There was an unfortunate situation in Iowa Falls a couple of weeks ago. A very troubled young man was killed in a standoff with police, but that's not the most troubling part of the story. No, the most troubling thing is that 22 police officers formed a circular firing squad and shot *at best* 25% hits from 8 to 25 feet away. Read the article and watch the video here before continuing so I don't have to write a sketch of the AG's report. Personally, I think the suspect committed suicide by cop, and I don't fault the cops for shooting, as Fitz can be seen with a gun in his hand as he fell to the ground. The shoot was probably justified, but the tactics and accuracy are totally indefensible.
So, we have 22 officers on scene, a four-man takedown team, and one armed and dangerous disturbed person. Sixty-eight (68!) rounds were fired by five officers and the suspect's family say he was struck 17 times. That works out to exactly 25% hits. The officers formed a circle around the suspect and fired at eachother, as can be seen in the video.
So what went wrong?
First, tactics. When I was a cop, I worked with other officers from other departments regularly. But we never trained together, nor trained for situations like this. So when the fecal matter hit the oscillating blades, there is a good chance that there was no chain of command (or likely several independent chains of command, which is worse) nor a plan of action aside from what they could cook up in just a couple of minutes. The four-man takedown team was a good idea, but the lethal-cover officers should have been moved out of the line of fire and instead of a circle, they should have formed an L-shape. Circular firing squads are a bad idea, and EVERYONE there should have seen the problem and made some effort to fix it. They are extremely lucky that no officers were shot.
Second, accuracy. The number of hits in this situation is absolutely sad. I did the math, and it works out to every officer shooting 13 or 14 rounds, and hitting a maximum of FOUR times. From the video, we see that the takedown team behind Fitz was at most 10 feet away, and the other two firing officers were in the middle of the street on the opposite side. This is at most 30 feet away. All officers had their weapons drawn, and the muzzles were probably either on target or at the low ready position. How you can miss 75% of the time from 10 yards is beyond me, but I do have a theory. The suspect was wearing a ballistic vest, so I think the officers were trying for head or groin shots. I don't know the make or model of the vest he wore, but I can't imagine it would have stopped a volley of .40S&W. Even if it did, it was soft armor and he still would have suffered quite a beating from the rounds. I don't know if any officers had long guns, but this would be a good case for cover officers carrying AR15 carbines with green tip. Really, any FMJ round fired from a rifle will shred soft armor. But, you still have to hit your target.
The purpose of this article isn't to beat up the officers (though a light thrashing is in order for missing 51 times from less than 10 yards). I do have suggestions of how to prevent this sort of thing in the future.
1- Planning.
There needs to be an established emergency chain of command. Department X's ranking officer on scene is in charge, period.
Also, the Army's "Five Point Contingency Plan" would be a good outline for making a quick tactical plan. The takedown team could have coordinated with the perimeter cover officers to create a distraction in order to deploy less-lethal measures or just tackle the guy. And, if everything went all to hell, there's a plan for who will shoot in what direction and fall-back positions for the takedown team. All this planning can be done in a minute or two if you've practiced. I used it a couple of times on overwatch missions to move a small DDM team to better recon positions outside our patrol base. Everyone knows what's going on, and what to do in most foreseeable situations. And it's easy.
2- Accuracy.
Practice is the obvious answer, but it goes a little deeper than that. There was time to get 22 officers from four different departments on-scene, so there was time for one or two guys to go get long guns and set a proper perimeter.
Also, the good old fashioned mag dump is an acceptable tactic now and then. It wasn't in this situation though. 51 bullets hit everything except their intended target. Shooting once or twice and then re-assessing the threat is perfectly acceptable, and also easy to do without sacrificing security. Travis Haley's phrase "thinkers before shooters" echoes all over this situation.
Of the seven or eight people who routinely read this, if you are police officers or know any, please encourage them to get the proper training, and think about catastrophic situations like this unfortunate case.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Monday, March 31, 2014
On Training
There is no shortage of tacticool schools out there, which is really unfortunate for those who didn't get the opportunity to experience ten years in the Army and two years in combat. The problem I see most often with these schools is that they're all focused on the wrong thing: combat.
You could kill hours and hours on YouTube or Everydaynodaysoff watching herpy derps "train" people to do ridiculous things like bump-fire at an area target or charge in, guns blazing. In real life, these things will only ensure that you will be criminally charged.
