Muzzle Discipline

"Don't point the muzzle of a gun at something that you're not willing to destroy."

It's a quote uttered by many who train or teach firearm safety. I have witnessed many people who would call themselves "gun experts" who show blatant disregard for possibly the most important rule of gun safety. If you are at a range and you see someone point the muzzle of a gun at you or someone else, SPEAK UP! Let that person know what they did, and even though they may say something like, "I'm not going to shoot anyone" or "It's not even loaded," you will have made an impression in that person and they may think twice about how they handle their weapon. If a person gets defensive about the issue, it's only because they're embarrassed. You should NEVER feel bad about embarrassing someone that's being unsafe. A possible alternative is someone getting accidentally shot.

I cannot stress this enough - if you see someone acting irresponsibly with guns (anywhere, not only at the range) and they repeatedly make you feel uncomfortable, LEAVE THE AREA. So what if you're not done shooting? So what if you're in the middle of a conversation with other people in the room? There is no reason to risk your life in the hopes that they won't make a critical mistake. There is no reason the barrel of any gun (yours included) should sweep across anything you don't intend to shoot- even if the gun is unloaded- because we've all heard the saying: "Everyone is shot with an 'unloaded' gun."

There's a video circulating right now of a man who was at an indoor range who was trying to see if the laser on his gun was working. He had the bright idea of testing it by putting his hand in front of the barrel. And yes, he did press the trigger, and yes, he did shoot a hole in his hand. These type incidents cause many responsible gun owners to shake their head in shame.

Be alert. Stay safe out there.

9mm vs .45 ACP

Yes. I'm going there. Light and fast vs. heavy and slow. This debate can get more heated than a GOP primary. This is an argument filled with hatred and bias, but it's a fun topic if you're willing to have a civil discussion. I'll be discussing some of the pros and cons of both rounds as a defensive round, then giving you my personal opinion on the issue. I will also be discussing the rounds as if they were fired from the same pistol. Don't worry, I won't dive into history of the cartridges - there's no point. I'm sure anyone reading this will only want to know which is considered "best" and not really care about how it was developed.

9x19 Parabellum - Also known as "9mm Luger" or just "9mm"

Pros:

• Higher velocity than .45
• "Flatter" shooting
• Greater effective range than .45
• Greater penetration
• 9mm magazines generally have higher ammo capacity than .45
• Rounds are less expensive
• Less recoil (depending on weapon size)
• Increased accuracy due to quicker follow up shots
• Universal - can be found most places in the world

Cons:

• Over- penetration (FMJ rounds)
• Not always a "one shot stop"*

.45 ACP

Pros:

• Bigger bullet = bigger hole than 9mm (when comparing full metal jacket rounds)
• Subsonic ammo is great for suppressing
• Safer to be used in close quarters
• Rounds are less likely to over-penetrate walls and endanger bystanders

Cons:

• Effective range is less than 9mm
• Due to lower velocity
• .45 ACP magazines' capacity is usually under 10 rounds.
• Rounds are generally more expensive
• Greater recoil = longer time to re-aquire target

Conclusion:

While some people are shouting at me through their computer screen about the "legendary" stories of the .45 and how it saved their life from a charging Triceratops, others will look at these pros and cons and say something like, "Well, it looks like I have more reason to carry a 9mm over a .45." I share your opinion! While I love the .45 and everything that it's accomplished throughout the years, it just doesn't have as many positives as the 9mm. Especially now with advances in defensive ammo. Recent developments with hollow point rounds means you can have a bullet with equal or greater stopping power as your .45, but have twice the number in your magazine. To me, that's a no-brainer.  

Don't listen to the crazy, biased stories that you may hear when debating caliber. *The truth is, there is no such thing as a "one shot stop" or "perfect" round. Every cartridge performs differently in different scenarios. Plus, if you're in a self defense scenario, odds are you won't stop at one shot. You'll probably end up shooting 2-3 times anyway even if the criminal has already been incapacitated. Shot placement is the most important thing when acting in a self-defensive manner. If you can shoot better with a .45 than a 9mm, then by all means, get a .45! This article is based on condensed and over-simplified cartridge facts. Personally, when I take these facts and pair them with my own comfort level of shooting, 9mm will be my choice every time.

