Fury, Disappointment, Sadness.

A mix of emotions today.  The CCFR’s injunction has failed.

Fury

We were our own worst enemy.  I read the decision that was released by the justice.  She said basically there was no loss because we could buy something else.  Or manufacturers could build something else.  This argument presented by the crown was validated by selfish surrender-monkeys in our own industry.  The Neville Chamberlains who gave up the fight and decided to build neutered bolt action AR-15s proved the Liberal’s case for them.  While we all suffer collectively, they are laughing all the way to the bank exploiting this tragedy for their own gain.  I hate them.  I hate them so much.  You can’t rage at the scorpion that stings or the Liberal who steals… that is their nature.  But the betrayal by people who were supposed to be our brothers.  Those who claimed to be with us but were looking out to exploit this tragedy.  I am at a loss for words.

Disappointment

I didn’t expect to win.  I didn’t expect to lose.  But I did expect that, with what was said in court, that the RCMPs rampant re-classifications outside the OIC would be curbed.  I had this tiny bit of faith that despite a legal system that is stacked in favor of tyrants, rapists and thieves that they would be forced to admit this one truth.

Sadness

This is the genocide of our culture as we slip into a dystopian socialist nightmare.  I may be called melodramatic but in every nation that socialism has destroyed, they first came for the guns.  Getting the guns is an uncompromisable, integral part of social engineering.  The trainwreck of poverty that socialism brings is nearly unstoppable now; the plan is going strong and uninterrupted.

AR15 Straight Pull Bolt Actions - Farts and Fairydust

"People appreciate it when you tell the truth, until you tell the truth to them; then you're an asshole" - George Carlin



On 1May the long expected ban list was released.  Our prediction had an astounding 90% accuracy.  What was not expected was the overreach that happened next.
The RCMP, in a vengeful and petty fashion, decided to go above and beyond the 1May order in council (OIC) and ban many firearms as AR15 variants despite previous, documented opinions that they were in fact not. They named anything that remotely looked like an AR15 including a bolt action shotgun and a cheap 22 as variants. There was no consideration for action, mechanics or caliber.

Now this is the truth that will outrage people; the new crop of "defeatist" firearms such as the all the straight pull AR15s being released... Are going to be banned.

Don't kid yourself, they banned a BOLT ACTION shotgun because it looked like an AR15. They will ban your bolt action AR15 forgery because .... Wait for it ... It looks like a AR15. And surprise, surprise, unlike the shotgun, these new rifles are legitimately variants using a lot of the same internals and external furniture.

So the people who got kicked in the nuts with the AR15 ban are being tricked into taking a big ol' cock slap by getting stuck with even more banned firearms.

But the trustworthy government promised you a buyback... No risk, right?  Are you foolish enough to believe there will be a buyback? What party will pair with the minority government to vote for that? To give something to a group they distain? They already made the guns illegal... They already won, they don't need to make concessions.

Yes buying these guns is chasing good money after bad.  They could of built these designs to look externally like a SCAR or Tavor (both safe, un-bannable designs) or even did something original but they made the choice to make them look like AR15s in the hope of appealing to anger-blind gun owners for a quick buck.

Put your money into fighting for your real AR15 back or get a new gun; don't piss it away on a fairytale scam hoping to appease your Liberal masters.

Get up and fight

Giving Up Are We?

Like defeated losers some Canadian companies have decided to take the route of exploitation and cowardice in the face of this great and grave threat.

People floating ideas for starting central storage facilities.

People building bolt action rifles out of AR15 parts.

I can understand caution but this is fight I plan to win. I could exploit your fears like other guys to peddle a product that the market does not need, but instead, Specter Arms will lead by example and carry on with the S3 Phantom. 

If we decide to build a manual action firearm it will be because we have also built a shitpile of scary high capacity mags to go with it.  We will innovate based on honest customer demand, not people looking to surrender  or settle for something inferior.

We will also not develop ways to extort revenue from people based on unethical laws.  Central storage operators will be like the car insurance companies; a private entity taxing people. And I use the word tax because taxes are mandatory.

Capitalizing on a tragedy is low, despicable, depraved. Whether it's December 6 Quebec grave dancing day or one of our own, it is equally vile.
So with that in mind you need to decide who will prosper by making choices with your hard earned cash. If you don't need a gun right now consider donating to CCFR. Educating the public will win the day.  

And if you are in the market for some new guns...

Pick the people who have not given up on this industry.  Those who have not resigned themselves to the enemy's dark design.
Pick those with the faith and courage to lead us through these dark days. Choose to believe in our collective strength and that we will win the day. 