What you should definitely know how to do is hit one to three targets very solidly in as little time as possible, drawing from concealment at three to seven yards. But that doesn't sell people on a $500-$700 class. Gimmicks like no-light shoot houses and cameramen downrange seem to do that.
The biggest thing you should probably know though, is combat medicine. First aid is acceptable, but falls short of real immediate trauma care. Also, you'll find that most off-the-shelf medical kits are really just expensive boxes with band-aids and Neosporin. In real life, medical knowledge will go a lot further than knowing how to clear your house by yourself (which will result in you needing Quick Clot and a tourniquet. Or a bodybag.).
Just the other day at work, one of our HVAC techs fell off some scaffolding and hit his posterior on a steel door frame on the way down. This caused a 5" laceration on his ass, which bled enough to alarm the poor fellow, but was all capillary bleeding from his skin. It was deep enough that I could see quite a lot of ass fat. Using my Army CLS skills, I went to the heavy-duty kit in the job trailer and got shitloads of gauze and an ACE wrap to serve as a protective cover for the gauze packing and wrap. My wrap did well enough that by the time he got to the hospital, his ass had stayed intact enough that they could stitch the wound without any extra cutting to facilitate a clean stitching.
Learn combat medicine (classes do exist--seek Navy corpsmen if at all possible). You may save a friend's ass, or even your own.
You could kill hours and hours on YouTube or Everydaynodaysoff watching herpy derps "train" people to do ridiculous things like bump-fire at an area target or charge in, guns blazing. In real life, these things will only ensure that you will be criminally charged.
What you should definitely know how to do is hit one to three targets very solidly in as little time as possible, drawing from concealment at three to seven yards. But that doesn't sell people on a $500-$700 class. Gimmicks like no-light shoot houses and cameramen downrange seem to do that.
The biggest thing you should probably know though, is combat medicine. First aid is acceptable, but falls short of real immediate trauma care. Also, you'll find that most off-the-shelf medical kits are really just expensive boxes with band-aids and Neosporin. In real life, medical knowledge will go a lot further than knowing how to clear your house by yourself (which will result in you needing Quick Clot and a tourniquet. Or a bodybag.).
Just the other day at work, one of our HVAC techs fell off some scaffolding and hit his posterior on a steel door frame on the way down. This caused a 5" laceration on his ass, which bled enough to alarm the poor fellow, but was all capillary bleeding from his skin. It was deep enough that I could see quite a lot of ass fat. Using my Army CLS skills, I went to the heavy-duty kit in the job trailer and got shitloads of gauze and an ACE wrap to serve as a protective cover for the gauze packing and wrap. My wrap did well enough that by the time he got to the hospital, his ass had stayed intact enough that they could stitch the wound without any extra cutting to facilitate a clean stitching.
Learn combat medicine (classes do exist--seek Navy corpsmen if at all possible). You may save a friend's ass, or even your own.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Extras, Storage, Organization
Never one to waste space, or buy non-utilitarian gun parts, I've decided to write a short commentary on what should be in your extra space and what merits its own accommodations.
With hollow rifle stocks or pistol grips, I store gun-specific support items. For instance, in my AR pistol's BCM grip, I keep a couple of spare CR2 batteries for my optic. I wrap those in zip-top sandwich bags to prevent them from contacting eachother, and also to keep them from getting wet. Also, a tightly wrapped sandwich bag will prevent any rattling. This is helpful for operators operating operationally, or for hunting purposes.
My 20" AR wears a scope, and that merits carrying a lens pen. Rather than let one float around in my range bag, or a rucksack (if I were still an operational operator), I keep it wrapped tightly in a plastic bag in the pistol grip.
As for the capacious Magpul stock, I keep a reasonable field cleaning kit. I stripped down an issued OTIS cleaning kit. I have the cable, .22 wire brush, .22 patch loop, pull handle, and infamous green toothbrush. If you have room, a small non-aerosol lubricant source would be great. I also throw a few q-tips in there in case the bolt were to need deep cleaning. All of this goes into a zip-top bag for the aforementioned reasons, plus if you have lube in there, you'll want it wrapped up because it will explode and coat everything in CLP. CLP stinks, and if this is your coyote gun, ol' Wile E. Coyote will smell you a mile away.
So what doesn't go in these two spaces?
