I shot the Hudson H9 at media day and here are my thoughts.
In the last week, a lot of people have been asking “Why do you need an assault rifle?” or “Why does anyone need an AR15?” or more plainly saying “No one needs a semi auto rifle that is just designed to kill people.”
The firearm industry responds with “they’re not assault rifles, they’re modern sporting rifles!” I have previously stated that I don’t really care what they’re called but also that the whole “modern sporting rifle” thing is stupid.
Perhaps I’m biased on the whole sporting thing. I don’t hunt. I used to hunt when I was little. I would shoot birds and varmints with a .22, although I later killed bigger things. I prided myself on hitting what I shot at the first time and not causing unnecessary suffering.
On a hunting trip not too long after I left the military, though, I had an easy shot lined up at a distance (30 yards) that would have been a guaranteed hit with a rifle that would have guaranteed an instant and humane kill (.270 WSM). But sometime in between bringing the rifle up to my shoulder and putting almost enough pressure on the trigger to fire, I realized I couldn’t pull the trigger. I didn’t need to kill that animal and thus I didn’t want to kill it and thus I couldn’t kill it. So ended my hunting days – nearly ten years ago now. Since then I’ve gone out of my way to save as many animals as I can.
Maybe this is why I’m against the “modern sporting rifle” line, but even the NSSF’s own data shows that hunting is a very small part of why people buy ARs – in fact it’s the last reason they listed.
No, I own ARs because they’re the most effective weapon I can carry into a fight by myself. I don’t want to get into a fight, but I do want to get out of a fight. That means bringing a weapon that keeps bad guys away from me and lets me shoot back at as many bad guys as are choosing to shoot at me. As was constantly drilled into my head in Field Medical Service School, fire superiority is the best medicine on the battlefield.
The idea of “not needing anything more than” X, Y, or Z firearm is stupid. A gunfight is not a jousting match – there is no chivalry involved, no obligation to carry a lance of equal size and weight as my opponent. While I can certainly defend myself with a pistol or a shotgun, I cannot really project power with either of those. With a semi auto rifle, I have the ability to put bullets in very specific places at any distance – from the end of the muzzle to almost any yardage at which I could conceivably justify the use of lethal force.
Moreover, these bullets have less chance of doing damage to things I don’t want to shoot (such as innocent people) for a variety of reasons, most notably from the inherent precision afforded to the shooter by a rifle.
In a fight between a guy with a pistol and a guy with a rifle, the guy with the rifle has massive advantages. Just ask the off-duty police officer who engaged the Orlando terrorist with, I am told by a law enforcement officer in the Orlando area, over fifty rounds from his service pistol before retreating because he was out of ammo (The “only good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns” mantra only works for some of the garden variety mass shooters, mostly the ones who aren’t motivated by religious ideology, and is another cutesy saying we need to do away with quickly).
Put simply, the same things that make semi auto rifles desirable to terrorists make them desirable for use as defensive weapons. Take semi auto rifles away and bad guys will search for different and even more effective ways to kill. We can never assume that the doctrine of individual irrational actors will remain constant, nor should we believe that this all started after the (toothless) 1994 AWB went away in 2004. Take away the bad guys’ dynamite and they will use hunting rifles. When they meet in groups and we take away their rental trucks and fertilizer, they’ll use airliners.
I would rather people ask how the terrorist who murdered nine people in a church managed to pass a background check he clearly shouldn’t have than ask why we need semi auto rifles – a category of weapon that is involved in less than three percent of firearm homicides each year and isn’t the weapon of choice for even a plurality of mass shooters since 1982, despite the fact that the AR15 has been available to civilians for about fifty years.
I would rather people ask how we can prevent bad guys from isolating a group of innocent people from protection long enough to cause them great harm. That’s the real problem here – terrorists are like radiation in that the duration and proximity of your exposure to each determines your chances of survival.
Of course I don’t think that owning a scary semi auto rifle is the only reason why I wasn’t murdered today. I’m under no illusion of having to use an AR (or any other firearm) to defend myself at any point in the future. Were I to think that I was actually going to need an AR at any specific time or place, I would most likely make immediate lifestyle changes, such as moving to a remote island or maybe buying a Hind.