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).

The Pistol Caliber Carbine (Part 2)

Now that we have the data out of the way we can start to critically think to ourselves: Does the Pistol Caliber Carbine (PCC) have a place other then as a range toy?

Firstly, the projectiles fired from PCCs are typically larger then rifle rounds which mean they have increased atmospheric drag.  This causes pistol rounds to lose velocity and thus momentum very quickly compared to their rifle counterparts.

Using a standard 9mm projectile, I calculated the momentum at 100m and it comes out to roughly 2.324 Newton-Seconds (air density and humidity would change this number).  Compare that to our 10” barrel AR15 which would have a momentum of 2.381 Newton-Seconds.  So somewhere around the 90 meter mark we see that the 10” AR15 takes over as being the more effective firearm.  With a Dominion Arms AR15 (14” barrel, sold by Specter Arms) the momentum is better at any range.

Shooting at steel has taught me that 9mm carbines are 100 meter guns… that’s all.  The numbers tell me that I should downgrade that figure to 90 meters.

At 100 meters the 45ACP PCC drops to 2.915 Newton-Seconds of momentum.  That is a huge drop but it still beats the 14” AR15 at the same distance.  Now because the 45 round is subsonic at its standard loadings, the bullet drops quite a bit faster than 9mm.  If you zero for 100 meters, at 50 meters the bullet is going to be a terrifying 5.3” above your intended point of aim.  If you zero at 75 meters, the rise is acceptable before the 75 meter mark (max 2.5”) but falls rapidly after. Practically speaking, the 45 PCC is a 75 meter gun.

For the sake of argument and because we have not considered 40 S&W or 10mm, we will conclude that the PCC (as a general rule) is for close ranges of 100m or less.

This in itself is not a big deal.  The National Tactical Officers Association reports that the average distance that a police “Sniper” has to engage at it 76 meters.  Strangely enough that is also the distance that most battles in WW2 were fought at.  Most terrain in WW2 was wooded or urban so we can extrapolate that the PCC would also be effective in these areas.

Carrying Capacity
On a standard Molle vest, a pistol magazine takes up one loop of space wide by 2 tall whereas a AR15 magazine takes up two loops of space by 3 tall.  As 9mm glock magazine using PCC are most common, we will consider the question of carrying capacity with those in mind.

If we consider legality, we can get 6 pistol magazines into the space we would get 4 LAR magazines (60 versus 40 rounds or 3:2).  Using a legal technicality we can use 50 Beowulf magazines giving us our best ratio of 20 rounds for the PCC versus 17 rounds in the Beowulf.  If we use regular capacity magazines, the ratio does not change from the first example going to 90:60 or 3:2.
Any way you look at it… Legal or illegal, the PCC gives us the ability to carry more ammo loaded in magazines and ready to use.

We lose ground when we go to 45ACP in terms of carrying capacity.  PCCs that use 1911 mags typically only hold 8 rounds.  There are 10 round magazines but they are 3 molle loops high versus the normal 2.  In the end, carry capacity becomes about even with AR15s versus 45ACP PCCs.
For those who want to just stick magazines in a pocket or a bag, the ratio does not change.  In terms of space if we consider the height, length and depth of the various magazines, the ratios stay the same... about 3:2.

In urban conflict a great deal of effort is put into logistics.  It has been found in all of the great 20th century urban battles from Ortona to Grozny, that ammo consumption is a lot higher.  The ability to carry more ammo becomes especially useful in urban terrain.

In the old cowboy days, long guns and revolvers were often carried that matched in caliber.  Being able to use your ammo in two firearms was a lot more handy then a mish-mash of rounds.

PCCs are neither lighter nor more heavy then a comparable rifle.  Granted some PCCs (like the Sub-2000) are very light but for the most part, light rifles and PCCs weigh about the same.


Cost
At the low end, a new PCC will cost about $700 CAD.  At the high end, about $1500.  This is completely on par with the costs of an AR15 which (on the low end) costs about $700.  The VZ58 is in the middle at about $1100.  M305 (Chinese M14) is about $700.  So speaking strictly in terms of cost of gun, there is no advantage of one over the other.  They are so close in terms of prices range that we can actually discount this as a factor.

Ammo costs however are a bit different.  The Vz58, offers the cheapest ammo.  The 223 and 9mm are only a few pennies per round in cost from each other so they are essentially the same.  45ACP is the most expensive of the rounds mentioned.  So if we are comparing a 223 rifle (like the AR15) versus a 45 PCC, the cost for the 45 PCC is greater.