1. Medical supplies.
I have a blowout kit in my range bag. It's full of leftovers from the Army, but it has the bare essentials: exam gloves, two CAT tourniquets, one medium bandage, one small pack of surgical gauze, one medium QuickClot bandage, and some medical tape. Check your expiration dates, and NEVER use QuickClot for anything but very serious wounds. If you aren't trained in the use of it, don't carry it. Tampons will do nicely, and are FAR cheaper. A blowout kit does not include: ACE bandages, band-aids, Neosporin, or Motrin. That would be a very basic comfort care kit, and sorely insufficient for emergency medical needs.
Also, for the operational operator, if you get shot ( in combat, your med kit is for YOU, not THEM), your buddy will have to take your rifle apart to treat you. This is unhandy if you are still in fighting shape, and wastes time vs. just having your IFAK on your vest.
2. Ammunition.
There is something to the "last mag" theory where you keep your very last bit of ammunition somewhere separate. Inside your rifle's furniture is the wrong place because you can only store loose ammo there, and that is dumb on a bunch of different levels. Instead, keep one magazine in your assault pack, or on the back of your armor. Or if you're just competing in 3-Gun or coyote hunting, don't worry about it at all.
3. Skittles.
Are you Dugan Ashley? No? Lose the skittles.
With hollow rifle stocks or pistol grips, I store gun-specific support items. For instance, in my AR pistol's BCM grip, I keep a couple of spare CR2 batteries for my optic. I wrap those in zip-top sandwich bags to prevent them from contacting eachother, and also to keep them from getting wet. Also, a tightly wrapped sandwich bag will prevent any rattling. This is helpful for operators operating operationally, or for hunting purposes.
My 20" AR wears a scope, and that merits carrying a lens pen. Rather than let one float around in my range bag, or a rucksack (if I were still an operational operator), I keep it wrapped tightly in a plastic bag in the pistol grip.
As for the capacious Magpul stock, I keep a reasonable field cleaning kit. I stripped down an issued OTIS cleaning kit. I have the cable, .22 wire brush, .22 patch loop, pull handle, and infamous green toothbrush. If you have room, a small non-aerosol lubricant source would be great. I also throw a few q-tips in there in case the bolt were to need deep cleaning. All of this goes into a zip-top bag for the aforementioned reasons, plus if you have lube in there, you'll want it wrapped up because it will explode and coat everything in CLP. CLP stinks, and if this is your coyote gun, ol' Wile E. Coyote will smell you a mile away.
So what doesn't go in these two spaces?
1. Medical supplies.
I have a blowout kit in my range bag. It's full of leftovers from the Army, but it has the bare essentials: exam gloves, two CAT tourniquets, one medium bandage, one small pack of surgical gauze, one medium QuickClot bandage, and some medical tape. Check your expiration dates, and NEVER use QuickClot for anything but very serious wounds. If you aren't trained in the use of it, don't carry it. Tampons will do nicely, and are FAR cheaper. A blowout kit does not include: ACE bandages, band-aids, Neosporin, or Motrin. That would be a very basic comfort care kit, and sorely insufficient for emergency medical needs.
Also, for the operational operator, if you get shot ( in combat, your med kit is for YOU, not THEM), your buddy will have to take your rifle apart to treat you. This is unhandy if you are still in fighting shape, and wastes time vs. just having your IFAK on your vest.
2. Ammunition.
There is something to the "last mag" theory where you keep your very last bit of ammunition somewhere separate. Inside your rifle's furniture is the wrong place because you can only store loose ammo there, and that is dumb on a bunch of different levels. Instead, keep one magazine in your assault pack, or on the back of your armor. Or if you're just competing in 3-Gun or coyote hunting, don't worry about it at all.
3. Skittles.
Are you Dugan Ashley? No? Lose the skittles.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
AR and AK Musings.
My FaceTube feed has been full of Army buddies' pics of their brand new ultra-expensive ARs and AKs. I am incredibly suspicious of new manufacturers, especially when their prices are three or four times what a service rifle costs. While I'm not going to name names, one guy in particular paid $2400 for an 18" direct-impingement AR with a fancy paint scheme. For that money, you could spec up your own build and have the mother of all ARs. Or for half of that, you could build a top-shelf service rifle.
I guess I'm writing this as a word of warning. Just because you pay three times the market rate for a rifle doesn't mean you're getting "the best". In fact, if you're hell-bent on spending your life savings, you're a lot better off to go to a reputable smith and have him spec up a rifle for you. Or build a nice service rifle and then get an awesome scope like an ACOG or the US Optics 1.5-6x I've had my eye on for a while.
There are reasons to pay more for a rifle. For instance, BCM's M16 bolt is all machined steel and has a heavy duty coating. It costs twice as much as a "semi auto" bolt with a MIM or cast extractor and gas key. But it is far more durable and because of its greater weight, will help slow the cyclic rate and be more reliable.
