and rights groups, inevitably you'll mention one that will get a reaction from the gun owner. That reaction is often negative, and the gun owner will say something like "I don't like them," or "they didn't do enough to...," or "I'm a different type of gun owner and they don't represent me." B.S. If you are a gun owner, every legitimate gun rights group in the United States represents you, and you should be supporting them.
Look, I get it, some of the gun rights groups come with a certain stereotype and may not align with your personal style. They may annoy you in their delivery, and you may not like the issues they elevate. You may even disagree with them on some issues. But here's the deal, you are up against multi-billionaires who want to take away your rights completely, regardless of how you exercise them. You are upset with lobbyists over their approach on certain topics while liberal politicians are trying to ban you from owning a gun period. What keeps them from doing so are these large gun rights organizations. Do they get it right 100% of the time? No, of course not. Do they support you? Yes, you own a gun, and they are all about protecting your right to do so.
I recently heard one YouTube gun commentator point out that we as gun owners moan and groan over our $25 a year membership fees to some of these organizations, yet willingly spend thousands of dollars each year on firearms, ammunition, and accessories. He's absolutely right. The bottom line is, without these rights groups active today, you won't be able to purchase or own any of that stuff.
I'll call out NAGR as one of those annoying rights group that make me pause. There's all kinds of hate about them as well if you read into their background or story at all. For me, it was their delivery...all those fake emails that are trying to look personal. All those scary stories that end with "now send us money." They annoyed the heck out of me, but you know what, they are a voice out there fighting to protect my rights. They are a lobbyist group who engages with elected politicians, furthering the preservation of the second amendment. They are a resource for people interested in guns to come and learn from. They are on my side, doing work I am not, so, I owe them my support.
I recently chatted with a gun owner who absolutely hates the National Rifle Association. This person is a hunter who thinks the second amendment has nothing to do with personal defense or liberty. That's another post for another day. Based on their belief, they don't like modern pistols, they don't like semi-automatic rifles, and they don't like today's magazine capacity beyond the standard 3-5 round count found in bolt action rifles. They view all those as items the public shouldn't have. They are the classic gun owner who draws the line with the question, "was that designed for the military?" The NRA obviously fights to protect people's rights to own all firearms of any type regardless of the driver or early adopter of any design. So, this person in particular doesn't like the NRA because in addition to supporting hunters, they also support every other lawful gun owner out there. My friend actually thinks that by protecting 2A rights from the liberty and defense perspective, that the NRA is intentionally helping to put people in danger. That ridiculous, but it's another post for another time. Here's the deal though, without the NRA, hunters wouldn't be able to own firearms either. The NRA is the loudest voice in protecting the 2nd amendment. They are the ones who stand up and fight every time politicians try to suppress our civil rights. The NRA-ILA keeps me informed on local issues and helps me engage my local politicians on related issues. I owe them my support.
I often reference the Cal Guns organization forums and website to make sure I'm up to speed on laws and just as a great source for firearms technology and related topics. They are a tremendous resource, and they fight the anti-gun voices here in my home state. I owe them my support, after all, I rely on them to continue fighting the issues they are fighting in court today; all attempts to suppress my rights.
You see anti-gun people don't like firearms period. They are attacking the modern types like AR-15s and polymer semi-automatic pistols, but their views extend beyond that. Look at Hillary Clinton and her favoritism toward total confiscation as was implemented in Australia. Obama, the leader of the Democrat party, has elevated nations with complete bans on firearms are more modern and civil than the US. More recently, in CA, we had liberal politicians claiming they could have prevented the San Bernadino terrorist attacks if only we had stricter gun laws. Their outlandish claims that "guns kill people," are not restricted to one brand or one model or one design. They aren't saying "modern sporting rifles are killing people." They are after guns in general. As with all liberal movements, they start by targeting what they can attack easily to win people toward their argument. When they win that argument, they move on to the next until they have controlled the entire issue. Listen to these politicians and anti-gun voices. They don't care about hunters. In fact, they often view hunters in a worse light than your average tacticool AR-15 owner because hunters are killing animals.
The question "was that designed for the military" when used by an anti-gunner or hunter really annoys me. I'm good with that question when it's from someone who is simply trying to learn, but when someone uses the question to discern whether or not a firearm is appropriate for private ownership, that's when I go ballistic inside. The very first firearm was designed for the military, specifically to suppress local populations in China who were rebelling against their government. So firearms in general were designed for the military. You could probably trace every modern firearm to a military objective at some point. Bolt action rifles used by hunters were designed "for the military." Lever action rifles that defined the old west were built to solve the challenge of single-shot rifles and initially adopted by the military (although civil war history buffs indicate they were adopted more by private citizens at first for use in the civil war). The point is, yes, that firearm (whatever it is) was designed for the military. Get over it.
The question "was that designed for the military" when used by an anti-gunner or hunter really annoys me. I'm good with that question when it's from someone who is simply trying to learn, but when someone uses the question to discern whether or not a firearm is appropriate for private ownership, that's when I go ballistic inside. The very first firearm was designed for the military, specifically to suppress local populations in China who were rebelling against their government. So firearms in general were designed for the military. You could probably trace every modern firearm to a military objective at some point. Bolt action rifles used by hunters were designed "for the military." Lever action rifles that defined the old west were built to solve the challenge of single-shot rifles and initially adopted by the military (although civil war history buffs indicate they were adopted more by private citizens at first for use in the civil war). The point is, yes, that firearm (whatever it is) was designed for the military. Get over it.
When people talk about gun ownership, they don't differentiate between a bolt action hunting rifle and an AR-15. They talk about guns in general terms. Remember that giant gun statue at the UN headquarters? It's not a smashed Glock. It's a revolver with a twisted barrel. They hate guns period. That includes the guns you hunters own and love.
Gun rights groups don't always get it right, but we leave the fight up to them. We sit at home and enjoy our sport and freedoms far away from the courts and legislators. Gun rights groups are right there in the fight, on our behalf. They need our support. They need your support. Send them money. Become members. It doesn't matter if you don't like how they addressed a certain issue. Do you agree with your locally elected politicians 100% of the time? Nope. Neither will you agree with your gun lobbyist 100% of the time. So, engage. Become a member, participate in the discussion, communicate with the organization, attend their gatherings. Do your part.
They do represent you.
Hexmag vs. PMAG: First Impressions
I'd much rather do this via video than text, so perhaps there will be a companion video soon, but I wanted to quickly capture my initial impressions on this topic before they drift too far from this moment. I want to capture my experience so far with the new Hexmag AR-15 magazines, and I will update that experience as it progresses.
Why Hexmag?
I first came across Hexmag via a friend of mine who purchases them almost exclusively for his AR. They are readily available at his favorite local shop, and are often priced below the industry leading Magpul PMAGs by at least a few bucks. For a while, I dismissed them as just another magazine option that measures itself against PMAG and kept my purchases confined to Magpul. Why save a couple of bucks per magazine and sacrifice performance, right? My friend on the other hand, chose the other approach and kept sending me pictures of his continued purchases. Why not save a couple of bucks and get something that functions just as well?
I've also been seeing Hexmag pop up in more and more Internet content; namely in videos posted by the new gun media. Popular names all over YouTube and Full30 are embracing and torture testing Hexmags, and hinting that they are starting to prefer them over PMAGs. The various reviews basically stack them up squarely against PMAGs with a few potential advantages over the Magpul standard. So, I decided to check them out myself. If these people who I respect have made the decision to stock up on Hexmags, then there may be something to them that I should consider. Besides, why would I miss an excuse to buy more magazines? Here's two of my favorite vides on the subject:
I browsed around the Hexmag website, looking for more information about the company. I wanted to know why they existed and what they were trying to solve that others hadn't already. Magpul being the industry standard, I was looking for things that stood out as a reason to buy a Hexmag product instead of PMAGs. In one video posted on their website, I heard a founding member state that they wanted to create a product that looked cool first, and functioned well second.
The video is here: https://youtu.be/bdoBnOB5B3o and remarks start at the 25 second mark.
The company president says in the video, "Hexmag was started on the principle that most magazines are boring, so we started on the first principal that it had to look good." The emphasis was on appearance which led to the hexagonal pattern on the Hexmag body. I've since heard other bloggers and gun videographers claim this hex pattern is about creating friction to enhance grip, but based on the President's own video, I think that may be a side benefit at best. Besides, Hexmag also sells hexagonal grip tape to fill in the hex pattern on the magazine body. If the body is designed to enhance grip, why add and sell the tape? To be honest, that video was a major negative to someone like me who looks first for function and performance, and second at appearance. Hexmag, by their own words, was founded to create a cooler looking magazine option for AR owners that wasn't as boring as the available options. Personally, I think PMAG has them beat in the appearance arena, but regardless, the founding concern being appearance is less than ideal for me.
Another point made by the Hexmag website, is that in restricted states like CA where I live, you can still order a full sized magazine, that is purpose-built during the manufacturing process for reduced capacity. I like that. You can't buy a 30 round PMAG that was designed for 10 rounds from Magpul or retailers. You have to buy 10 round PMAGs designed for 10 rounds, or 30 round PMAGs that have been permanently modified by the retailer to accept only 10 rounds. Now, Hexmag touts that this is an appearance (looks cool), and compliance issue (legal to own), and it mostly is both of those. Practically speaking, using a 30 round PMAG or Hexmag that can only accept 10 rounds is a waste of space reserved for those 20 rounds that are banned in CA. Hexmag tries to market that open space as storage opportunity, but I'm not sure of the practical use cases of that space. In practical terms, I can carry more magazines in CA by adopting 10 round PMAGs, than I can by using 30 round PMAGs trimmed to 10 rounds or full sized Hexmags designed for 10 rounds. The spring in 10 round PMAGs is really stiff and a lot longer than the magazine body, which leads me to believe they may be designed for 20 round magazines, vs. the Hexmag 10 round spring which isn't as stiff and is shorter which indicates it is optimized for 10 rounds. Does it make a difference? I don't know, but conceptually it sounds good, and it appears to be built accordingly. It may be that a longer, stronger spring has the long term advantage. Time will tell.
Hexmag also offers their 10 round product in color options Magpul doesn't. That is totally an appearance issue, but I like FDE and 10 round PMAGs don't come in FDE. They come in black or sand (and sand might as well be white for those who haven't picked one up). I have more options with Hexmags, and I like options.
I was also intrigued by the replacement follower and base plates that provide a spectrum of different color options. This truly seems unique in the industry and does meet a real need I have; at a glance discernment of ammunition type in a magazine. Like many others, I do load different ammunition into PMAGs that by the magazine exterior, appears the same. My variation is between 5.56, .223, and bullets within those two spectrums (FMJ, JHP, FTX etc.). The Hexmag base plate and follower option does allow me to choose a color scheme for my ammunition variation, so I can quickly identify which is which regardless of which end of the magazine I'm looking at. I can use green for 5.56 performance FMJ, blue for .223 FMJ, red for .223 FTX, orange for .223 JHP, yellow for 5.56 bulk FMJ etc. Easy to identify from either end of the mag, and I can designate magazines for different purposes which can help me track performance and issues that may develop with an individual magazine. The bright followers also help see within the chamber in low light conditions to verify magazine status. All benefits over PMAGs.