Putting it all together.
The PCC is effective at close ranges.  That means that the only terrain it has any value in is dense forest or urban areas where engagement ranges are close and having a firearm that is fast to bring on target is valuable.  The larger bullets and atmospheric drag cause PCCs to lose velocity faster then their rifle counterparts.  The PCC is a terrible choice in open or semi-open areas such as fields, mountains, roads or varying terrain.

We know from history that urban operations require a larger volume of ammo.  The PCC offers that.  There is a philosophy that holds that the person who runs out of ammo in a gunfight will be the loser.

The sound signature from a PCC is a lot less than a rifle.  You will still suffer hearing damage from prolonged use but it will not be the stunning, deafening blast in closed spaces as a rifle would be.

With the data we have available, we can reasonably say that the PCC is more effective than a light rifle such as the AR15 in urban areas only.  They are on par with each other in forest terrain but in mixed terrain or open terrain, the short range of the PCC makes it a terrible choice.

If you want a carbine that is good in a lot of places and has versatility, then the PCC should not be your choice.  If you can say with certainty that in a disaster, your area of operations is going to be urban, then go with the PCC.

In the next part I will go over the various PCCs that are available in Canada.

The Pistol Caliber Carbine (Part 1)

The Pistol Caliber Carbine (PCC) is debated in terms of its practical use.  Some view it as a range toy, others include this firearm as part of their survival plan.  In exploring this topic we need to first look at hard data before we can really explore things like philosophy of use.  In Part One of the Pistol Caliber Carbine I will explore the physics involved with this class of firearm versus the conventional SHTF rifle, the AR15.
In Part 2, we will use this data to discuss philosophy of use.
In Part 3, we will talk about common PCCs in Canada.

There are two empirical methods of assessing the terminal performance of a round
1) Kinetic energy
2) Momentum
You can skew the results in favor of your favorite firearm just by selecting a method of measurement that supports the strength of your bullet.  The kinetic energy method holds that a rounds potential is based on the physics formula for kinetic energy where energy is equal to half the mass times velocity squared.  With this measurement method, bullets that go fast are considered superior to those with mass.
On the other end, momentum is based on s simple velocity times mass equation.  People who gravitate towards heavier calibers prefer this method of measurement.
Speaking anecdotally, real world users of light but fast bullets such as HK’s 4.7mm in the MP7, tell about having to expend half a magazine to quickly put someone down.  Similar to this, Delta force operators in Mogadishu found that their heavy hitting 1911s in 45ACP were more effective then their M4 carbines in putting the drug addled Somalis down.
Secondly, if a bullet’s energy expands into an empty body cavity or it exits the body having not transmitted all its energy, then energy kinetic is not an appropriate measurement.
This is why I prefer momentum and will use this as my measurement standard for the following analysis.

In Canada, AR15 users (in an effort to look more cool) seemingly have gravitated towards the 10” barrel on their AR15s.  I don’t know anyone who goes out and shoots anything other than 55grain bullets (except for me) so I will use that as my bullet weight.
Using momentum, the numbers read as follows… 2616fps (797m/s) on a 55 grain (3.56g) projectile.
Final result is 2.837 Newton Seconds.

Out of a handgun, the average 115gr 9mm projectile reads as follows… 1100fps (335m/s) on a 115 grain (7.45g) projectile.
Final result is 2.496 Newton-Seconds.

Out of a pistol, the 9mm is a lot worse than the 10” AR15.

Now if we up the barrel length to 18” on our 9mm PCC to make a non-restricted firearm in Canada our velocity jumps to 1297fps (395m/s)
Final result is 2.942 Neuton-Seconds.

Oh ho!  That is better than the 10” barrel AR15!

How about your standard 230gr (14.90g) 45ACP projectile out of a 18” barrel?
Final result is 4.472 Newton-Seconds.

Wow…. The 45ACP has ballistics like a rainbow with its low speeds but at close ranges, it has an unbeatable punch to it.


Specter Arms sells 14.75” barrel AR15s.  Longer than what is cool but let’s run the numbers on those…
Final result is 3.122 Newton-Seconds.  At this point, the AR15 beats the 9mm PCC but still falls short against the 45ACP PCC.

So the truth is, from a physics perspective, the PCC is just as effective as a AR15 at close ranges.

Now long ranges (100m+) is where the PCC falls down.  This is where we need to look at philosophy of use…  but that is for the next article.