Then again, I don’t think I’ll need two first aid kits with everything from motrin to tweezers to a dozen tourniquets tomorrow, but they’re still going to be in the trunk of my car.
Several years ago – okay, seven or eight – my friend Greg Fallon invited me to the informal 600 yard matches he sets up at a local range. They’re monthly, early in the morning, and the range is an hour away from me, so I’ve been an infrequent competitor -especially the last few years, with regular trips up to Utah for the Sniper Country range, which offers shooting to a mile and beyond.
Most of the time, I just went to mess around and have fun – I’d take my 5.45 AK, or an Ishapore Enfield, or some other random non-precision rifle just to see how I could do all the way out at 600 yards.
But when I saw this month’s reminder email, I decided that if I was going to make the trip, I would make it worthwhile.
I had just put together an AR with a V7 stainless barrel – provided by AIM Surplus, I should note – and wanted to see how accurate it could be. Unfortunately the rifle has a stock trigger, but with about fifteen thousand rounds on the odometer, it’s pretty smooth.
Heading to the local gun store, I perused match .223 at a dollar a round before deciding I could make my own for free – or at least, for a sunk cost.
So I put together some shiny bullets, made sure the ACOG was zeroed, and woke up at the crack of dawn to head to the range.
I wasn’t sure how my ammo would do – I hadn’t loaded rifle ammunition in probably two years. Surprisingly, though, I found that everything worked very well. Over two strings of fire, twenty rounds each, my scores were 190-4X and 186-3X out of a possible 200-20X.
For those who are unfamiliar with the scoring system, the X is worth 10 points and also counts as, you guessed it, an X. The X ring at 600 is 6 inches, the 10 ring about a foot, and so on. I dropped a few outside the center because I wasn’t paying enough attention to the wind, but overall the loads were consistent and the barrel did as good a job as I could have ever expected.
One other note – I removed and replaced the ACOG, swapping it with a Vortex Viper HS scope, many times throughout the match. All recorded scores were with the ACOG, and both optics were in GDI mounts. The ACOG was provided by Trijicon through Deliberate Dynamics and the optic mounts were provided by GDI. I did not notice any shift in point of impact over the course of the match.
Overall, it was a fun match and a good chance to see if I still knew how to shoot long range.
For those who are interested, here are the rifle and ammunition details:
- V7 16″ stainless midlength gas barrel
- Silencerco Trifecta muzzle device
- Spike’s Tactical hard chrome BCG
- Spike’s Tactical upper receiver
- Seekins 12.0 MCSR handguard
- Rainier Arms Raptor charging handle
- Bushmaster lower receiver with stock LPK
- Magpul fixed length stock
- Trijicon TA02 ACOG
- GDI R-COM E-Model mount
- Prvi Partizan once fired brass
- Berger 73gr HPBT seated to AR mag length
- Varget, 24.1 grains
- Federal GM205M primers
The other day, I thought to myself that it might be fun to talk about guns with friends, record the conversation, and release it to anyone who might want to listen.
If this is successful, we will do it again, with more guests/co-hosts.
In this first episode of “Vuurwapen Blog Radio,” we discuss the proposed changes to ITAR, different BCG coatings and platings, flash performance while using a silencer on an AR15, and Battle Rifle Company. These topics come from questions that have been emailed to me by blog readers over the last…well questions that have been emailed over a certain period of time to which I never properly responded.
News of the open letter from Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, a polite request for gun owners to not bring guns to Starbucks, has set the gun world on fire – or at least my Facebook feed.
A condensed version of events: Starbucks has in years past not taken a stance on firearms in their stores. They’ve said that local, state, and federal laws are enough. Some gun owners took that as a version of support for open carry in their stores, and went so far as to walk into such establishments while carrying AKs, ARs, and shotguns. Because…other people were doing it, and it seemed like a good idea at the time?
This is sheer idiocy.
Understandably, the result is that Starbucks now doesn’t want guns in their stores. It’s not a hard rule, but a polite request. They didn’t want to be involved, some folks dragged them into it, and they felt their only choice was to make a public statement about the topic.
I have heard a few statements repeated by extreme open carry advocates in recent days, and I would like to address them here.
“Because I can! It’s my right and you can’t take away my rights!”
There are a lot of things you “can” do. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should, with great power comes great responsibility, etc etc.