So, between the body color options, the 10 round-by-design in a 30 round body, and the base plate and follower coordination, and YouTube hype, I decided to buy a few.
First Impressions - Strength and Feel
When I opened the first Hexmag package, I was immediately disappointed. I had that feeling of, "oh, no, that was a mistake." They feel and look cheap and weak. However, that may just be appearance and due to their weight, because according to those torture test videos I've seen, these things can stand up to all sorts of abuse. Still, comparing the component parts and how they fit together with the PMAG, the Hexmag looks less precise and cheap in the fit and finish department. The Hexmag also feels like you can crush it, but despite my best efforts to do so by hand, it doesn't flex a bit, so the feel may be deceiving.
This is totally subjective, but to me, the hex texture does nothing to enhance grip. In fact, holding the PMAG in one hand and the Hexmag in another, the Hexmag actually feels too smooth and slick. By comparison, the PMAG has a texture that feels rough and is easier to grip. Gripping the Hexmag with pressure, my fingers can slip easily on the surface. That's not the case with my PMAGs where the texturing of the material itself adds noticeable friction. I tried to capture the textures in the image below. The Hexagonal pattern on the Hexmag is certainly raised higher than the ridges on the PMAG, but the Hexmag material itself is really slick. You can see some texturing on the PMAG which is really pronounced by feel.
Taking the magazines apart, I also compared springs (visually and by touch). Again, very subjective, but the Hexmag springs feel cheap. I'm not sure if they are a different metal than what Magpul uses, but they really feel different. Now, different and lighter can be good. Some materials like polymer are lighter than similar materials yet stronger. That could be the case here. However, the PMAG springs on my M2 and M3 PMAGs feel thicker and higher quality. Totally subjective as they may function the same, but still something that bothers me about a product that claims to be innovative. When compressing the springs outside of the magazine body, I also found the PMAG to be a much stiffer spring. The Hexmag spring was easier to compress than the PMAG. Re-assembly of the magazines was more of a challenge with the PMAG again, due to that stronger spring resistance, but that could also be viewed as an advantage: a strong enough spring that isn't too difficult to work with. Again, subjective, but it's there. What I'm wondering is if that spring difference could affect feeding? Could that represent a shorter life span? Time will tell. I noticed something else visible in the picture below with regard to spring orientation. The Hexmag spring leans left relative to the curvature of the magazine body (toward the magazine body spine), while the PMAG is almost straight, and if anything, leans consistently with the curvature of the body of the PMAG. No idea if that matters functionally, but it may be contributing to follower tilt that I describe below. Notice where the pressure from the top of the spring meets the Hexmag follower (hint, it's pressing up against the rear of the follower).
First Impressions - Fit
I took both the Hexmag and PMAG apart to look at the component pieces and how well they fit together. with the PMAG, you can see the follower and base plates fit into well defined slots that provide a snug integration between parts (see the image below, focus on the section of the PMAG follower toward the front). The PMAG follower design incorporates some extensions or wings that fit in front of internal guides within the magazine body. The Hexmag on the other hand, has less defined integration points which could result in a few potential functional problems (yet to be experienced). As one example, the follower in the Hexmag has a lot of room around it, allowing you to wobble and move it back and forth. The internal grooves that serve as guides for the follower in the PMAG run the length of the body, but are not present in the Hexmag at all. The PMAG follower is a snug fit that doesn't move, while the Hexmag feels loose and wobbles on touch with a little pressure. You'll also notice in the image below, the arms at the opening of the magazine, cover more of the follower in the PMAG than in the Hexmag. That leaves the impression again of better design and integration in PMAGs. The spring attachment design to the follower is almost identical in both mags, while the attachment to the base plate is more defined and secure in the PMAG than in the Hexmag (see the image above).
In the following image, you can see how the PMAG follower fits snugly into a tight space in the top of the magazine body. The Hexmag follower almost looks like the wrong part for the body as it extends beyond the top of the body at an angle, allowing it to wobble back and forth with ease. I haven't experienced feeding issues yet, but just looking at this design makes me worried about performance and consistency in feeding in the Hexmag.
I have never experienced problems from excessive follower tilt the original aluminum M4 mags were rebuked for. In fact, Magpul is famous for their replacement follower that is designed to solve problems caused by excessive tilt. When I press down on the front of my PMAG follower, the pressure moves the whole follower down consistently. The whole follower moves uniformly with no forward tilt at all. This is due in part to the follower design as well as the PMAG body which contains a groove the follower fits in. However, pressing on the forward point of the Hexmag follower results in considerable tilt visible in the image below. The tilt does stop at about the point depicted and the rear of the follower then starts to move down with the follower at an angle. There is no internal groove in the Hexmag body as there is in the PMAG to prevent this. I don't know if the tilt allowed will affect performance or not, but it's there. Could this be due to where the spring engages the follower as I pointed out above? I think so. I think this is a design flaw and opportunity for Hexmag to improve.
When it comes to being inserted into an AR with the bolt closed, I initially thought the Hexmag wouldn't lock in place. I saw other people test this on YouTube, and their Hexmags locked in with a closed bolt with seemingly no problem. I tried each of my Hexmags and had the same result; wouldn't lock in. PMAGs lock in place with almost no effort and no need to slam them in place with a brisk smack from the palm of your hand. It turns out after trial and error that my Hexmags (all of them) require a good smack in the base plate to fully seat and lock in place. Releasing was no problem and they all dropped free just as my PMAGs do.
First Impressions - Visual
Ok, this is the most subjective feedback so far, but it's annoying to me for a product that claims to be an improvement over the industry standard. The Hexmags look cheap. They do. I don't know if it's the material difference or the manufacturing process, but the lines and grooves just aren't as clean as those on PMAGs, and there's a lot more space between pieces. Notice in the image below, the residual material leftover on the Hexmag that resembles a seam? It's a snag line that runs the length of the Hexmag body spine. There is a similar characteristic on the PMAG, but it's far reduced and doesn't snag to the touch. To me that has nothing to do with function, but is all about quality in the manufacturing process. You can also see in the image below the forward, upward tile of the follower in the Hexmag.
I couldn't quite capture it, but when comparing the current version of baseplates between the PMAG and the Hexmag, the gap between plate and body is wider on the Hexmag than PMAG. Hexmag follows a base plate design similar to the PMAG M2 base plates vs. the improved PMAG M3 base plates which are a more snug and integrated fit. The result is a more pronounced edge on the bottom of the Hexmag (and PMAG M2), and a more subtle gradual widening on the PMAG M3. You can't see it well in this image, but here's an example: Hexmag, PMAG M3, PMAG M2.
Overall Impressions and Recap
Alright, I've been extremely critical of the Hexmag, and probably picking on things that won't matter functionally. Here's the bottom line for me: buy both. Let's give Hexmag some market capital to continue developing and refining their product, and let's give Magpul some incentive to develop their response. To me, Magpul is a higher quality product, but Hexmag has some interesting innovations that I like.
I love competition in the marketplace. It drives innovation and price reduction which are both positives for the consumer. From what I hear, Hexmags function perfectly and are probably strong enough for every civilian purchaser in the US. They have redeeming qualities and options that Magpul doesn't offer. However, to my eyes and touch, they are a lower quality magazine for not much of a price difference. I really like the color options of both the magazine body, the follower, and the base plates.
I think Hexmag would do well to develop a next-generation magazine that fixes the follower tilt, improves the component fit, has a more robust spring, and adds texture to the body. Those four additions, and I'd say they could give Magpul a run.
For now, Hexmag has some work to do. PMAGs are still, in my opinion, higher quality magazines for only a buck or two more in cost, but let's give Hexmag a chance and the resources to continue building a cool product. They've hit the market, made an impression, now it's time to fill in some of the design gaps and create an improved product.
2A Safe
Why Hexmag?
I first came across Hexmag via a friend of mine who purchases them almost exclusively for his AR. They are readily available at his favorite local shop, and are often priced below the industry leading Magpul PMAGs by at least a few bucks. For a while, I dismissed them as just another magazine option that measures itself against PMAG and kept my purchases confined to Magpul. Why save a couple of bucks per magazine and sacrifice performance, right? My friend on the other hand, chose the other approach and kept sending me pictures of his continued purchases. Why not save a couple of bucks and get something that functions just as well?
I've also been seeing Hexmag pop up in more and more Internet content; namely in videos posted by the new gun media. Popular names all over YouTube and Full30 are embracing and torture testing Hexmags, and hinting that they are starting to prefer them over PMAGs. The various reviews basically stack them up squarely against PMAGs with a few potential advantages over the Magpul standard. So, I decided to check them out myself. If these people who I respect have made the decision to stock up on Hexmags, then there may be something to them that I should consider. Besides, why would I miss an excuse to buy more magazines? Here's two of my favorite vides on the subject:
IV8888 Magazine Torture Test
Sootch00 Hexmag HX30:
I browsed around the Hexmag website, looking for more information about the company. I wanted to know why they existed and what they were trying to solve that others hadn't already. Magpul being the industry standard, I was looking for things that stood out as a reason to buy a Hexmag product instead of PMAGs. In one video posted on their website, I heard a founding member state that they wanted to create a product that looked cool first, and functioned well second.
The video is here: https://youtu.be/bdoBnOB5B3o and remarks start at the 25 second mark.
The company president says in the video, "Hexmag was started on the principle that most magazines are boring, so we started on the first principal that it had to look good." The emphasis was on appearance which led to the hexagonal pattern on the Hexmag body. I've since heard other bloggers and gun videographers claim this hex pattern is about creating friction to enhance grip, but based on the President's own video, I think that may be a side benefit at best. Besides, Hexmag also sells hexagonal grip tape to fill in the hex pattern on the magazine body. If the body is designed to enhance grip, why add and sell the tape? To be honest, that video was a major negative to someone like me who looks first for function and performance, and second at appearance. Hexmag, by their own words, was founded to create a cooler looking magazine option for AR owners that wasn't as boring as the available options. Personally, I think PMAG has them beat in the appearance arena, but regardless, the founding concern being appearance is less than ideal for me.