Science and Magpul Back Up Sights - Gen 1 vs Gen 2

Anyone who knows me knows that I am somewhat of a student of the psychology of perception. How the brain sees things and organizes shapes, lines, colors and even how it makes assumptions. It is a fantastic science. One thing that is science fact is the brain has an easy time lining up circles or determining if the circles are in alignment. I was cutting washers to cap the barrel shrouds on the S2s (something that customers seem to want) and something looked off. The center hole was not quite right. I examined the cutting program an sure enough it was cutting the inner hole offset 0.05 inches from the center. I could see that tiny difference. This is not a skill I uniquely have, it is biological – something all people can do to some extent.

This fact is why I like diopter sights; sights like the MP5, the HK416, the Troy Back up Iron Sights (BUIS) etc. A circle aperture lining up with an encircled front post. They are the fastest sight to line up and they blow the traditional rabbit ear sights (like the AR15) out of the water. People who try diopters seldom, willingly go back.

Diopter sights do not need a full circle to work, having a break in the top still allows the principle to function. The 416 sights are an example of this.

So I have this article who’s title suggests I am going to talk about Magpul back up sights. Now that I have the science out of the way, I will get to it.

I had the chance to examine the Magpul Gen 1 and Gen 2 sights mainly because most retailers are dumping their Gen 1 sights to make way for the Gen 2 sights.

The Gen 1 sight posts curve inwards around the front post creating a quasi-circular bracket. I say quasi because the bottom is squared off. The front sight reminds me of the PPS-43 front sight. Combined with the rear aperture it makes a damn fine sight, using the human brain’s natural ability to line up on the target.

The Gen 2 sights have the outer posts curving in but on the vertical plane, the sight area is very shallow creating a frame that is rectangular and obviously so. The brain does not line up rectangles very well and it certainly does not line up rectangles inside circles so you are left with that is essentially a traditional American style sight where you line the post up in the middle of the rear sight. Despite a few pluses that the Gen 2 has, I feel it is a step backwards.

With the rush towards, “Combat Sexy” where only the latest trend will do, I have found that wholesalers and retailers are letting their Gen 1 sights go at criminally low prices. If you are looking for a BUIS, go out and get a Magpul Gen 1.

Adcor Industries Gets it Right

About 2 years ago I wrote an article about the AR15 and advancements that need to be made to bring the rifle up to modern fighting rifle techniques.  When I started this blog it was one of the first articles I bridged over from Facebook to here.

Well great minds must think alike.  The Brown Enhanced Automatic Rifle has taken the AR15 platform to the 21st century with a ambidextrous cocking handle located on the upper area of the handguards.  Finally riflemen will not have to move their support hands back to manipulate the cocking handle or worse yet take their dominant hand off the pistol grip to manipulate the handle.

The old throwback to bolt action rifles is finally gone.  I hope other manufacturers follow suit.

http://www.adcorindustries.com/wordpress/index.php/products/bear/

223/556 and the AR15 Barrel

In the world of the AR15, shorter is cooler.  This runs contrary to everything else in life.  Guys want giant trucks, giant houses, giant dogs, big big big!  Even in firearm calibers there are those that would rather have giant calibers such as 458 SOCOM or 50 Beowulf.  Yet when it comes to the AR15 it seems that the opposite holds true or should I say, the opposite holds false  - The AR15 is something where size actually does matter either in a bigger caliber or a longer barrel.

The original M16/AR15 had a 20 inch barrel.  With the 55grain rounds of the time they would achieve a muzzle velocity of 3259 feet per second.  It was determined at the rifle’s conception that a velocity no less than 3000 feet per second would be needed to achieve fragmentation and thus maximum lethality in the 55grain M193 round.

During the Vietnam conflict Special Operation Groups or SOG Teams would conduct clandestine operations in Vietnam ranging from black propaganda to direct action.  A shorter, handier rifle was developed to lighten the load and compensate for SOG’s long term reconnaissance patrols and for rear echelon troops not needing a full rifle.  The new M4 Carbine had a barrel length of roughly 14.5” giving a muzzle velocity just a touch over the needed 3000 ft/s.  This meant that the M4 could rarely have the needed velocity past 100 meter mark to achieve the lethality that the round was developed for.  With this limitation a new round was developed.  The slower moving but longer 62 grain round designated the SS109 was a fair way to fix some of the fragmentation problems.  It may seem counter intuitive, but the longer SS109 (although slower) would fragment easier as it was a longer bullet.  Think of it as trying to break a short stick and trying to break a longer stick – the longer acts as a better lever and snaps easier.