Furthermore, you don’t have a right to carry a firearm onto private property without the permission of the owner. And since the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can place some restrictions on the carry of firearms, I don’t think California’s ban on open carry (which came as a direct result of open carry demonstrations in the state!) will be overturned any time soon. You certainly won’t be granted the ability to carry a firearm onto private property without the permission of the owner.
In other words, you can blather on about what you think should be reality, but actual-reality is different. It doesn’t matter what you think or what I think. Stop participating in Second Amendment circle jerks on the Internet and face the reality that your actions have consequences.
“F*** you, Starbucks!”
First, if you are unable to articulate your position on a sensitive topic without expletives forming a significant portion of your statements, please stop talking. Your words reflect poorly on gun owners as a whole.
Second, every single private business in America is not a battleground for gun rights. Most business owners want to sell a product, employ people, serve people, whatever. Their business is not about us, and it is selfish, immature, and stupid for some gun owners to make everything about them. It is stupid to organize a boycott simply because a company wants to be left out of a heated discussion.
Finally, even if a company takes a stand against firearm ownership, so what? Life is too short to spend time hating people who don’t like guns. I find it delightfully ironic that some of my Kenneth Cole clothing conceals certain firearms very well.
Variations on this theme: “We need to desensitize people to firearms!” or “People need to stop being uncomfortable around firearms!” or “You don’t have a right to not be offended!”
So let me get this straight, long gun open carry advocates want average citizens to get used to firearms, and their plan to achieve this goal is to do something that they know is going to scare/offend/startle people?
Like I said, sheer idiocy.
I am comfortable around firearms. I carry a concealed firearm every day. I have too many guns, including scary black guns. I’m actually not as vehemently opposed to open carry as some others in the gun industry. Open carry has its place – Starbucks not included.
But if I was enjoying a Chai Tea Latte in my local Starbucks and saw a dude walk in carrying a shotgun, I would become very uncomfortable, very fast. I can only imagine how people who don’t trip on five guns when they get out of bed would react. There is no need to make people upset in order to reach them, unless you are an attention whore.
What extreme open carry advocates seem to not understand is that we are winning this particular culture war – and that they are not helping. Politicians love to talk about what percentage of people support this gun control measure or that, but the number of people who own guns, and the number of people who think it’s okay for average citizens to own guns? Those numbers are increasing, not decreasing. We might differ on the details of the type of gun and how they might be acquired, but gun owners are not facing a hostile US population.
That is, we aren’t as long as we don’t do stupid crap like carry AKs into Starbucks. What have massive open carry demonstrations achieved? Restrictions on how firearms may be carried in a major US state and a major US business chain.
We’ll win over far more people if we show them that gun owners are intelligent, thoughtful, and polite.
…but there’s no way to weed them out without wrongly violating the rights of those who should.
I understand that this statement may be offensive to some. In the firearm world, some fully invest themselves in an absolute interpretation of the Second Amendment: that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I, too, believe that the Second Amendment is important and affords an individual right to own firearms…albeit with a few asterisks. Most notably, I think some people should not have access to firearms.
It is relatively easy to argue that violent felons should not be allowed to purchase or own guns. It’s perhaps just as easy to argue that those convicted of domestic violence should also not be allowed firearms. Those who would argue against these points will certainly not agree with anything else I have to say, but they’re entitled to their opinions.
After having worked in a gun store for a little while, I came away with the sincere belief that not everyone should own firearms. It’s not a matter of education or experience – yes, at some point, everyone is new to firearms. It’s a matter of attitude and inclination. Some people just don’t care enough to keep and use their guns in a responsible manner which minimizes risk to others and respects public and private property.
I’m not convinced that mandatory training and safety courses will be of much help; even if they’re forced to attend, these people won’t retain much or any of the information that’s passed to them. Someone with the right attitude – of affording firearms the respect they deserve as tools capable of causing harm when misused – will seek out this information without being forced to do so. Novice or expert, it’s the willingness to constantly use firearms in a safe and responsible manner that is important. Yes, perhaps some people just need a little nudge in the right direction. But others will never come around.