Another point made by the Hexmag website, is that in restricted states like CA where I live, you can still order a full sized magazine, that is purpose-built during the manufacturing process for reduced capacity. I like that. You can't buy a 30 round PMAG that was designed for 10 rounds from Magpul or retailers. You have to buy 10 round PMAGs designed for 10 rounds, or 30 round PMAGs that have been permanently modified by the retailer to accept only 10 rounds. Now, Hexmag touts that this is an appearance (looks cool), and compliance issue (legal to own), and it mostly is both of those. Practically speaking, using a 30 round PMAG or Hexmag that can only accept 10 rounds is a waste of space reserved for those 20 rounds that are banned in CA. Hexmag tries to market that open space as storage opportunity, but I'm not sure of the practical use cases of that space. In practical terms, I can carry more magazines in CA by adopting 10 round PMAGs, than I can by using 30 round PMAGs trimmed to 10 rounds or full sized Hexmags designed for 10 rounds. The spring in 10 round PMAGs is really stiff and a lot longer than the magazine body, which leads me to believe they may be designed for 20 round magazines, vs. the Hexmag 10 round spring which isn't as stiff and is shorter which indicates it is optimized for 10 rounds. Does it make a difference? I don't know, but conceptually it sounds good, and it appears to be built accordingly. It may be that a longer, stronger spring has the long term advantage. Time will tell.
Wasted space or storage opportunity?
Hexmag also offers their 10 round product in color options Magpul doesn't. That is totally an appearance issue, but I like FDE and 10 round PMAGs don't come in FDE. They come in black or sand (and sand might as well be white for those who haven't picked one up). I have more options with Hexmags, and I like options.
I was also intrigued by the replacement follower and base plates that provide a spectrum of different color options. This truly seems unique in the industry and does meet a real need I have; at a glance discernment of ammunition type in a magazine. Like many others, I do load different ammunition into PMAGs that by the magazine exterior, appears the same. My variation is between 5.56, .223, and bullets within those two spectrums (FMJ, JHP, FTX etc.). The Hexmag base plate and follower option does allow me to choose a color scheme for my ammunition variation, so I can quickly identify which is which regardless of which end of the magazine I'm looking at. I can use green for 5.56 performance FMJ, blue for .223 FMJ, red for .223 FTX, orange for .223 JHP, yellow for 5.56 bulk FMJ etc. Easy to identify from either end of the mag, and I can designate magazines for different purposes which can help me track performance and issues that may develop with an individual magazine. The bright followers also help see within the chamber in low light conditions to verify magazine status. All benefits over PMAGs.
So, between the body color options, the 10 round-by-design in a 30 round body, and the base plate and follower coordination, and YouTube hype, I decided to buy a few.
First Impressions - Strength and Feel
When I opened the first Hexmag package, I was immediately disappointed. I had that feeling of, "oh, no, that was a mistake." They feel and look cheap and weak. However, that may just be appearance and due to their weight, because according to those torture test videos I've seen, these things can stand up to all sorts of abuse. Still, comparing the component parts and how they fit together with the PMAG, the Hexmag looks less precise and cheap in the fit and finish department. The Hexmag also feels like you can crush it, but despite my best efforts to do so by hand, it doesn't flex a bit, so the feel may be deceiving.
This is totally subjective, but to me, the hex texture does nothing to enhance grip. In fact, holding the PMAG in one hand and the Hexmag in another, the Hexmag actually feels too smooth and slick. By comparison, the PMAG has a texture that feels rough and is easier to grip. Gripping the Hexmag with pressure, my fingers can slip easily on the surface. That's not the case with my PMAGs where the texturing of the material itself adds noticeable friction. I tried to capture the textures in the image below. The Hexagonal pattern on the Hexmag is certainly raised higher than the ridges on the PMAG, but the Hexmag material itself is really slick. You can see some texturing on the PMAG which is really pronounced by feel.
Texture comparison: Hexmag (R) vs PMAG (L)
Taking the magazines apart, I also compared springs (visually and by touch). Again, very subjective, but the Hexmag springs feel cheap. I'm not sure if they are a different metal than what Magpul uses, but they really feel different. Now, different and lighter can be good. Some materials like polymer are lighter than similar materials yet stronger. That could be the case here. However, the PMAG springs on my M2 and M3 PMAGs feel thicker and higher quality. Totally subjective as they may function the same, but still something that bothers me about a product that claims to be innovative. When compressing the springs outside of the magazine body, I also found the PMAG to be a much stiffer spring. The Hexmag spring was easier to compress than the PMAG. Re-assembly of the magazines was more of a challenge with the PMAG again, due to that stronger spring resistance, but that could also be viewed as an advantage: a strong enough spring that isn't too difficult to work with. Again, subjective, but it's there. What I'm wondering is if that spring difference could affect feeding? Could that represent a shorter life span? Time will tell. I noticed something else visible in the picture below with regard to spring orientation. The Hexmag spring leans left relative to the curvature of the magazine body (toward the magazine body spine), while the PMAG is almost straight, and if anything, leans consistently with the curvature of the body of the PMAG. No idea if that matters functionally, but it may be contributing to follower tilt that I describe below. Notice where the pressure from the top of the spring meets the Hexmag follower (hint, it's pressing up against the rear of the follower).
Hexmag and PMAG springs, followers, and baseplates (assembled)
First Impressions - Fit
I took both the Hexmag and PMAG apart to look at the component pieces and how well they fit together. with the PMAG, you can see the follower and base plates fit into well defined slots that provide a snug integration between parts (see the image below, focus on the section of the PMAG follower toward the front). The PMAG follower design incorporates some extensions or wings that fit in front of internal guides within the magazine body. The Hexmag on the other hand, has less defined integration points which could result in a few potential functional problems (yet to be experienced). As one example, the follower in the Hexmag has a lot of room around it, allowing you to wobble and move it back and forth. The internal grooves that serve as guides for the follower in the PMAG run the length of the body, but are not present in the Hexmag at all. The PMAG follower is a snug fit that doesn't move, while the Hexmag feels loose and wobbles on touch with a little pressure. You'll also notice in the image below, the arms at the opening of the magazine, cover more of the follower in the PMAG than in the Hexmag. That leaves the impression again of better design and integration in PMAGs. The spring attachment design to the follower is almost identical in both mags, while the attachment to the base plate is more defined and secure in the PMAG than in the Hexmag (see the image above).
Follower and frame fit 1
In the following image, you can see how the PMAG follower fits snugly into a tight space in the top of the magazine body. The Hexmag follower almost looks like the wrong part for the body as it extends beyond the top of the body at an angle, allowing it to wobble back and forth with ease. I haven't experienced feeding issues yet, but just looking at this design makes me worried about performance and consistency in feeding in the Hexmag.
Follower and frame fit 2: Hexmag (R) vs PMAG (L)
I have never experienced problems from excessive follower tilt the original aluminum M4 mags were rebuked for. In fact, Magpul is famous for their replacement follower that is designed to solve problems caused by excessive tilt. When I press down on the front of my PMAG follower, the pressure moves the whole follower down consistently. The whole follower moves uniformly with no forward tilt at all. This is due in part to the follower design as well as the PMAG body which contains a groove the follower fits in. However, pressing on the forward point of the Hexmag follower results in considerable tilt visible in the image below. The tilt does stop at about the point depicted and the rear of the follower then starts to move down with the follower at an angle. There is no internal groove in the Hexmag body as there is in the PMAG to prevent this. I don't know if the tilt allowed will affect performance or not, but it's there. Could this be due to where the spring engages the follower as I pointed out above? I think so. I think this is a design flaw and opportunity for Hexmag to improve.
Hexmag follower tilt
When it comes to being inserted into an AR with the bolt closed, I initially thought the Hexmag wouldn't lock in place. I saw other people test this on YouTube, and their Hexmags locked in with a closed bolt with seemingly no problem. I tried each of my Hexmags and had the same result; wouldn't lock in. PMAGs lock in place with almost no effort and no need to slam them in place with a brisk smack from the palm of your hand. It turns out after trial and error that my Hexmags (all of them) require a good smack in the base plate to fully seat and lock in place. Releasing was no problem and they all dropped free just as my PMAGs do.
First Impressions - Visual
Ok, this is the most subjective feedback so far, but it's annoying to me for a product that claims to be an improvement over the industry standard. The Hexmags look cheap. They do. I don't know if it's the material difference or the manufacturing process, but the lines and grooves just aren't as clean as those on PMAGs, and there's a lot more space between pieces. Notice in the image below, the residual material leftover on the Hexmag that resembles a seam? It's a snag line that runs the length of the Hexmag body spine. There is a similar characteristic on the PMAG, but it's far reduced and doesn't snag to the touch. To me that has nothing to do with function, but is all about quality in the manufacturing process. You can also see in the image below the forward, upward tile of the follower in the Hexmag.
PMAG vs. Hexmag Finish Quality
I couldn't quite capture it, but when comparing the current version of baseplates between the PMAG and the Hexmag, the gap between plate and body is wider on the Hexmag than PMAG. Hexmag follows a base plate design similar to the PMAG M2 base plates vs. the improved PMAG M3 base plates which are a more snug and integrated fit. The result is a more pronounced edge on the bottom of the Hexmag (and PMAG M2), and a more subtle gradual widening on the PMAG M3. You can't see it well in this image, but here's an example: Hexmag, PMAG M3, PMAG M2.
Overall Impressions and Recap
Alright, I've been extremely critical of the Hexmag, and probably picking on things that won't matter functionally. Here's the bottom line for me: buy both. Let's give Hexmag some market capital to continue developing and refining their product, and let's give Magpul some incentive to develop their response. To me, Magpul is a higher quality product, but Hexmag has some interesting innovations that I like.
I love competition in the marketplace. It drives innovation and price reduction which are both positives for the consumer. From what I hear, Hexmags function perfectly and are probably strong enough for every civilian purchaser in the US. They have redeeming qualities and options that Magpul doesn't offer. However, to my eyes and touch, they are a lower quality magazine for not much of a price difference. I really like the color options of both the magazine body, the follower, and the base plates.
I think Hexmag would do well to develop a next-generation magazine that fixes the follower tilt, improves the component fit, has a more robust spring, and adds texture to the body. Those four additions, and I'd say they could give Magpul a run.
For now, Hexmag has some work to do. PMAGs are still, in my opinion, higher quality magazines for only a buck or two more in cost, but let's give Hexmag a chance and the resources to continue building a cool product. They've hit the market, made an impression, now it's time to fill in some of the design gaps and create an improved product.
2A Safe
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Must Have Accessories
Background
Thinking of purchasing a firearm, or have you recently purchased one? Wondering what else might be part of that purchasing process that you haven't thought of? Well, that's what this blog is about: those must-have accessories that you should purchase with your new firearm. I know when I purchased my first firearm, I did a ton of research about the firearm itself and planned to spend the amount of money I saw that firearm advertised for. There's a lot more you'll need though. Yes, need. Plan to spend a lot more on accessories than you did for the firearm. You can probably buy some of these must-haves over time after your purchase, and of course many of these only apply if you don't already have them, making that first firearm investment significant, but future purchases, not nearly as bad.