Additionally, the Vltor A5 actually slows your cyclic rate and will make your pistol or carbine more reliable and nicer to shoot. If you're stuck on a rifle (like me) the Magpul rifle stock has more storage space, is more comfortable, and is easier to bag down than an A2 stock. They cost more money than their alternatives, but they're worth it.
In short, do some research and make sure you're paying for actual parts and not blue-sky and a fancy paint job. Nice ARs do cost a little more, but you should be getting real, quantifiable performance upgrades for the increased cost.
AKs are another story entirely. To oversimplify, an AK is an AK. Romanian WASRs are of notably terribly quality, with a well-known canted sight problem (among others). They used to be FAR cheaper than the other makes, but now they're all about the same $500, so buy a Yugo or a VZ58. You can spend $1000 on a very pretty Arsenal AK, and I have a hunting buddy who did just that, but his Arsenal is no more accurate, nor any nicer to shoot than any mid-price AK. All that money paid for is a milled receiver, which is very pretty to admire for its flawless machine work. But the tolerances are about the same as any of the cheaper stamped models.
Do your research and don't get suckered by pretty finishes. Build the rifle you want, and putting a pretty finish on will only run you another $200-350 in cerakote. Caveat emptor.
I guess I'm writing this as a word of warning. Just because you pay three times the market rate for a rifle doesn't mean you're getting "the best". In fact, if you're hell-bent on spending your life savings, you're a lot better off to go to a reputable smith and have him spec up a rifle for you. Or build a nice service rifle and then get an awesome scope like an ACOG or the US Optics 1.5-6x I've had my eye on for a while.
There are reasons to pay more for a rifle. For instance, BCM's M16 bolt is all machined steel and has a heavy duty coating. It costs twice as much as a "semi auto" bolt with a MIM or cast extractor and gas key. But it is far more durable and because of its greater weight, will help slow the cyclic rate and be more reliable.
Additionally, the Vltor A5 actually slows your cyclic rate and will make your pistol or carbine more reliable and nicer to shoot. If you're stuck on a rifle (like me) the Magpul rifle stock has more storage space, is more comfortable, and is easier to bag down than an A2 stock. They cost more money than their alternatives, but they're worth it.
In short, do some research and make sure you're paying for actual parts and not blue-sky and a fancy paint job. Nice ARs do cost a little more, but you should be getting real, quantifiable performance upgrades for the increased cost.
AKs are another story entirely. To oversimplify, an AK is an AK. Romanian WASRs are of notably terribly quality, with a well-known canted sight problem (among others). They used to be FAR cheaper than the other makes, but now they're all about the same $500, so buy a Yugo or a VZ58. You can spend $1000 on a very pretty Arsenal AK, and I have a hunting buddy who did just that, but his Arsenal is no more accurate, nor any nicer to shoot than any mid-price AK. All that money paid for is a milled receiver, which is very pretty to admire for its flawless machine work. But the tolerances are about the same as any of the cheaper stamped models.
Do your research and don't get suckered by pretty finishes. Build the rifle you want, and putting a pretty finish on will only run you another $200-350 in cerakote. Caveat emptor.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Pietro and Me: How I Became A Beretta Fanboy
When I was a teenager, shooting in the junior division of an action-shooting league, I lusted after the M9. A few years later, I joined the Army and found out I had a love-hate relationship with that particular firearm. The M9 is too big and heavy for a meager 15 rounds of 9x19. It is very bulky and soldiers with smaller hands (especially females) had a lot of trouble with it. However, everyone I trained on it shot "Expert". For all of its shortcomings, the M9 is very accurate and has a really nice trigger for a combat piece.
Last year I started looking for a new carry piece that could also spend time on the nightstand, and be competitive if I ever went back to action-shooting seriously. I ended up getting a PX4 compact 9mm, and while the trigger won me over, it was the incredible accuracy that opened my mind to Beretta as a brand. The very first time I shot my PX4, I was hitting a 3" circle at 25-30 yards from DA. And the recoil feels like you're shooting a much larger gun. The front sight just wouldn't leave the target.