So the M4 was…. Well….. better now that it had a new round but after the battle of Mogadishu, Delta reported that their M4 carbines had little effect on the Somalis.  They often switched to their heavy hitting 1911s to bring the insurgents down.  It was forgotten that simply having a longer barrel on the M4 would of given them back the lethality that their rifles needed.

USSOCOM found that the higher unlock pressures generated by the shorter M4 gas system, caused premature wear on the rifle causing parts needing to be replaced or repaired at a rate 4 times faster then that of the M16.  For a government agency it is not a big issue… for an individual on a budget, this seems like a big deal.

But for reasons I simply can’t understand the mentality of “smaller is cooler” concept took the AR15 platform in a ridiculous direction; 10” and 7.5” AR15 barrel lengths.   Essentially if you were to stick the barrel of such an AR against someone’s flesh, you MIGHT get lethal bullet velocity but I would argue the blast is more effective at that point in dealing damage.  10” AR15s simply turn bullets into noise.  There is no advantage at that point other than LCF – Look Cool Factor.  If you really need something that short, switch to a SMG or a pistol caliber carbine.

The main people I deal with are not military and don’t have milspec M193 or SS109 and are using the similar (but not identical) .223 Remmington round.  I can only conclude that the minimum length for the lower pressure and lower velocity 55gr .223 Remington, a barrel length should be no less than 18 inches to get the needed effect out of the round.  Should a user opt for a heavier 62gr bullet, you could go as short as 16”.  But always remember – bigger is better.

Is inertia the only thing keeping the AR15 alive?

The single most popular rifle in North America is hands down the AR15 platform. Originally built as an Air Force PDF, its light weight and small rounds made the average infanteer able to carry more ammo.

In its day, the AR15 was considered a Space Age gun. It was the first rifle to use a lot plastic parts and it made a departure from steel to aluminum for its receiver. Like most things America did, it was developed from their own experiences in WW2. Early designs lacked a forward assist (something that the designer fought to keep out of the rifle) and lacked a brass deflector. That meant that weak people who “rode the action” while cocking the weapon would get a first round stoppage – the later addition of the forward assist fixed this. The brass deflector was a later addition to help left handed shooters.
Certainly the AR was a platform that was evolving.

The AR carbine (colloquially known as the M4) was designed for rear echelon troops but it found favour with SOG teams. The problem was, when the rifle was shortened, the chamber unlocked while the pressure was too high. This is a problem today as evidenced by the breakage rate, hard extractions and premature part wear reported by USSCOM.

But the AR Carbine found ways to overcome this as well. Pig tail gas tubes helped to slow down the unlock time by increasing the distance gas needed to travel to the bolt. Gas piston systems helped wear by keeping the weapon cooler and cleaner.

The great thing about the AR15 is its modularity which allows it to overcome any mechanical problem. It just needs some thought and innovation.

The AR15 also boasts as being a major driving force for the economy. Any gun manufacturer that wants into the US market has to admit that producing an AR clone is the way to go. Even Sig (who make superior battle rifles to the AR design) have finally come out with their own AR15. Small businesses have grown to world names because of the AR15. Troy Industries, Magpul.... the list goes on.
But warfighting is evolving and I wonder if the AR15 in its current form is the right rifle to lead the western armies into the future.

New doctrine says that the dominant hand does not leave the rifle to conduct manipulations. That means to conduct a stoppage drill or to manipulate the cocking handle, the support hand (the hand farthest away) has to move back to do these manipulations. I can’t speak for everyone but I have smacked my own lips while rapidly conducting a “tap, rack and go” because of the rear placement of the cocking handle.
Most modern operations are mechanized and it makes sense for a folding stock to be used. Most AR15s do not have this ability as their buffer is located in the rear. In fact I would go so far to say that the handful of “ARs” that have placed the recoil spring above the bolt are not really ARs at all.

I think that someone needs to make an evolutionary leap.... or a look back in time to firearm designs that had the cocking handle up by the support hand on the forestock. Weapons like the FAL, G3, MP5, ACR and SCAR make more sense to me.

I have no interest in entering the AR15 market. It is too competitive for a little guy like me to get involved but I think for the AR to overcome its inertia and become a top weapon platform again, it needs to find someone to re-engineer this flaw. Move the cocking handle to the side or forend. I am certain that in time, this lucrative market will bring about this next evolution and the AR15 will last well into the 22nd century like the Garand/M14 lived into the 21st.