You'll need a safe. Not just a safe, but you'll need one that you can secure to an object that cannot be removed from your house with ease. Check with your state laws and talk with the gun shop staff to find the right safe that's going to work for you, but don't leave the store without one. Don't bring a firearm into your house without a safe ready for it. Heck, my local Costco sells pistol and rifle safes, so there's no excuse. Many safes designed for a single pistol or small number of rifles can be attached to a permanent object like a wall. In fact portable pistol safes often come with security cables that can be used to attach them to a secure object. It's your responsibility. Keep it safe (no pun intended).
Be ready to spend at least $50 for a small pistol safe, and at least $150 for a good solid gun cabinet. Fully featured gun safes will take you further into the $200 and beyond range, quite easily.
Pro-tip: biometric safes are a waste of money. Sure, under perfect situations, you're biometric safe will open quickly and easily...but don't plan on perfect situations. Heck, my iPhone doesn't even unlock for me every time. Go with a key or key pad option, but hide that key and change that combination.
Holsters and slings can be very cheap, or they can be ridiculously expensive. If you are looking to minimize your expense and won't carry often, go with a plastic or kydex paddle holster that you can clip to your waistband or belt. They only cost about $20-$30. If you are planning to carry often or concealed carry, do your research an choose wisely. A quality paddle holster like a Blackhawk Serpa might still be a good option, or a $50 Galco Triton for concealment. But for high quality or good concealment options, be ready to spend over $50. You'll also probably buy several over time as you experiment with what works. Bottom line, don't leave the store without something to help you safely carry your firearm.
Regardless, you are going to want to invest in a good, practical carrying case. You have to if your firearm came in cardboard. I've been to ranges that don't allow you to walk in the door unless the firearm is in a carrying case, and even if you transport it legally in your locked trunk, do you want that firearm just open, sliding around and exposed? Nope. Pistol range bags can be extremely practical as they can hold 2 or more pistols in one. Carrying cases also usually have external pockets for storing magazines, slings, holsters, or whatever other accessories you need.
You'll need one. Check to make sure your firearm fits, and make the purchase before you leave the shop with your firearm.
Barrel rod with caliber specific attachments (or bore snake)
Bore brush (or bore snake)
Patches
Cleaner (or combination cleaner, lubricant, protector like CLP or Balistol)
Lubricant (or comination like CLP etc.)
Cleaning mat or sturdy but soft surface
Cleaning brush (or tooth brush)
Safe Storage
Right at the top of the list of must-haves without question, is a means to store that firearm safely. Some people think safe storage means hidden away from kids or people who could harm themselves with a firearm. Some also think that storing it with the provided cable lock is good. Those are true assumptions, but they are only part of it. When you purchase a firearm, you become responsible for who has access to it. That includes people who live in your house, people who visit your house, or people who break in and steal things from your house. Having a firearm out of sight or under and object is not safe storage. Keeping it hidden with only a cable lock, is asking for trouble. The cable lock may keep normal people from using the firearm, but you need to plan on securing that firearm from any scenario - especially theft.You'll need a safe. Not just a safe, but you'll need one that you can secure to an object that cannot be removed from your house with ease. Check with your state laws and talk with the gun shop staff to find the right safe that's going to work for you, but don't leave the store without one. Don't bring a firearm into your house without a safe ready for it. Heck, my local Costco sells pistol and rifle safes, so there's no excuse. Many safes designed for a single pistol or small number of rifles can be attached to a permanent object like a wall. In fact portable pistol safes often come with security cables that can be used to attach them to a secure object. It's your responsibility. Keep it safe (no pun intended).
Be ready to spend at least $50 for a small pistol safe, and at least $150 for a good solid gun cabinet. Fully featured gun safes will take you further into the $200 and beyond range, quite easily.
Pro-tip: biometric safes are a waste of money. Sure, under perfect situations, you're biometric safe will open quickly and easily...but don't plan on perfect situations. Heck, my iPhone doesn't even unlock for me every time. Go with a key or key pad option, but hide that key and change that combination.
Holster or Sling
The safest way to carry a pistol or rifle is unloaded with the action open of course. If it's loaded, the safest way to carry a pistol is in a holster that completely covers the trigger and prevents an object (including your finder) from touching it. It's also extremely practical if you just want to transport a firearm around the house or wherever. With a rifle, if you want to carry it around, doing so the safest way means having two hands on it (leaving you unable to do anything else), or from a sling where nothing is touching the trigger so your hands are free. Even if you have no plans to carry the firearm you purchased outside, you still need a holster. It's a must-have.Holsters and slings can be very cheap, or they can be ridiculously expensive. If you are looking to minimize your expense and won't carry often, go with a plastic or kydex paddle holster that you can clip to your waistband or belt. They only cost about $20-$30. If you are planning to carry often or concealed carry, do your research an choose wisely. A quality paddle holster like a Blackhawk Serpa might still be a good option, or a $50 Galco Triton for concealment. But for high quality or good concealment options, be ready to spend over $50. You'll also probably buy several over time as you experiment with what works. Bottom line, don't leave the store without something to help you safely carry your firearm.
Carrying Case
If you buy a premium pistol (Glock, M&P, Sig etc.), chances are it came in a plastic carrying case with formed foam inside, and a convenient handle and lock hole. If you bought a revolver, rifle, or cheaper pistol, chances are it came in a cardboard box. The former may be sufficient for carrying your pistol where ever it needs to go (range, smith, vacation etc.), but a cardboard box isn't. Depending upon where you live, transporting a firearm in a cardboard box may be illegal (unless it's within a locked container). Check your local laws.Regardless, you are going to want to invest in a good, practical carrying case. You have to if your firearm came in cardboard. I've been to ranges that don't allow you to walk in the door unless the firearm is in a carrying case, and even if you transport it legally in your locked trunk, do you want that firearm just open, sliding around and exposed? Nope. Pistol range bags can be extremely practical as they can hold 2 or more pistols in one. Carrying cases also usually have external pockets for storing magazines, slings, holsters, or whatever other accessories you need.
You'll need one. Check to make sure your firearm fits, and make the purchase before you leave the shop with your firearm.
Ammunition Loader (UpLula)
A must have? Maybe not. I'll tell you though, loading brand-new factory Smith & Wesson M&P magazines can be extremely difficult until they get a little wear. Glock magazines are easier, as are most rifle magazines. But, when at the range, your thumb or loading finger will get sore pretty quickly if you rely on it to load magazine after magazine, especially new ones. Do yourself a favor, if you bought a pistol, buy an UpLula magazine loader. It will save your thumbs (and temper).Cleaning Kit
Before you take your first shot, and after every time at the range, you'll need to clean that new firearm. There's a ton of great kits out there. I recommend starting with the caliber specific kits from Cabelas. You'll need a few additional items to augment that kit, and I strongly recommend a bore snake as they make cleaning a snap. I also recommend purchasing a set of plastic dental tools as they are excellent for accessing hard to reach spots on the firearm. Bottom line, you'll be cleaning often so you need the right tools to do it. Here's minimally what you need:Barrel rod with caliber specific attachments (or bore snake)
Bore brush (or bore snake)
Patches
Cleaner (or combination cleaner, lubricant, protector like CLP or Balistol)
Lubricant (or comination like CLP etc.)
Cleaning mat or sturdy but soft surface
Cleaning brush (or tooth brush)
Personally, I'd grab a can of CLP, a package of patches, a bore snake, and a Cabelas cleaning kit and call it a day.
For a basic kit, expect to pay around $40
If you want to safely practice loading, pulling the trigger, and unloading your firearm, or go through the motions to learn how the action words, Snap Caps are a must-have. Buy the right ones for your caliber.
Snap Caps are cheap. This must-have should only add $15 to your purchase.
You'll need to buy more. A few more at least. How many more? Well, some experts say you should start with 5. Why? Because they malfunction, wear out, sometimes break, and aren't always available. This is the feeding device for your semi-automatic firearm. Without it, your firearm doesn't work. Do you want just 1 backup? Do you want 2? What about when you hit the range, do you want to be reloading magazines after each 1 or 2? Many bolt action rifle magazines only hold 3-5 rounds. Will you keep the magazine's charged (full of bullets) at home? If so, do you want an empty spare to practice with? Think through these questions and make your decision. I think 5 magazines is a reasonable start, but you should also consider the future. Eventually you'll want more, but that can come with time. I think between 5-10 is a good number to land on, but that's just me. Some people assume that they won't be able to buy magazines in the future, so might as well own as many now as you'll need for the rest of your life. I understand that logic. Up to you.
My core recommendation is 5. If you are purchasing a revolver, buy a few speed loaders and a few speed strips. I personally prefer speed strips from Bianchi over speed loaders, but get some of each to practice with before you invest in a bunch more. I haven't torture tested either device, but my guess is speed loaders and strips will wear out much faster than a magazine, so you'll probably want more.
For magazines, expect to pay between $15-$40 depending upon the firearm. Go with your manufacture's magazines for pistols. For AR-15s or AR-15 magazine compatible rifles, Magpul PMAGs are the standard, and they are cheap.
Obviously this doesn't apply to shotgun purchases, but consider your shell carry solution as well. Bandoliers are silly, but can be practical. Several tactical clothing manufactures make ammo bags that you can attach to a MOLLE capable vest or pack of some sort. You could also go with a direct mount option either to the stock or the receiver. These have pros-and-cons, namely capacity. Get something though. Otherwise, you're stuck with what's in the tube.
You've now entered the world of expensive must-have accessories. Some great options for pistols include Streamlight and Surefire. Both are expensive. A Streamlight TLR-3 for a pistol will set you back about $100. Surefires are more. With a rifle and mount (see Magpul again), you can get away with a tactical flashlight like a Streamlight PolyTac for about $30. Mounting a light on your pistol or rifle does require some sort of rail system, so check for that before you make your final firearm selection (or buy another firearm for night-time defense). Magpul also offers mounting solutions for shotguns and AK platforms if your factory setup doesn't come equipped with a rail system.
To set expectations, if you need a new fore-end for your rifle or shotgun, plus mounting rail, plus light mount, expect to pay at least $100.
Once equipped, if things go bump in the night, you can grab your firearm, flip on the light, and investigate what's going on. Be sure of your target and keep that finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire, and don't point that firearm at anything you don't intend to destroy.
So, how much should you buy? I recommend keeping at least 500 rounds of ammunition for each caliber firearm you own as a minimum. That might seem like a lot, but you can easily burn 100 rounds in a short hour at the range. What if you hit the range a few times in a month, and all the local shops run dry on ammo? You'll be out fast, and your firearms will go hungry. Ammunition prices are all over the map, so there's no way to set expectations on this for you, but for the average centerfire ammunition (9mm, 45 ACP, .223/5.56, .38 spcl, .357, .44, .30-30 etc.) you'll be paying between $0.30 a round to well over $1.00 a round.