It would be easy to say that maturity brings the responsibility which should be required to own firearms, but that just isn’t the case. Men well into middle age – hunters and homeowners who don’t identify their targets – have misused firearms, with the end result being the tragic death of others. Young people may also be at fault in these cases. The unintentional death of innocent people is the most egregious example of how the actions of those who shouldn’t own guns impact others, but the minor actions of irresponsible people are far more common.
Take, for example, those who find humor in destroying public property – from road signs to national park entrance signs to the roof pictured above. Perhaps it’s just youthful idiocy which will eventually be outgrown, but every person without a dog in the gun rights/gun control fight who drives by a sign defaced with a shotgun may potentially become anti-gun. Did the Founding Fathers intend for the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right to destroy public property?
How, though, are we to weed out the undesirables on a massive scale? The bottom line is that we can’t. We can’t readily identify those who won’t be responsible with firearms any more than we are able to identify those inclined to drive under the influence of alcohol. We can punish them after the fact, but that won’t prevent their transgressions in the first place. Theoretically, we could have government commissions screen those who would and would not be allowed to own firearms, but that isn’t acceptable to me considering the abuse which would inevitably result, and the inability of the government to perform the task in the first place.
This is the fundamental difference between those who want to restrict firearm ownership and those who don’t. Should we punish the majority for the actions of a minority? I don’t think so. But firearm owners should be mindful of those who act with reckless disregard when they handle or shoot their guns – and do what we can to correct their actions before innocent people are harmed.
And by “well done,” I mean “burned to a crisp.”
I was introduced to Mario of Piece of History Firearms by a mutual friend recently, and we’ll occasionally head to the range to shoot cool stuff like MG42s, RPKs, PKMs, select fire Glocks, and so on.
We started talking about spare parts and projects and so on, and it turned out that I had a spare AK74 receiver and he had what was left of a select fire Bulgarian AK74 which was destroyed in a house fire (for more info on some of the firearms in this photo, see here).
The major metal parts weren’t damaged, so after Mario replaced the springs and furniture and swapped out the fire control group for a semi auto version, the rifle was reassembled and ready to fire.
I asked that he not refinish the rifle, which was a bit of a shame since the AKs he turns out are actually…well…pretty.
Despite its outward appearance, the rifle functions without issue. Furthermore (and this is more of a coincidence than anything else), the rifle needed no elevation or windage adjustments. My initial shots at 50 yards were straight through the bullseye.
Needless to say, I was impressed. This isn’t my first AK or even my first 74, but as a fan of the 5.45 cartridge, I’m glad that I have this rifle. Plus, I think the finish (or lack thereof) gives it a certain amount of panache.
Looking past the finish, a number of people have actually commented on the quality of the assembly work. This isn’t terribly surprising, given that Mario has been building AKs for ten years, and his work is pretty highly sought after by knowledgeable folks in the industry.
Among them were some of the students at the May carbine course, who enjoyed shooting the 74 out to 300 or 400 yards.
Later, I saw that I could hit an E type silhouette at 700 when I did my part. At this month’s 600 yard match, I fired a 153-3X out of 200-20X, which isn’t very good, but then again it isn’t that horrible for an AK with iron sights using surplus ammo, either.
To me the AK74 is preferable to the AK47/AKM, mostly due to the increased effective range of the 5.45×39 cartridge, but also the reduced weight of the loaded magazines. Also, surplus 5.45 is still being imported. If you are an AK fan and don’t have a 74, or even if you aren’t an AK fan, I would recommend considering a quality example. In my experience, a good sign that a 5.45 AK might be of good quality is a 1/8 twist barrel and/or an original Eastern Bloc barrel. Too many of the 5.45 AKs I’ve owned have had accuracy or keyholing issues due to a poor choice of barrels on the part of the builder.
This is by no means a replacement for any of my ARs, and I still feel that the AR is a superior platform in a number of ways. But I have to admit that I really like this AK74.
I decided to take some detailed photos of my Enfields; here are the results, along with some comments about the rifles.
Thanks for reading. As mentioned previously, I wish that new production Enfield pattern rifles in various calibers were available.
Julie Goloski-Golob is a kind and gentle mother of two. She posts photos of delicious homemade food on Facebook and shoots for Smith & Wesson in competition, having won three Bianchi Cups (and a lot of other stuff) along the way. She is one of America’s finest shooters, male or female.
