Sunday 27 August 2017
Stocks - Learned Something New
My expertise lies in modern sporting arms and military surplus. I have an interest in firearms that are appropriate for 3-gun or surviving SHTF. I am no expert on long range shooting. When I say that, I mean anything past 600 meters.
I was invited out by a friend who wanted to show me his newest load for his Remington 700…. Or maybe it was a 783… I can’t remember. He was really proud of his rifle and happily gushed over his carbon fiber stock, his Leopould scope, his custom muzzle break and most of all, his newest reloading formula.
He invited me to shoot. I did. With his help on how many ‘clicks’ to set his scope for various distances, I was pleased to see that I could hit what I shot at. Previous to this, the farthest I had (successfully) shot was at the 500 meter mark with the C7 running PWT2 in the military (And yes, I know PWT2 is not shot at 500 meters; we were fucking around to see who could do it).
I have an eye for detail and as I stood up I noticed something off about his rifle. He was so proud of it, I was really afraid to tell him… his buttstock was bent. Not a large amount, it was barely visible, perhaps offset about 3/16” to 1/4" to the side.
“I think your stock is defective” I mentioned and showed him that it bent slightly to the side. I expected anger. What I got instead was a lesson on how the slight bend allowed it to fit better in the shoulder. I accepted his answer but I did not really believe it.*
I looked into what he had to say and found that people wiser than me agreed – The offset buttstock (known as cast off) was a help in rapidly shouldering the rifle.
I wanted to include this link because it is a good reference article about the fit of guns. It is more imformative on the subject then I could ever be:
http://home.insightbb.com/~bspen/fit.html
*Hey… you know who you are… sorry for doubting you; it just sounded really odd.
Wednesday 16 August 2017
Is CBC Capable of Informed Journalism?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/canada-far-right-extremism-csis-1.4248183
Short answer - no. But that would be a dull blog entry.
CBC's published article suggests that Canada's intelligence community has been concentrating on preventing Islamic terrorism when they should devote more of those resources to fighting far-right movements.
The search has been on for a non-Islamic bad guy for quite some time (as early as 2013). The article even says that a former CSIS analyst does not believe far-right activities require the resources to combat because they don't need to. Their crimes tend to be minor in nature and unworthy of attention at the national level. I (as a former analyst) agree.
As I have mentioned, groups like Freemen on the Land don't go around murdering people as part of their core ideology. The article even admits that.
CBC clearly does not heed the words of experts. Instead, after stating the facts from someone who is trained to know better, they dragged up a person whose only qualification was as a former white-supremacist to make the case that the far right was dangerous. They minus well of grabbed my 4- year old son to explain the terror that crocodile-ghosts can inflict on the population.
Why isn't CSIS going after crocodile-ghosts? That actually sounds really scary.
And what prompted this article? Why the Virginia protests, where neo-Nazis clashed with Antifa Terrorists. National Socialists (Nazis) (which have left wing beliefs combined with a racial belief in white superiority) were against Marxist Socialists (which have left wing beliefs combined with racist policies towards whites).
Both are racists and both are left wing. And I have learned that when anything is left wing, it is always, violent, immoral and covetous to the core.
So I'm still waiting for someone to come up with something credible to suggest that right wing movements like Freemen on the Land or the 3 percenters are dangerous when all the violence is being perpetrated by the left.
You can't convince me that 3 percenters are equivalent to white supremacist protesters when people of all colors make up their ranks.
You can't convince me that Freemen on the Land are plotting and organizing against the government when by their very nature, they are isolationists who want to be ignored.
You can't convince me that libertarians are evil for getting upset at the loss of thier freedom of speech.
CBC needs to inject some common sense into their reporting. It might make up for their lack of facts and obvious bias.
Short answer - no. But that would be a dull blog entry.
CBC's published article suggests that Canada's intelligence community has been concentrating on preventing Islamic terrorism when they should devote more of those resources to fighting far-right movements.
The search has been on for a non-Islamic bad guy for quite some time (as early as 2013). The article even says that a former CSIS analyst does not believe far-right activities require the resources to combat because they don't need to. Their crimes tend to be minor in nature and unworthy of attention at the national level. I (as a former analyst) agree.
As I have mentioned, groups like Freemen on the Land don't go around murdering people as part of their core ideology. The article even admits that.
CBC clearly does not heed the words of experts. Instead, after stating the facts from someone who is trained to know better, they dragged up a person whose only qualification was as a former white-supremacist to make the case that the far right was dangerous. They minus well of grabbed my 4- year old son to explain the terror that crocodile-ghosts can inflict on the population.
Why isn't CSIS going after crocodile-ghosts? That actually sounds really scary.