You should also consider the continuous attack on our freedoms by anti-gun politicians. As I mentioned, when ATF started to try to ban 5.56, it suddenly disappeared from availability. We can't assume the ammunition we buy today will be available tomorrow. If you can, buy, buy, buy.
So, for your initial purchase, skip the red-dot. You don't need it.
Thanks, and be safe.
For a basic kit, expect to pay around $40
Snap Caps
Those of you who are firearms owners already might disagree with me on this one. Hear me out. As a firearm owner, it is your responsibility to be extremely proficient with that firearm. You must know how it works, how to handle it, and what to expect from it. That means you'll need to handle it often. It's a must. You'll probably want to anyway, but you have got to put hands on that firearm often, practicing how to safely hold and operate that firearm for your safety and those around you. A great way to do this safely is with snap caps. If you are totally unfamiliar with them, they are the same shape as ammunition (bullet in a case), but are are made of different material and instead of a primer (that makes the firearm ignite the powder), they have a small piece of plastic or rubber (well, plus no powder). They are duds. Fake bullets. But they are made for you to load into your firearm and safely pull the trigger without any sound (other than the action) or propelled object (nothing comes out of the barrel). It's generally considered bad practice to pull the trigger on a firearm with nothing in the chamber (Glocks are the obvious exception). Having Snap Caps allows you to safely do just that.If you want to safely practice loading, pulling the trigger, and unloading your firearm, or go through the motions to learn how the action words, Snap Caps are a must-have. Buy the right ones for your caliber.
Snap Caps are cheap. This must-have should only add $15 to your purchase.
Magazines or Speed Loaders
Most semi-automatic firearms that are magazine fed will come from the factory with 1-2 magazines. Revolvers don't. Their magazine is built in, but unless you plan on carrying around loose ammunition, you'll need some way to manage the loading process. The bad news is, magazines are expensive these days. I know about 20 years ago, they were far more expensive and impossible to find, but for what they are, they still seem expensive to me.You'll need to buy more. A few more at least. How many more? Well, some experts say you should start with 5. Why? Because they malfunction, wear out, sometimes break, and aren't always available. This is the feeding device for your semi-automatic firearm. Without it, your firearm doesn't work. Do you want just 1 backup? Do you want 2? What about when you hit the range, do you want to be reloading magazines after each 1 or 2? Many bolt action rifle magazines only hold 3-5 rounds. Will you keep the magazine's charged (full of bullets) at home? If so, do you want an empty spare to practice with? Think through these questions and make your decision. I think 5 magazines is a reasonable start, but you should also consider the future. Eventually you'll want more, but that can come with time. I think between 5-10 is a good number to land on, but that's just me. Some people assume that they won't be able to buy magazines in the future, so might as well own as many now as you'll need for the rest of your life. I understand that logic. Up to you.
My core recommendation is 5. If you are purchasing a revolver, buy a few speed loaders and a few speed strips. I personally prefer speed strips from Bianchi over speed loaders, but get some of each to practice with before you invest in a bunch more. I haven't torture tested either device, but my guess is speed loaders and strips will wear out much faster than a magazine, so you'll probably want more.
For magazines, expect to pay between $15-$40 depending upon the firearm. Go with your manufacture's magazines for pistols. For AR-15s or AR-15 magazine compatible rifles, Magpul PMAGs are the standard, and they are cheap.
Obviously this doesn't apply to shotgun purchases, but consider your shell carry solution as well. Bandoliers are silly, but can be practical. Several tactical clothing manufactures make ammo bags that you can attach to a MOLLE capable vest or pack of some sort. You could also go with a direct mount option either to the stock or the receiver. These have pros-and-cons, namely capacity. Get something though. Otherwise, you're stuck with what's in the tube.
Flash Light and Mount
Ok, I may have lost you with that one, but hear me out. You bought that firearm, chances are with personal or home defense in mind right? Ok, so think through a night-time scenario in which you may have to retrieve that firearm. Will you have one hand free to manage a flash light to see in the dark? Can you effectively control and shoot that firearm with one hand? Trust me, a mounted light option is the way to go. Until you have it, you won't be able to use that firearm at night.You've now entered the world of expensive must-have accessories. Some great options for pistols include Streamlight and Surefire. Both are expensive. A Streamlight TLR-3 for a pistol will set you back about $100. Surefires are more. With a rifle and mount (see Magpul again), you can get away with a tactical flashlight like a Streamlight PolyTac for about $30. Mounting a light on your pistol or rifle does require some sort of rail system, so check for that before you make your final firearm selection (or buy another firearm for night-time defense). Magpul also offers mounting solutions for shotguns and AK platforms if your factory setup doesn't come equipped with a rail system.
To set expectations, if you need a new fore-end for your rifle or shotgun, plus mounting rail, plus light mount, expect to pay at least $100.
Once equipped, if things go bump in the night, you can grab your firearm, flip on the light, and investigate what's going on. Be sure of your target and keep that finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire, and don't point that firearm at anything you don't intend to destroy.
Ammunition
Your gun needs food. You can't shoot if you have no ammunition, and these days, ammo can be hard to come by. Artificial fluctuations in ammunition supply causes regular periods of empty shelves at your local gun store as well as at online retailers. In 2015 when the ATF started trying to ban popular 5.56 ammunition, owners when on a purchasing binge and every store I know of (online and physical) ran out. If you buy a .22 long rifle, well congratulations and good luck. The places I buy .22 from limit orders due to the popularity of the cartridge and tendency among people to just buy up everything they see. A few years ago, 9mm was impossible to find. It's back now, but there are still times when my favorite retailer is out of the specific ammunition I'm looking for - even among popular brands like Federal and Hornady. Never assume ammunition will be plentiful. It's not.So, how much should you buy? I recommend keeping at least 500 rounds of ammunition for each caliber firearm you own as a minimum. That might seem like a lot, but you can easily burn 100 rounds in a short hour at the range. What if you hit the range a few times in a month, and all the local shops run dry on ammo? You'll be out fast, and your firearms will go hungry. Ammunition prices are all over the map, so there's no way to set expectations on this for you, but for the average centerfire ammunition (9mm, 45 ACP, .223/5.56, .38 spcl, .357, .44, .30-30 etc.) you'll be paying between $0.30 a round to well over $1.00 a round.
You should also consider the continuous attack on our freedoms by anti-gun politicians. As I mentioned, when ATF started to try to ban 5.56, it suddenly disappeared from availability. We can't assume the ammunition we buy today will be available tomorrow. If you can, buy, buy, buy.
Ammunition Storage
Ok, now that you have all that ammo, where are you planning to store it. Remember, ammunition can be a health hazard if you purchase and store ammo that has exposed lead. You'll also need to keep it in a dry and safe location so that it's not damaged by weather or impact. Firearms safety manuals also say to store it in a locked container or safe, separate from your firearms. I'm not going to offer you suggestions on this one, but you'll need to think this through. Think about ammo cans, lockers, safes etc. and make a decision, before that ammo arrives home.Red-Dot Optic
Ok, I'm going to depart from the rest of the article on this topic and end with a DON'T BUY. This is an accessory the store might try to sell you, but YOU DON'T NEED IT. Not at first anyway. If you buy an AR-15 or similar rifle, you may be really tempted to buy a red-dot, especially if you are influenced by what you see in movies, magazines, or YouTube. Believe me, they are extremely useful and practical. However, it's better to become proficient at close distances using traditional "iron sights" anyway. Our men and women in the military are taught to be proficient with iron sights at 100 yards and beyond. You should start there too. You'll need iron sights anyway in case your red-dot ever fails or the battery dies. Better to learn it from the start.So, for your initial purchase, skip the red-dot. You don't need it.
Thanks, and be safe.
Firearms Myth 9: A Gunman is a Danger
The media and anti-gun politicians have done a great job of creating the perception that someone with a gun, a gunman, is a danger or a threat. We've been condition to the point where if we see someone holding a gun, we automatically think it's a problem. If you went to a friends house, and they had a gun on their hip, or were cleaning a firearm, you might instantly feel uncomfortable. Why is that? It used to be that guns were just another tool most people carried around. When packing for a camping trip, you'd grab your tent, food, stove, mess kit, gun, sleeping bag etc. When heading downtown for the night, you'd grab your gun. When getting ready for a morning jog, you'd strap on your holster and insert your trusted pistol. When heading out to work in public among unpredictable situations, you'd load your trusted defensive firearm. In fact millions of Americans still do this...silently.
So what changed that created the perception that these people are dangerous? Are there so many more people running around threatening us and provoking people with guns that this fear is justified by our societal experience? That hasn't been my experience. In fact, where I live, seeing someone with a gun is extremely rare, despite the fact that gun sales top the nation in my home state. It's estimated that 1/3 of households in the US have at least 1 firearm in them. Clearly, they are extremely common, and for every firearm, there is a person who owns it. There are millions of gunmen and gunwomen out there today. If you live in the inner city, then perhaps you have had negative experiences with firearms and gangs. I'll give you that, but those people are criminals, not the normal everyday gun owner that you're most likely to encounter.
So what happened?
I recently heard this myth promulgated by the media following a recent home invasion and murder. The news media was reporting that the "gunman was on the loose" and police were in pursuit of "the gunman" as if a gunman being out on their own free will is a problem and police would naturally pursue a gunman. Murders out on the loose are a problem. I'm a gunman. Me being on the loose is not a problem. I have a completely clear and clean record and am out on my own free will. Does that make me a danger? Absolutely not. My character and record prove otherwise.
In fact, in order to purchase a firearm in America, you have to pass a federal background check orchestrated by the FBI. Yes, every new firearm purchase has to be essentially approved by the FBI and the person purchasing the firearm vetted. That essentially means, just about every gunman out there is a safe, law abiding citizen with a clean record. In fact that means if you see a gunman while in public, you are probably safer with them that without them, because the criminals among us - the real dangers to our society - obtain firearms in illegal ways and aren't vetted by law enforcement. Law breakers on the loose are the problem, not gunmen.
You might be thinking, "well, you aren't the problem, the gun is the problem. It's dangerous because it can kill." I've heard that before too. Here's the problem; guns can't kill. If I load a firearm and set it on a table in a room crowded with people, it won't just start killing. If it is left there, even with a bullet in the chamber, no one will be harmed. Someone has to pick up that firearm, point it at someone else, and intentionally pull the trigger. That is a very intentional action. In fact, most "self defense" firearms sold on the market today have multiple safety features built into them to make sure that if you pull that trigger all the way, you really meant it. You can't just put light pressure on the trigger (except for with single action revolvers), and it will accidentally go off. No, there are no accidental shootings. Firearms are built so that the action has to be very intentional, and the motion specific. You see, it's not the object that's the danger, it's the person yielding it that is the problem.