In one of the finest examples of how bad my memory is, I started talking to her about a year ago regarding her book SHOOT. I read the book when it came out and found it to be an easily accessible introduction to firearms and the shooting sports. I wanted her opinion on a number of topics, so I sent her a list of five questions relating to shooting. She responded to my questions an embarrassingly long time ago, and I forgot to post her answers. One of my questions wasn’t worded very well (it had to do with competition vs. military trainers), leaving us with only four; without further ado, here are my questions and her answers.
Andrew: Do you think competition shooting is relevant to those who have no interest in actually participating in competition shooting? Why or why not?
Julie: I think competition shooting is definitely relevant to those who choose not to compete the same way Olympic swimmers and chefs are relevant to those who swim or cook recreationally. Whether it’s Michael Phelps or Julia Child, those who practice and excel at their craft have much to offer enthusiasts. The same can be said for those who work diligently to improve their shooting skills in competition.
Competition shooters are constantly pushing the envelope when it comes to speed and precision. These shooters are doing things with firearms that would be considered an incredible run twenty years ago. An example would be the El Presidente drill (http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/99-11.pdf). Back in the day a 10 second El Prez run was considered top notch. Today, using a Production Division gun (a striker fired or double action gun with few modifications from stock) and scoring all A-zone hits, a 10 second run today would be a C-class level score, a national percentage between 55 and 60%.
Competition shooters also have a lot to offer when it comes to intense durability testing as well as research and development. Let’s face it. Shooters tend to send a lot of rounds down range! If something doesn’t work well, or doesn’t hold up to the rigors of an intense day of training, a competition shooter is likely to discover it. Look at red dot optics as an example. Use of these little wonders were introduced into shooting sports and at first were plagued with reliability issues. Competitors started out with heavy, bulky dots, some as large as soda cans. Putting them through the paces in matches, shooters proved that this sort of sighting system is faster than using traditional iron sights.
Andrew: If you could identify one element of pistol shooting as being more important than any other, what would it be?
Julie: Taking speed out of it and just assessing pure shooting down to the fundamental level, the ability to shoot an accurate shot with a pistol comes down to being able put the sights on the target and keep them there until the shot breaks. You can have a horrendous grip and be standing on one foot and still shoot an accurate shot, but if the sights aren’t on target when the gun goes bang it won’t happen. So the most important aspect of being able to score a good hit comes down to the ability to engage the trigger in such a way that the sight picture stays on target until the bullet exits the barrel.
Andrew: Do competition shooters mostly use the same styles and techniques, with victory in competition coming down to an individual’s skill (or luck), or are there an array of techniques/styles/stances/etc which some shooters find give them an edge?
Julie: At first glance, to some it may appear that competition shooters use all the same styles and techniques. Most competition shooters in practical shooting sports are using the isosceles stance and the basic skills of draws, reloads, one-handed shooting, etc. all look very similar when you break things down to that level. There are subtle differences in style though based on athleticism, strength and body type.
Travis Tomasie and Dave Sevigny, with their athletic backgrounds in soccer and hockey, are especially good when it comes to footwork. Todd Jarrett and Max Michel have incredible twitch reflexes and their hand-eye speed make them super fast on draws and reloads. Bob Vogel and JJ Racaza are strong and flexible and that allows them to be both aggressive and controlled. Then there are the legends like Rob Leatham and Jerry Miculek who have worked so hard for so long, they can draw on hundreds of thousands of rounds of experience. Unlike other sports where the majority of successful players are close to the same height and build, shooters represent a much wider spectrum. The best shooters play to their strengths and work on their weaknesses in order to win.
Andrew: Do you call it a “slide stop” or a “slide release” – and if someone calls it a “slide release,” are they in the wrong?
Julie: I never really thought of it! I think I probably use both terms depending on what I am describing. I use “slide release” when I am talking about slide-lock reloads. I refer to the part as a slide stop when I talk about the slide locking to the rear. I don’t view one as being correct or incorrect. To me, both terms are interchangeable.
Thank you, ma’am, for your patience and your well-thought-out answers.
For those who couldn’t make the May 25/26 AR15 course taught by myself and Jim Staley of Deliberate Dynamics, we have two more classes scheduled: one on June 22/23, and one on July 27/28. The May class is full. If you’d like to sign up, you may do so here.