And what prompted this article? Why the Virginia protests, where neo-Nazis clashed with Antifa Terrorists. National Socialists (Nazis) (which have left wing beliefs combined with a racial belief in white superiority) were against Marxist Socialists (which have left wing beliefs combined with racist policies towards whites).
Both are racists and both are left wing. And I have learned that when anything is left wing, it is always, violent, immoral and covetous to the core.
So I'm still waiting for someone to come up with something credible to suggest that right wing movements like Freemen on the Land or the 3 percenters are dangerous when all the violence is being perpetrated by the left.
You can't convince me that 3 percenters are equivalent to white supremacist protesters when people of all colors make up their ranks.
You can't convince me that Freemen on the Land are plotting and organizing against the government when by their very nature, they are isolationists who want to be ignored.
You can't convince me that libertarians are evil for getting upset at the loss of thier freedom of speech.
CBC needs to inject some common sense into their reporting. It might make up for their lack of facts and obvious bias.
Sunday 6 August 2017
Sig... You were so close
Despite over 4 decades of "experts" declaring the death of the SMG it is still going strong in militaries and police forces through the world.
Sig Sauer set about to make the next generation of SMG called the MPX. Its name harkens back the venerable MP5 which is considered to be the "gold standard" for SMGs. I had a chance to handle the MPX the other day and I found myself lukewarm to the platform.
They used advanced polymers to reduce weight and decrease production costs - something that both militaries and civilian buyers can appreciate. They kept the capability for the telescoping stock and offered KeyMod handguards to allow for mission customization with reduced weight. Probably the best improvement was the full rail across the top.
But Sig made a tragic error. They moved the German style cocking handle from the forend and moved it to the ridiculously placed position above the receiver just like the AR15.
I never have been a fan of this system because to use the cocking handle you need to break your line of sight or hit yourself in the face as you pull it back. Both are unacceptable to me.
Bushmaster built a 9mm AR years ago. Both the Bushmaster and the MPX are restricted firearms that essentially have the same features and manual of arms. It makes me wonder why Sig even tried with an established, nearly identical, product on the market already.
Removing the famous HK diopter sights was also a mistake. This forces the end user to buy their own sights and I will explain why this is bad. All aftermarket sights (with the exception of Centurion Arms) are designed for a rifle. The round HK sights are designed to use the brain's natural ability to line up circles quickly. The HK sight is by far the fastest sighting iron sight out there and it may not be as practical as a rifle sight for distance but we are dealing with a pistol caliber round which will not get any measurable performance past 100 meters. Perhaps in this day and age iron sights are not important and they assumed that everyone would use an optic. I might be old school but I personally like to have iron sights, even on an optic equipped rifle. If I purchase the MPX (which I doubt I will), the first thing I am going to do is machine some diopter sights.
The MPX is ok but it is not special by any stretch of the imagination. To me, it is nothing more than a re-imagined AR15 with a lot of LCF (look cool factor).
Sig Sauer set about to make the next generation of SMG called the MPX. Its name harkens back the venerable MP5 which is considered to be the "gold standard" for SMGs. I had a chance to handle the MPX the other day and I found myself lukewarm to the platform.
They used advanced polymers to reduce weight and decrease production costs - something that both militaries and civilian buyers can appreciate. They kept the capability for the telescoping stock and offered KeyMod handguards to allow for mission customization with reduced weight. Probably the best improvement was the full rail across the top.
But Sig made a tragic error. They moved the German style cocking handle from the forend and moved it to the ridiculously placed position above the receiver just like the AR15.
I never have been a fan of this system because to use the cocking handle you need to break your line of sight or hit yourself in the face as you pull it back. Both are unacceptable to me.
Bushmaster built a 9mm AR years ago. Both the Bushmaster and the MPX are restricted firearms that essentially have the same features and manual of arms. It makes me wonder why Sig even tried with an established, nearly identical, product on the market already.
Removing the famous HK diopter sights was also a mistake. This forces the end user to buy their own sights and I will explain why this is bad. All aftermarket sights (with the exception of Centurion Arms) are designed for a rifle. The round HK sights are designed to use the brain's natural ability to line up circles quickly. The HK sight is by far the fastest sighting iron sight out there and it may not be as practical as a rifle sight for distance but we are dealing with a pistol caliber round which will not get any measurable performance past 100 meters. Perhaps in this day and age iron sights are not important and they assumed that everyone would use an optic. I might be old school but I personally like to have iron sights, even on an optic equipped rifle. If I purchase the MPX (which I doubt I will), the first thing I am going to do is machine some diopter sights.
The MPX is ok but it is not special by any stretch of the imagination. To me, it is nothing more than a re-imagined AR15 with a lot of LCF (look cool factor).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)