You might object saying, "well, I understand that, but I don't trust everyone else in that room with a loaded firearm." Ok, fine, but you trust that everyone around you on the road has a drivers license, isn't under the influence of an intoxicating substance, is in their right state of mind, is fully paying attention, and has maintained their vehicle to make sure it's operating perfectly. You trust all of them with an object that can very easily become a lethal weapon, yet you don't trust a room of strangers around a loaded firearm? I think the average person is far more likely to get behind a car they've never driven, then they are to pick up a firearm they've never fired.
Just because someone owns a firearm, and you see it with them, does not mean your life is in any more danger than any other moment of your existence. In fact, I'd say you are probably safer with that person than away from them.
Before I end this though, I must say, if you see someone with a firearm, do assess the situation and follow your instinct in that moment - even if your instinct is based on miss-understanding. The reality is there are murderers among us and they use firearms as weapons. They are extremely rare...but they are out there.
Thanks and be safe.
So what changed that created the perception that these people are dangerous? Are there so many more people running around threatening us and provoking people with guns that this fear is justified by our societal experience? That hasn't been my experience. In fact, where I live, seeing someone with a gun is extremely rare, despite the fact that gun sales top the nation in my home state. It's estimated that 1/3 of households in the US have at least 1 firearm in them. Clearly, they are extremely common, and for every firearm, there is a person who owns it. There are millions of gunmen and gunwomen out there today. If you live in the inner city, then perhaps you have had negative experiences with firearms and gangs. I'll give you that, but those people are criminals, not the normal everyday gun owner that you're most likely to encounter.
So what happened?
I recently heard this myth promulgated by the media following a recent home invasion and murder. The news media was reporting that the "gunman was on the loose" and police were in pursuit of "the gunman" as if a gunman being out on their own free will is a problem and police would naturally pursue a gunman. Murders out on the loose are a problem. I'm a gunman. Me being on the loose is not a problem. I have a completely clear and clean record and am out on my own free will. Does that make me a danger? Absolutely not. My character and record prove otherwise.
In fact, in order to purchase a firearm in America, you have to pass a federal background check orchestrated by the FBI. Yes, every new firearm purchase has to be essentially approved by the FBI and the person purchasing the firearm vetted. That essentially means, just about every gunman out there is a safe, law abiding citizen with a clean record. In fact that means if you see a gunman while in public, you are probably safer with them that without them, because the criminals among us - the real dangers to our society - obtain firearms in illegal ways and aren't vetted by law enforcement. Law breakers on the loose are the problem, not gunmen.
You might be thinking, "well, you aren't the problem, the gun is the problem. It's dangerous because it can kill." I've heard that before too. Here's the problem; guns can't kill. If I load a firearm and set it on a table in a room crowded with people, it won't just start killing. If it is left there, even with a bullet in the chamber, no one will be harmed. Someone has to pick up that firearm, point it at someone else, and intentionally pull the trigger. That is a very intentional action. In fact, most "self defense" firearms sold on the market today have multiple safety features built into them to make sure that if you pull that trigger all the way, you really meant it. You can't just put light pressure on the trigger (except for with single action revolvers), and it will accidentally go off. No, there are no accidental shootings. Firearms are built so that the action has to be very intentional, and the motion specific. You see, it's not the object that's the danger, it's the person yielding it that is the problem.
You might object saying, "well, I understand that, but I don't trust everyone else in that room with a loaded firearm." Ok, fine, but you trust that everyone around you on the road has a drivers license, isn't under the influence of an intoxicating substance, is in their right state of mind, is fully paying attention, and has maintained their vehicle to make sure it's operating perfectly. You trust all of them with an object that can very easily become a lethal weapon, yet you don't trust a room of strangers around a loaded firearm? I think the average person is far more likely to get behind a car they've never driven, then they are to pick up a firearm they've never fired.
Just because someone owns a firearm, and you see it with them, does not mean your life is in any more danger than any other moment of your existence. In fact, I'd say you are probably safer with that person than away from them.
Before I end this though, I must say, if you see someone with a firearm, do assess the situation and follow your instinct in that moment - even if your instinct is based on miss-understanding. The reality is there are murderers among us and they use firearms as weapons. They are extremely rare...but they are out there.
Thanks and be safe.
Firearms Myth 8: Spraying Bullets
One of my all time favorite movies is Red, starring Bruce Willis, John Malcovich, Morgan Freeman, Karl Urban, Helen Mirren, and others. Just a fun movie all around. Unfortunately, it's also very much Hollywood, which means it continues the tradition of creating myths around firearms. The one I want to address this time is the myth that you can keep on spraying bullets from a standard rifle for long periods of time. It makes for great action scenes in movies, but it's a myth unless you have a very specific setup. More specifically, you can't spray bullets for extended periods of time from a standard-issue military rifle like an M4, nor from it's civilian cousin, the AR-15 as are commonly used in movies where the spraying happens.
I'll give you an example.
There's a scene toward the very beginning of this movie, where Bruce Willis' character is attacked in his home. I won't spoil anything, but there comes a point where an assault crew brings in fully automatic rifles (look like M4s plus one SAW), and for several moments, just sprays the home under attack with bullets. In fact, it's a stream of continuous fire for almost 30 seconds by my count. You don't get any long detailed shots of the rifles being used, but based on their appearance, at least 2 of them are M4s with standard 30 round magazines. The assailants are wearing standard tactical vests, which on average can easily hold 12 magazines. Now, I won't go into it in this article, but there's a huge difference between the rifles you see in this clip and rifles that look like them that you can buy at your local gun shop (in free states that is).
Take a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WxZOes2Na0
Now let's take a look at reality. The M4 documented rate of fire is between 750-950 rounds per minute in full-auto mode (a mode unavailable to most Americans). That's the military rifle that many in the media equate to the semi-automatic AR-15 cousins many of us own. The two are not the same, but again, that's another article. As for the rate of fire, let's split the difference and assume the M4 is capable of 800 rounds per minute. For brevity, rate of fire represents the frequency at which a firearm can launch a projective. In laymen's terms, it can shoot 800 bullets in a minute. That's about 13 per second. The standard magazine for an M4, including the ones visible in the Red clip above, have a 30 round capacity. Drum style magazines (not observed in the movie) have a capacity of 100 rounds. That means to empty an entire standard magazine while in full auto mode would take less than 3 seconds. In fact, closer to 2 seconds. A 100 round drum (again, not used in this movie) would be emptied in about 8 seconds.
Firing continuously for 30 seconds as is shown in the movie, using standard 30 round magazines isn't possible. One would need a magazine with a capacity of about 390 rounds to accomplish that. If you used 30 round magazines and wanted to fire for 30 seconds as continuously as possible, you would need 13 magazines and 12 reloads. Now, given the tactical vests the assailants in the movie are using, it's possible they could have done that with minimal time between each reload. If you wanted to extend the firing time, you could use 4 drum magazines and 3 reloads, but they didn't do that.
In other words, what they did is not possible. So, if you believe that an AR-15 can just be used to spray bullets for minutes at a time, I hope I've corrected the record for you.
Now, the story continues it's absurdity (although fun). These assailants stop spraying the home from the outside, and decide to enter. They still haven't reloaded at this point, but even if we're to assume they did, given the standard tactical vests they appear to be wearing, they would be out of ammo when they walked into the house. Not a great idea if you are trying to take out a Bruce Willis character, but hey, it's a movie.
The only exception to this is the assailant with the SAW rifle who uses a belt to feed his machine gun it's ammunition. With a long enough belt, there's the potential that he could spray for 30 seconds, but I don't know much about that platform, so I won't comment on that.
Now, you may be thinking, "come on, it's a move, don't be so particular." I'm right there with you. I love that scene even though it's absurd. Here's the problem though. People see that scene and think it's a realistic representation of what those firearms are capable of. That's the experience they've had with a rifle like that, so when the media or politicians say things like "no one should be allowed to spray bullets from an AR-15," that's the image that may come to their mind, and they may be inclined to agree. They may see an AR-15 and think "why would someone want the ability to spray out a seemingly endless stream of bullets?" The problem is, no one can...at least not with the platform depicted in the movie that politicians will hold up in a press conference claiming they are trying to protect the public from.
It's movies like this, that while fun, fuel the miss-information out there and establish perceptions that many of us are judged against. Why would I want a firearm that can spray bullets continuously like that? I don't know, for fun I suppose. It's a civil right, so why not? But my point is, don't make those assumptions about that firearm platform or about owners of that platform. It's not real.
Thanks and be safe.
I'll give you an example.
There's a scene toward the very beginning of this movie, where Bruce Willis' character is attacked in his home. I won't spoil anything, but there comes a point where an assault crew brings in fully automatic rifles (look like M4s plus one SAW), and for several moments, just sprays the home under attack with bullets. In fact, it's a stream of continuous fire for almost 30 seconds by my count. You don't get any long detailed shots of the rifles being used, but based on their appearance, at least 2 of them are M4s with standard 30 round magazines. The assailants are wearing standard tactical vests, which on average can easily hold 12 magazines. Now, I won't go into it in this article, but there's a huge difference between the rifles you see in this clip and rifles that look like them that you can buy at your local gun shop (in free states that is).
Take a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WxZOes2Na0
Now let's take a look at reality. The M4 documented rate of fire is between 750-950 rounds per minute in full-auto mode (a mode unavailable to most Americans). That's the military rifle that many in the media equate to the semi-automatic AR-15 cousins many of us own. The two are not the same, but again, that's another article. As for the rate of fire, let's split the difference and assume the M4 is capable of 800 rounds per minute. For brevity, rate of fire represents the frequency at which a firearm can launch a projective. In laymen's terms, it can shoot 800 bullets in a minute. That's about 13 per second. The standard magazine for an M4, including the ones visible in the Red clip above, have a 30 round capacity. Drum style magazines (not observed in the movie) have a capacity of 100 rounds. That means to empty an entire standard magazine while in full auto mode would take less than 3 seconds. In fact, closer to 2 seconds. A 100 round drum (again, not used in this movie) would be emptied in about 8 seconds.
Firing continuously for 30 seconds as is shown in the movie, using standard 30 round magazines isn't possible. One would need a magazine with a capacity of about 390 rounds to accomplish that. If you used 30 round magazines and wanted to fire for 30 seconds as continuously as possible, you would need 13 magazines and 12 reloads. Now, given the tactical vests the assailants in the movie are using, it's possible they could have done that with minimal time between each reload. If you wanted to extend the firing time, you could use 4 drum magazines and 3 reloads, but they didn't do that.
In other words, what they did is not possible. So, if you believe that an AR-15 can just be used to spray bullets for minutes at a time, I hope I've corrected the record for you.