I happened into a Beretta 87B a few weeks ago, and that solidified my status as "Beretta Fanboy". The 87B was part of a very beautiful and interesting line which included the 81-88, aka the "Cheetah" line. This line came in .32 ACP (81-82), .380ACP (83-86), and .22LR (87 and 89. 88 was omitted.). In addition to being very, very pretty, the Cheetah points better than any gun I've ever owned. Period. It's no wonder that Paul Kersey used one in "Death Wish II". This gun is absolutely the perfect size for carry while maintaining enough mass to be nice to hold. Oh, and the trigger is glassy smooth.
Perfect, you say? Let me break this down by the numbers. I compared my 87B to my PX4 and P64 (think PPK/S but communist).
PX4 Compact: Height- 5.15" Width- 1.57" Length- 6.75"
P64: H- 4.53" W-1.05" L-6.125
87B: H-4.75" W-1.21 (at grips, .875" at slide) L-6.75"
So the 87B is as long as a "compact" but has the height of a "sub-compact". The grips are a little chunky, but I can easily hide it under just a t-shirt. Also, the Cheetah is very light. In it's 84F incarnation, it held 13 rounds of .380ACP. I bet that if Beretta re-released the 84F in a 9mm that held 8-10+1, it would sell like hotcakes--even though it would probably cost about $750.
With the explosion of concealed carriers in the last few years, it's safe to assume there are a lot of novice shooters who are buying their first handgun--and probably buying the wrong one. There's no shortage of options for pocketguns that are very easy to hide. Unfortunately, pocket guns are also usually very hard to shoot well. The Cheetah is small enough to be easy to hide, but large enough to be fairly easy to shoot well. Granted, there are other guns that fit this category as well, there aren't as many of the "just right" size as there are of teeny micro-blasters that are obnoxious and frustrating to shoot. And the Cheetah is also a work of art.
Next on my list of Berettas to acquire is the "Nano" in 9mm, which will replace my P64 as a pocket gun. I fondled a Nano in a local gun store just the other day, and I liked it more than its competitors. Check out this video where Hickock45 shoots the Nano to 100 yards (fast forward to 10:30). The only gun of this class I've shot to that kind of distance was a modified LC9, which is also a very good micro-9.
Don't forget about Beretta. You don't have to get lost in the sea of tactical lego guns. Arrivederci!
Last year I started looking for a new carry piece that could also spend time on the nightstand, and be competitive if I ever went back to action-shooting seriously. I ended up getting a PX4 compact 9mm, and while the trigger won me over, it was the incredible accuracy that opened my mind to Beretta as a brand. The very first time I shot my PX4, I was hitting a 3" circle at 25-30 yards from DA. And the recoil feels like you're shooting a much larger gun. The front sight just wouldn't leave the target.
 |
| My 87B, serial dates from mid 1980s. I got it NIB from an estate sale. |
I happened into a Beretta 87B a few weeks ago, and that solidified my status as "Beretta Fanboy". The 87B was part of a very beautiful and interesting line which included the 81-88, aka the "Cheetah" line. This line came in .32 ACP (81-82), .380ACP (83-86), and .22LR (87 and 89. 88 was omitted.). In addition to being very, very pretty, the Cheetah points better than any gun I've ever owned. Period. It's no wonder that Paul Kersey used one in "Death Wish II". This gun is absolutely the perfect size for carry while maintaining enough mass to be nice to hold. Oh, and the trigger is glassy smooth.
Perfect, you say? Let me break this down by the numbers. I compared my 87B to my PX4 and P64 (think PPK/S but communist).
PX4 Compact: Height- 5.15" Width- 1.57" Length- 6.75"
P64: H- 4.53" W-1.05" L-6.125
87B: H-4.75" W-1.21 (at grips, .875" at slide) L-6.75"
 |
| Left to right: P64, 87B, PX4C |
So the 87B is as long as a "compact" but has the height of a "sub-compact". The grips are a little chunky, but I can easily hide it under just a t-shirt. Also, the Cheetah is very light. In it's 84F incarnation, it held 13 rounds of .380ACP. I bet that if Beretta re-released the 84F in a 9mm that held 8-10+1, it would sell like hotcakes--even though it would probably cost about $750.
With the explosion of concealed carriers in the last few years, it's safe to assume there are a lot of novice shooters who are buying their first handgun--and probably buying the wrong one. There's no shortage of options for pocketguns that are very easy to hide. Unfortunately, pocket guns are also usually very hard to shoot well. The Cheetah is small enough to be easy to hide, but large enough to be fairly easy to shoot well. Granted, there are other guns that fit this category as well, there aren't as many of the "just right" size as there are of teeny micro-blasters that are obnoxious and frustrating to shoot. And the Cheetah is also a work of art.