Now, the story continues it's absurdity (although fun). These assailants stop spraying the home from the outside, and decide to enter. They still haven't reloaded at this point, but even if we're to assume they did, given the standard tactical vests they appear to be wearing, they would be out of ammo when they walked into the house. Not a great idea if you are trying to take out a Bruce Willis character, but hey, it's a movie.
The only exception to this is the assailant with the SAW rifle who uses a belt to feed his machine gun it's ammunition. With a long enough belt, there's the potential that he could spray for 30 seconds, but I don't know much about that platform, so I won't comment on that.
Now, you may be thinking, "come on, it's a move, don't be so particular." I'm right there with you. I love that scene even though it's absurd. Here's the problem though. People see that scene and think it's a realistic representation of what those firearms are capable of. That's the experience they've had with a rifle like that, so when the media or politicians say things like "no one should be allowed to spray bullets from an AR-15," that's the image that may come to their mind, and they may be inclined to agree. They may see an AR-15 and think "why would someone want the ability to spray out a seemingly endless stream of bullets?" The problem is, no one can...at least not with the platform depicted in the movie that politicians will hold up in a press conference claiming they are trying to protect the public from.
It's movies like this, that while fun, fuel the miss-information out there and establish perceptions that many of us are judged against. Why would I want a firearm that can spray bullets continuously like that? I don't know, for fun I suppose. It's a civil right, so why not? But my point is, don't make those assumptions about that firearm platform or about owners of that platform. It's not real.
Thanks and be safe.
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
To The Range - First Time or Getting Back
Background
Did you just buy a firearm? New to shooting and going to the range for the first time? Has it been so long that you forgot what to expect. No problem, I'm here to help. We all know the feeling. Firearms can be very intimidating to new or inexperienced shooters, and there are so many things to remember including that long list of rules the range will ask you to review before you enter your lane. Let's ease you into that experience by establishing some expectations up front.Safety Reminder
Before you start, let's remember the safety fundamentals:1. Always assume the firearm is loaded
2. Keep your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard until you are ready to shoot
3. Keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction and never toward anything you aren't willing to destroy
4. Be sure of your target and what's behind it
Before You Go
Read the Manual
I know many people have a natural tendency to skip reading owners manuals, but this is one you cannot skip. Owners manuals are usually a short read but contain critical information. Read it. Make sure you understand it. Read your firearm. Key pieces of information including caliber & some warning will be printed on the firearm itself.
Familiarize Yourself With the Firearm
Long before you hit the range, say a few weeks or at least a few days, pull your firearm out and become familiar with it. Make sure it's unloaded, and start handling the firearm in a safe way. Get a good feel for the grip. Try different grips to find the hand placement that works for you. If you are shooting a semi-automatic, practice moving the slide back and forward smoothly in a controlled manner (don't let it slam forward). Practice locking the slide back. If it's a rifle or shotgun, practice the action (pump, lever, bolt etc.). Get a feel for how it works. Pick up the firearm and practice aiming (in a safe direction while it's unloaded). Be sure you know how to grip and manage the firearm well, rehearsing in your head the shooting dynamics. For semi-automatics, with the firearm and magazine unloaded, practice inserting an empty magazine and releasing it.
Practice safety steps like ensuring the firearm is unloaded and safe. Make sure all the components are secure. Check your magazines to make sure the springs seem to be functioning well. If your firearm has a detachable magazine, load and unload the magazine a few times to make sure you have that down and to check the magazine itself under pressure. Field strip the firearm. Yep, take it apart (the major components) and inspect them. Make sure you have oil/lube in the right places, and that the barrel is clean and dry.
Clean It
When you purchased your firearm, you should have purchased a cleaning kit with it. If you didn't, do so right now, before you use the firearm. Some firearms come with factory lube or oil that will help the firearm function without needing to clean it before first use, however it's considered best practice to clean and oil the firearm before you take your first shot. Cleaning it will also give you an opportunity to practice handling the firearm and inspecting the components - especially the barrel. The owners manual will describe how to clean & oil the firearm, but Hickok45 has some great tutorials for different firearm types:
Glock Cleaning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZf4mUM10Vc
Revolver Cleaning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiWNZgtu2uw&nohtml5=False
AR Cleaning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwK3j615734&nohtml5=False
1911 Cleaning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wPPUXU3Lhc&nohtml5=False
Revolver Cleaning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiWNZgtu2uw&nohtml5=False
AR Cleaning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwK3j615734&nohtml5=False
1911 Cleaning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wPPUXU3Lhc&nohtml5=False
Practice
I highly recommend purchasing Snap Caps for your firearm as they allow you to safely load, chamber a round, and practice pulling the firearm's trigger. Snap Caps are "blanks" that don't actually make a sound when you pull the trigger, but allow you to repeatedly dry-fire your firearm without causing any damage. Do that a few times just to get the feel of the trigger and to practice the mechanics of loading, aiming, and pulling the trigger.Eyes and Ears
Make sure you have a good set of eye and ear protection before you head to the range. You can most likely rent a set there, but a basic set will cost you no more than $30-$40 dollars, so it's well worth the investment.At the Range
When you arrive, if it's your first time or if you haven't been in a while, you'll likely be asked to review safety information & range rules. You may be asked to present your firearms & ammunition to ensure they are safe (unloaded) and of an ammunition type that is approved by your range. Some ranges will ask you to answer a series of questions about the material you read. Don't worry, and don't get stressed out. Most of the information will be common sense.Oh, and don't forget to grab a few targets. When selecting targets, choose ones that will be useful to help you train - shooting in small groups in a controlled manner. You might be tempted to pick up a zombie target or a hostage target. That's fine too, but I find that target sheets that have multiple targets on them are the best bang for my buck.
In the Booth
Ok, it's time to get serious. Breath, relax. This is where I started freaking out on my first range visit. I was alone in that booth, alone on the range, with my firearm and ammunition. Take a few breaths. There's no rush. No pressure. Unpack your firearm and point the barrel down range. Pull out your ammunition and magazines and set them beside your firearm. Keep the area as clear as you can and make sure your eyes and ears are on.If you are pistol shooting, I recommend you set your target between 5-7 yards away. That may not seem like much, but trust me. If you are rifle shooting, try 25 yards to start. Once you feel comfortable, you can always move that target. Right now, it's about easing into this process as safely, securely, and comfortably as possible.
Load up a magazine (or cylinder), and chamber a round.
Stance & Grip
There are many ways to stand and shoot, but there are generally two types used by professionals: the weaver and the isosceles. Google them for some video tutorials. Try these two out and go with what works for you. You can place your feet in a parallel stance, with both arms extended straight in front of you, parallel, gripping the firearm grip with your dominant hand, while wrapping the other hand around it. Alternately, you can stand with your dominate foot behind your other foot. This will naturally turn your body slightly. Grip the pistol with your dominant hand, arm straight, wrapping your other hand around the first, but bending your second arm slightly. Either way, once you have a strong stance, lean forward slightly and bring the firearm up to your eye level.Rifles are different of course since one had will be on the grip, the other on the fore-end. There's not a lot of variation here. If your range allows it (and you aren't shooting a shotgun), try shooting from a seated position first.
Make sure you have a firm grip, but don't squeeze too hard. Just firm.
A few side notes about your grip. First, if you are shooting a semi-automatic pistol, keep your hand and fingers away from the slide. Don't have any part of your hand touching the slide, or directly behind the slide. If you do, it can cause a minor injury when a shot is fired. Second, if you are shooting a revolver, keep your hands clear of the cylinder (behind and below). If you are too close, you'll feel a blast. If you are even closer. Well...
Sight Picture
This is going to vary from firearm to firearm, but I'll speak from generalities. If you are shooting a pistol, you should have a sight picture that presents 3 dots to you or 3 points of reference: two at the rear of the slide or pistol, one at the front of the barrel or slide. You want those three dots to line up, or if you don't have dots, you want the front sight to fill the space between the rear sights. For AR sights, you want that front post in the center of your rear sight. Focus on the front sight or front dot and look through it toward your target. You want that front dot directly where you want to make a hole or impact on your target.Before You Pull the Trigger
More safety information for you. Don't pull that trigger yet. After you do, if you've pulled that trigger all the way back and nothing happens. Stop. Don't pull it again. Keep the firearm pointed down range for a good 30+ seconds. You may have a round in the chamber that has a delayed ignition and it could go off at any moment. With the firearm pointed down range, drop the magazine, then pull the slide fully rearward and lock it back. Inspect the chamber and make sure it is clear. If the round is still chambered, put the firearm down and go get help.If you pull the trigger and hear the boom, the slide retracts, but doesn't close all the way, stop. Drop the magazine by pressing the magazine release button and removing it. Pull the slide fully rearward and lock it. Inspect the chamber. The brass may not have fully ejected and may have caused some other problem. Clear the brass. If a round is in the chamber, drop the slide gently, and pull it back again. Repeat a few times to make sure that round is extracted successfully.
Trigger Pull
Ok, take a few deep breaths again. Relax. The gun is about to go boom and you are about to feel recoil. The recoil won't hurt, but the shot will surprise you. Let it happen. The key here is aim, but don't worry so much about being precise. Your first few shots should be about getting comfortable with pulling the trigger, feeling the recoil, and hearing the sound. You need to aim and be sure of your target, but try to focus on just getting to know the experience, and no so much about shot placement. You'll probably be tempted right away to change your grip. Go for it.Some keys here. I recommend pulling that trigger slowly, all the way rearward, then releasing after the boom. Do that a few times. You'll notice there is a bit of up-take before the firing pin strikes the primer (before the boom). This is a safety feature in semi-automatic pistols, giving you a chance to be sure you want to pull that trigger. In double action revolvers, this is part of the cycling process. Every gun is different, so you want to really get to know that feeling, and get to know when the "click" or "bang" will happen.
If you are shooting a rifle, that up-take may not be present. As soon as the trigger moves on a stock AR for example, it goes bang.
Follow-Up Shots
Ok, now that you have the initial experience under your belt. Have fun. Enjoy the next however many shots. Try variations on target distance. Shoot in groups and change targets once you lose track of where the last hole was. You need to be able to discern where that last shot went so you know where to aim for the next shot. Take it easy, stay in control, breathe, and have fun!Be safe and have fun.
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Firearms Myth 7: Gun Ownership is Rare
Ok, this one really bugs me. It's not necessarily a stated myth. It's more implied by nature of the media and Democrat politicians demonizing gun ownership in America as some fringe, legacy attribute of our Republic left over from the days of hunting. It's perpetuated by politicians who pass laws restricting the purchasing process, ownership, or ammunition supply, claiming those laws keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. See the implication there? It's that most people engaged in purchasing firearms or related goods, have malicious intent or are up to no good. By creating this image that pro-gun people are either legacy in mindset or malicious in nature, the media and politicians are planting the thought in your mind that gun owners are few and far between.
As gun sales are currently surging at record numbers, there are also ongoing attempts by mainstream media outlets to say gun ownership is actually declining. Yep. Crazy huh? I've cited a few articles below where these media outlets - in the same article - present a series of facts (selected facts) and then present their analysis, based on a ton of unstated assumptions, to try to get you to think that gun ownership is declining. To the myth!
Firearms Myth 7: Gun ownership is rare.
This myth couldn't be further from the truth. I'll even use the mainstream media's data points & articles to illustrate this.
According to a 2013 report from the Pew Research Center (see http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/), 1/3 of Americans admitted that someone in their household owns a firearm. Sure, that is a minority of the population, but consider that for a moment. One out of every three houses on your street, in your neighborhood, in your apartment complex, contains a gun owner. The Pew Research Center goes on to estimate there are around 310 million firearms owned privately in the US, enough to arm every man, woman and child. That's a lot of owners, and a lot of firearms. As a side note, given liberal democrat hysteria about firearm ownership, you'd think with 1/3 households owning firearms, there would be mass shootings or gun battles on every street corner. One article below even claims suicide rates increase with gun ownership, yet nationally, as gun ownership increases, homicides and suicides involving a firearm are dropping drastically.
Now, a quick caveat. Statistics on gun ownership are generally believed to be on the low-end because many survey responders who are gun owners are hesitant to provide specifics due to privacy concerns. So gun ownership numbers are likely lower than actuals.
Let's restate that. It's likely that at least 1 out of every 3 homes in America contains a firearm owner, and that number is likely low.
Not so rare after-all. In fact, recent studies have shown gun ownership in America is skyrocketing with monthly sales continuing to set records and doubling in figures since 2011.
According to the NRA-ILA (see here https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150911/summer-2015-new-record-for-gun-sales), FBI data indicates firearms sales in the US increased month-over-month for 8 straight months in 2015, with more recent articles indicating 2016 is continuing the trend. The trend or surge started in 2010, when Democrats starting with President Obama began threatening new legislation to restrict firearm ownership. Surges have also followed terrorist attacks, and the growing ISIS threat. Regardless, the data says gun purchases have been increasing since 2010 and are still growing.
Another study by the Pew Research Center in 2015 showed that the majority of Americans at 52% favor securing gun rights for Americans and decreasing restrictions on purchasing & ownership. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/17/despite-lower-crime-rates-support-for-gun-rights-increases/
Here's another fun trend. According to data in 2015 published by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), women represent a considerable demographic of new gun owners. According to their research, more than 30% of gun purchases since 2010 (the current surge), were by women. Further, more than 40% of women who own a gun, personally own more than 1 and have purchased them in the past 10 years. Other data suggests these numbers are even higher in 2016. See here http://www.gunsandammo.com/gun-culture/women-gun-owners-nssf-1/. Among many women surveyed, they cite personal defense as the primary reason to purchase a new firearm. That aligns with FBI statistics on the growing number of CCW applications. Threats are increasing and people want the assurance that if confronted with a personal threat, they will have the upper hand.
Now let's look at the numbers in another way.
According to data from the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/21/the-average-gun-owner-now-owns-8-guns-double-what-it-used-to-be/), the average gun owner in America owns more than 8 firearms. I'll say that again. The average gun owner in America owns more than 8 firearms. That's 2013 data, during the period of record breaking sales that are increasing in volume & frequency. It's likely well beyond 8 firearms per owner at this point. Well beyond in fact, as the Washington Post also claims (although there's no hard data to support this), that many new purchases are by existing gun owners. If that's true, then the ratio of guns to owners is rapidly increasing.
So, let's correlate that to the households statistic. If every owner owns at least 8 guns, and there's an owner in 1 of every 3 homes in America, that's far more than 2 firearms for every home. That supports the Pew Research Center's assertion that there are enough firearms for every man, woman, and child in America.
Now, the Washington Post article goes on to claim that the number of households containing a firearm is down from the 50% rate observed in the 70s, thus inferring that gun ownership is on the decline. That's their guess, and not necessarily supported by the data. In fact the data directly conflicts with that myth. You see what's happening? They give you data, then twist it with their analysis to leave you with a myth. With gun sales skyrocketing today, and most buys being first-time buyers, that tells us ownership on a per capita perspective is steadily rising, despite the surveys.
The Washington Post also commented in one recent story that along with gun sales, applications for CCWs are increasing. Now, that doesn't necessarily imply a 1:1 ratio of new gun owners, but it does imply more interest in concealed carry. The Washington Post also noted (here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/05/gun-sales-hit-new-record-ahead-of-new-obama-gun-restrictions/) that gun sales surge after tragic events and calls from politicians for new gun control. That could indicate existing gun owners are buying up before new restrictions are implemented, but that doesn't answer the correlation between a tragedy, calls for CCWs, and new purchases. That correlation actually implies new owners. In fact, surveys following tragedies like mass shootings and terrorist attacks, show overwhelming support among the public for increased gun ownership and decreased restrictions. That's right. The Washington Post says ownership is declining, but people purchasing guns say the opposite.
I wonder if these media outlets actually talk to gun owners. In my own experience at local shops and ranges, I often see first time buyers. In fact, the majority of people hovering around the gun counter seem to be novices.
The numbers are muddy as you can tell. So are some of the articles I've referenced as the news outlets taint their analysis with their anti-gun agenda, again, trying to dispense the myth that gun ownership is rare. It's not. It's extremely popular and increasing, with national support for gun rights on the rise.
Myth busted.
As gun sales are currently surging at record numbers, there are also ongoing attempts by mainstream media outlets to say gun ownership is actually declining. Yep. Crazy huh? I've cited a few articles below where these media outlets - in the same article - present a series of facts (selected facts) and then present their analysis, based on a ton of unstated assumptions, to try to get you to think that gun ownership is declining. To the myth!
Firearms Myth 7: Gun ownership is rare.
This myth couldn't be further from the truth. I'll even use the mainstream media's data points & articles to illustrate this.
According to a 2013 report from the Pew Research Center (see http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/), 1/3 of Americans admitted that someone in their household owns a firearm. Sure, that is a minority of the population, but consider that for a moment. One out of every three houses on your street, in your neighborhood, in your apartment complex, contains a gun owner. The Pew Research Center goes on to estimate there are around 310 million firearms owned privately in the US, enough to arm every man, woman and child. That's a lot of owners, and a lot of firearms. As a side note, given liberal democrat hysteria about firearm ownership, you'd think with 1/3 households owning firearms, there would be mass shootings or gun battles on every street corner. One article below even claims suicide rates increase with gun ownership, yet nationally, as gun ownership increases, homicides and suicides involving a firearm are dropping drastically.
Now, a quick caveat. Statistics on gun ownership are generally believed to be on the low-end because many survey responders who are gun owners are hesitant to provide specifics due to privacy concerns. So gun ownership numbers are likely lower than actuals.
Let's restate that. It's likely that at least 1 out of every 3 homes in America contains a firearm owner, and that number is likely low.
Not so rare after-all. In fact, recent studies have shown gun ownership in America is skyrocketing with monthly sales continuing to set records and doubling in figures since 2011.
According to the NRA-ILA (see here https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150911/summer-2015-new-record-for-gun-sales), FBI data indicates firearms sales in the US increased month-over-month for 8 straight months in 2015, with more recent articles indicating 2016 is continuing the trend. The trend or surge started in 2010, when Democrats starting with President Obama began threatening new legislation to restrict firearm ownership. Surges have also followed terrorist attacks, and the growing ISIS threat. Regardless, the data says gun purchases have been increasing since 2010 and are still growing.
Another study by the Pew Research Center in 2015 showed that the majority of Americans at 52% favor securing gun rights for Americans and decreasing restrictions on purchasing & ownership. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/17/despite-lower-crime-rates-support-for-gun-rights-increases/
Here's another fun trend. According to data in 2015 published by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), women represent a considerable demographic of new gun owners. According to their research, more than 30% of gun purchases since 2010 (the current surge), were by women. Further, more than 40% of women who own a gun, personally own more than 1 and have purchased them in the past 10 years. Other data suggests these numbers are even higher in 2016. See here http://www.gunsandammo.com/gun-culture/women-gun-owners-nssf-1/. Among many women surveyed, they cite personal defense as the primary reason to purchase a new firearm. That aligns with FBI statistics on the growing number of CCW applications. Threats are increasing and people want the assurance that if confronted with a personal threat, they will have the upper hand.
Now let's look at the numbers in another way.
According to data from the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/21/the-average-gun-owner-now-owns-8-guns-double-what-it-used-to-be/), the average gun owner in America owns more than 8 firearms. I'll say that again. The average gun owner in America owns more than 8 firearms. That's 2013 data, during the period of record breaking sales that are increasing in volume & frequency. It's likely well beyond 8 firearms per owner at this point. Well beyond in fact, as the Washington Post also claims (although there's no hard data to support this), that many new purchases are by existing gun owners. If that's true, then the ratio of guns to owners is rapidly increasing.
So, let's correlate that to the households statistic. If every owner owns at least 8 guns, and there's an owner in 1 of every 3 homes in America, that's far more than 2 firearms for every home. That supports the Pew Research Center's assertion that there are enough firearms for every man, woman, and child in America.
Now, the Washington Post article goes on to claim that the number of households containing a firearm is down from the 50% rate observed in the 70s, thus inferring that gun ownership is on the decline. That's their guess, and not necessarily supported by the data. In fact the data directly conflicts with that myth. You see what's happening? They give you data, then twist it with their analysis to leave you with a myth. With gun sales skyrocketing today, and most buys being first-time buyers, that tells us ownership on a per capita perspective is steadily rising, despite the surveys.
The Washington Post also commented in one recent story that along with gun sales, applications for CCWs are increasing. Now, that doesn't necessarily imply a 1:1 ratio of new gun owners, but it does imply more interest in concealed carry. The Washington Post also noted (here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/05/gun-sales-hit-new-record-ahead-of-new-obama-gun-restrictions/) that gun sales surge after tragic events and calls from politicians for new gun control. That could indicate existing gun owners are buying up before new restrictions are implemented, but that doesn't answer the correlation between a tragedy, calls for CCWs, and new purchases. That correlation actually implies new owners. In fact, surveys following tragedies like mass shootings and terrorist attacks, show overwhelming support among the public for increased gun ownership and decreased restrictions. That's right. The Washington Post says ownership is declining, but people purchasing guns say the opposite.
I wonder if these media outlets actually talk to gun owners. In my own experience at local shops and ranges, I often see first time buyers. In fact, the majority of people hovering around the gun counter seem to be novices.
The numbers are muddy as you can tell. So are some of the articles I've referenced as the news outlets taint their analysis with their anti-gun agenda, again, trying to dispense the myth that gun ownership is rare. It's not. It's extremely popular and increasing, with national support for gun rights on the rise.
Myth busted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)