Next on my list of Berettas to acquire is the "Nano" in 9mm, which will replace my P64 as a pocket gun. I fondled a Nano in a local gun store just the other day, and I liked it more than its competitors. Check out this video where Hickock45 shoots the Nano to 100 yards (fast forward to 10:30). The only gun of this class I've shot to that kind of distance was a modified LC9, which is also a very good micro-9.
Don't forget about Beretta. You don't have to get lost in the sea of tactical lego guns. Arrivederci!
Monday, November 4, 2013
Distance Learning
I had the good fortune of attending a long-range shoot put on by Controlled Chaos Arms this Saturday. It was a sort of informal show-and-tell event put on just for fun. And it was fun. I shot more on Saturday than I have in the past few months combined. Quite apart from the good fortune of being able to shoot at long distances, I learned a lot about my gear and what remains of my designated marksman skills.
There were racks of targets at 100 yard (roughly) intervals from 100-800 yards. It was in the high 40s, but a screaming 20mph northwest wind had the temperature feeling like the mid-30s, and humidity was low, according to the app on my phone. Whining about the weather aside, I was able to get on a 16" gong at 300yds in three shots with 55gr handloads launching 55gr Remington flat-base bullets that I bought CHEAP about five years ago. I got my eye in with these cheap loads before switching to my 69gr Sierra MatchKings, which are relatively expensive and I only brought 50 of them to the field.
This brings me to the first thing I learned. Boat tail bullets shake off wind better than flat base. Also, heavier bullets do better than lighter bullets. This is sort of a "duh" moment, but looking at numbers on a computer screen don't really drive the point home like learning, then re-learning your hold about ten minutes apart. Once I was comfortable, I switched to my SMKs and had the nice fellow next to me spot while I took a poke at 600. And to my surprise, I hit the sonofabitch on the first try.
And that leads neatly into the second thing I learned. Using hold-over instead of dialing a shot is WAY faster, but you do sacrifice precision. I prefer holds primarily because that's what I was taught. Also, I'm nobody's sniper. The difference between me and a natural sniper is the difference between a mule and a battleship. But, if you learn your holds well enough, you can eliminate a lot of math and time between shots. This is great if you're an infantryman, and not so great if you're a SWAT sniper trying to save a hostage with a well-placed head shot. For hunting, I could go either way, but I'd probably just not take a terribly difficult shot to avoid wounding the animal.
To allow my rifle to cool, I took some breaks and shot my Beretta PX4 Compact 9mm at the 100 yard silhouette, and did shockingly well. From prone I was able to hit 12 of 15, and from standing I was able to hit 4 of 5 (I was loading 5rds at a time to save ammo). That little gun is a shooter. I have no idea what my groups were like, but I'll take it. Also, to be honest, I went 0 of 5 when I tried after lunch. I'd been in the cold too long and was being a sissy. I couldn't pull the trigger correctly to save my life.
While I'm on gear reviews, my Nikon P-223 3x32mm scope has proven to be shockingly good value. Is it combat gear? No. No way. But it is really clear, holds zero, and Nikon's ballistic computer (which is available FREE online) told me my holds, which were dead on. If you need a scope and can only afford $130, I HIGHLY recommend the P-223 3x32. If you're going to combat, get a loan and buy an ACOG M150.
I also dusted off my Yugoslav 24/47 Mauser, which I plan to use for rifle season in January. I took my final 7 rounds of Remington 170gr soft point and hit the 100yd silhouette a miserable 3 of 7 times. Noting a leftward tendency, I grabbed some steel core surplus and shot a five-round group at 25 yards, and was slightly horrified to find it was 3" left of center. At this point, I was under the impression that the hood on the front sight was soldered on. I felt slightly sick seeing that group.
But upon doing some Google-fu, I found really vague instructions on how to remove it (most of which were wrong). So, if you need to zero a 24/47 Mauser, here's how you do it. First, drive the sight hood off with a brass or plastic mallet. Drive it back toward the action, NOT toward the crown of the barrel. Then, use your AK/SKS sight pusher to drift the front sight. As luck would have it, my Mauser had a witness mark chieseled into the sight and base. I just drifted the sight until the marks lined up. I will take it out again in a few weeks (I'm a busy man) and see if the marks are true.
With that, I leave you to get out there and sling some lead. 24/47 Mauser owners rejoice and zero your rifles. Then take some long shots.
 |
| Targets shown are at ~400 and ~600 yards. Targets were from Accurate Products. |
There were racks of targets at 100 yard (roughly) intervals from 100-800 yards. It was in the high 40s, but a screaming 20mph northwest wind had the temperature feeling like the mid-30s, and humidity was low, according to the app on my phone. Whining about the weather aside, I was able to get on a 16" gong at 300yds in three shots with 55gr handloads launching 55gr Remington flat-base bullets that I bought CHEAP about five years ago. I got my eye in with these cheap loads before switching to my 69gr Sierra MatchKings, which are relatively expensive and I only brought 50 of them to the field.
This brings me to the first thing I learned. Boat tail bullets shake off wind better than flat base. Also, heavier bullets do better than lighter bullets. This is sort of a "duh" moment, but looking at numbers on a computer screen don't really drive the point home like learning, then re-learning your hold about ten minutes apart. Once I was comfortable, I switched to my SMKs and had the nice fellow next to me spot while I took a poke at 600. And to my surprise, I hit the sonofabitch on the first try.
And that leads neatly into the second thing I learned. Using hold-over instead of dialing a shot is WAY faster, but you do sacrifice precision. I prefer holds primarily because that's what I was taught. Also, I'm nobody's sniper. The difference between me and a natural sniper is the difference between a mule and a battleship. But, if you learn your holds well enough, you can eliminate a lot of math and time between shots. This is great if you're an infantryman, and not so great if you're a SWAT sniper trying to save a hostage with a well-placed head shot. For hunting, I could go either way, but I'd probably just not take a terribly difficult shot to avoid wounding the animal.
To allow my rifle to cool, I took some breaks and shot my Beretta PX4 Compact 9mm at the 100 yard silhouette, and did shockingly well. From prone I was able to hit 12 of 15, and from standing I was able to hit 4 of 5 (I was loading 5rds at a time to save ammo). That little gun is a shooter. I have no idea what my groups were like, but I'll take it. Also, to be honest, I went 0 of 5 when I tried after lunch. I'd been in the cold too long and was being a sissy. I couldn't pull the trigger correctly to save my life.
While I'm on gear reviews, my Nikon P-223 3x32mm scope has proven to be shockingly good value. Is it combat gear? No. No way. But it is really clear, holds zero, and Nikon's ballistic computer (which is available FREE online) told me my holds, which were dead on. If you need a scope and can only afford $130, I HIGHLY recommend the P-223 3x32. If you're going to combat, get a loan and buy an ACOG M150.
I also dusted off my Yugoslav 24/47 Mauser, which I plan to use for rifle season in January. I took my final 7 rounds of Remington 170gr soft point and hit the 100yd silhouette a miserable 3 of 7 times. Noting a leftward tendency, I grabbed some steel core surplus and shot a five-round group at 25 yards, and was slightly horrified to find it was 3" left of center. At this point, I was under the impression that the hood on the front sight was soldered on. I felt slightly sick seeing that group.
But upon doing some Google-fu, I found really vague instructions on how to remove it (most of which were wrong). So, if you need to zero a 24/47 Mauser, here's how you do it. First, drive the sight hood off with a brass or plastic mallet. Drive it back toward the action, NOT toward the crown of the barrel. Then, use your AK/SKS sight pusher to drift the front sight. As luck would have it, my Mauser had a witness mark chieseled into the sight and base. I just drifted the sight until the marks lined up. I will take it out again in a few weeks (I'm a busy man) and see if the marks are true.
With that, I leave you to get out there and sling some lead. 24/47 Mauser owners rejoice and zero your rifles. Then take some long shots.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Hypocrisy And Other Fine Hobbies
If you're one of the seven or eight people who reads this blog regularly, you'll know I don't have much nice to say about Beretta handguns. They're too big, too needlessly complex, and generally very heavy. So I went out and bought a new Beretta PX4 Storm Compact in 9x19mm to serve as my new concealed carry gun.
The Storm combines what I liked from the M9 (decent DA trigger, reliability, accuracy) and got rid of the stuff I wasn't so fond of (exposed barrel, MASSIVE size, enormous bulk). I had the opportunity to put about 200 rounds through it last weekend and the results were very good. I fed it 150 rounds of Federal 115gr FMJ and 50 rounds of Winchester Ranger T 147gr JHP. There were no malfunctions, and no real difference in accuracy between the two loads. In fact, accuracy was the real highlight of the day. I was able to put the whole 15-round magazine into a hand-sized group at 25-30 yards (I didn't measure it, but my uncle says the stand is "at least 25 yards from the porch".) and I even launched three of those rounds from DA.
And that's what hooked me at the gun store. That double-action trigger is very good. The single-action is also very good, but the DA is what matters because that's your first shot. I was able to draw from concealment and fire into a 3" circle at 7-15 yards every time. The ergonomics, combined with that trigger, is really impressive.
Also, the Storm features a unique twist-lock barrel that Beretta swears makes it more accurate. Maybe it does, but I have my doubts. It does, however, handle very quickly (as does the M9) and the short reset of the SA trigger combined with the front sight's adamant refusal to leave the target encouraged me to shoot a little faster than I should have, and turned what I intended to be double-taps into strings of sustained fire. Maybe that's down to my form (I've done a LOT of snap caps in the past eight months...) or maybe that twist-lock barrel redirects recoil to create less muzzle rise, or maybe I'm on crack. But it really did seem like there was not nearly as much muzzle rise as you'd expect on a pistol of this size.
Onward to comparables, the PX4 Compact is spot-on the same size as a Glock 19 in length, height, and weight, but the Beretta is nearly half an inch wider--which is an issue. It is about the biggest gun I could hope to conceal, and is not very comfortable to wear AIWB.
The PX4 also has some faults. The sights are an oddball size, so if you want to upgrade, you'll have to do some homework. Also, the interchangeable backstraps use the most idiotic system I've ever seen. They are held in place by a wire clip that must be pried out with a flat screwdriver and then *hammered* back in place (the use of a hammer is recommended in the manual, I shit you not). It is blatantly stupid and someone at Beretta needs to go back to engineering school. A gun this good deserves better. And, as with most of my favourite handguns, the PX4 doesn't have as many bespoke holsters available as Glock/XD/M&P, though there are some decent IWB choices out there.
The bottom line: If you like traditional DA/SA pistols, you will like the PX4 Storm. If you don't, well, there's the Glock 19.
The Storm combines what I liked from the M9 (decent DA trigger, reliability, accuracy) and got rid of the stuff I wasn't so fond of (exposed barrel, MASSIVE size, enormous bulk). I had the opportunity to put about 200 rounds through it last weekend and the results were very good. I fed it 150 rounds of Federal 115gr FMJ and 50 rounds of Winchester Ranger T 147gr JHP. There were no malfunctions, and no real difference in accuracy between the two loads. In fact, accuracy was the real highlight of the day. I was able to put the whole 15-round magazine into a hand-sized group at 25-30 yards (I didn't measure it, but my uncle says the stand is "at least 25 yards from the porch".) and I even launched three of those rounds from DA.
And that's what hooked me at the gun store. That double-action trigger is very good. The single-action is also very good, but the DA is what matters because that's your first shot. I was able to draw from concealment and fire into a 3" circle at 7-15 yards every time. The ergonomics, combined with that trigger, is really impressive.
Also, the Storm features a unique twist-lock barrel that Beretta swears makes it more accurate. Maybe it does, but I have my doubts. It does, however, handle very quickly (as does the M9) and the short reset of the SA trigger combined with the front sight's adamant refusal to leave the target encouraged me to shoot a little faster than I should have, and turned what I intended to be double-taps into strings of sustained fire. Maybe that's down to my form (I've done a LOT of snap caps in the past eight months...) or maybe that twist-lock barrel redirects recoil to create less muzzle rise, or maybe I'm on crack. But it really did seem like there was not nearly as much muzzle rise as you'd expect on a pistol of this size.
Onward to comparables, the PX4 Compact is spot-on the same size as a Glock 19 in length, height, and weight, but the Beretta is nearly half an inch wider--which is an issue. It is about the biggest gun I could hope to conceal, and is not very comfortable to wear AIWB.
 |
| PX4 vs M&P9C |
The PX4 also has some faults. The sights are an oddball size, so if you want to upgrade, you'll have to do some homework. Also, the interchangeable backstraps use the most idiotic system I've ever seen. They are held in place by a wire clip that must be pried out with a flat screwdriver and then *hammered* back in place (the use of a hammer is recommended in the manual, I shit you not). It is blatantly stupid and someone at Beretta needs to go back to engineering school. A gun this good deserves better. And, as with most of my favourite handguns, the PX4 doesn't have as many bespoke holsters available as Glock/XD/M&P, though there are some decent IWB choices out there.
The bottom line: If you like traditional DA/SA pistols, you will like the PX4 Storm. If you don't, well, there's the Glock 19.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)