What's your pick? Why?

Remington M887 Nitro Mag

It's time for my first review of a shotgun. As you may know from my last post, Remington is no longer producing this product, and for me, it's quite a shame. But it can still be found in some stores and on the used gun market. This is the 887 Nitro Magnum pump-action shotgun.

Remington is known for creating possibly the most iconic and mass produced shotgun in the world, the 870, so when they added another pump shotgun to their lineup, reviews were mixed. When originally introduced, people thought the 887 was produced to eventually replace the 870...which was never was the true purpose. The 887 is almost entirely different than the 870. It was geared more towards waterfowl and to be that gun that can withstand the tough conditions of the average hunter. One of the gun's most interesting feature was the "ArmorLokt" coating on the barrel and receiver which protected all metal exterior surfaces from rust. It also has several other improvements that I like. It has fiber optic sights, an oversized pump release that can be activated with numb fingers, a SuperCell recoil pad, and the ability to shoot up to 3.5 inch shells. The 887 is also lighter than your standard 870, which makes for easy target acquisition.

The 887 isn't without it's flaws. Since the gun has a rotating 3-lug lockup, it can occasionally get stuck and require quite a bit of force to open - however this is a relatively rare occurrence. I've also found that field stripping this weapon is extremely easy. Reassembling it is a different story. I feel like if I had two additional hands, maybe I could put the action and pump back together in under 5 minutes, but since I don't have two additional hands, reassembly takes a while. But overall, I've really enjoyed my time with this gun. I've shot many other shotguns, but this one is still my favorite. Despite being criticized and discontinued, I'll continue to sing it's praises for as long as I own it.

Bushmaster Carbon 15

Freedom Group is really starting to tick me off. It seems like every time I want to review one of their weapons, the company immediately decides to discontinue it. It happened with the Remington 887 Nitro Mag shotgun, the economical Remington 770 rifle, the R51 pistol (that I was SO excited for but they ended up ruining it), and now they may have discontinued this: the Bushmaster Carbon 15. I need to write about this thing before it becomes impossible to find.

Before I finish my rant, let me say this: THESE ARE GOOD FIREARMS (except the R51). Unlike the other guns mentioned, I haven't been able to confirm that the Carbon 15 has been discontinued. The Bushmaster website is under construction and the catalog is showing a very small production line. So who knows at this point. I'll update this when I know for sure.

**Update: I have been officially informed by Bushmaster that the Carbon 15 is no

longer in production. It can still be occasionally found in stores.**

The Bushmaster Carbon 15 is a platform that very few manufacturers dare to even attempt. The upper and lower are completely made of, you guessed it, carbon fiber (amongst other materials). The only other AR manufacturer that comes to mind that has had success with a carbon fiber platform is Windham Weaponry. According to several sources, carbon fiber builds hold up to tolerances above that of aluminum with the added benefit of being very light. This AR weighs in at only 6 lbs. That's super light compared to most ARs. Of course once you add modifications like a quad rail, grip, good scope, etc, you'll get back up to average AR weight in no time. The Carbon 15 is rated for 5.56 rounds and the barrel is a 1/9 twist rate which stabilizes bullets as heavy as 69 to 70 grains. This gun's MSRP is about $900 but you can pick one up for $700 or less at most retailers. Just make sure that you get the second generation Carbon 15. The first generation had mixed reliability reviews and it also lacked the dust cover and forward assist.

So far, the gun seems very versatile and I've not had any issues so far after several hundred rounds. The only thing that I had to replace was the "red-dot" sight that it came with. See the one in the picture? That one. Don't even bother installing it. Give it to charity or trash it and install something (anything) else. It's blurry, ugly, unnecessarily large, has a battery cover that WILL break immediately, and makes the gun top-heavy. I've since added an inexpensive TruGlow 5 MOA red/green dot open sight and it's a 100000% improvement. I've also added an aluminum quad rail to the front with a MAGPUL forward grip. Even after the additions, the light weight of the rifle makes shouldering and maneuvering very easy. You may need to install some flip up iron sights eventually, as this is an ORC (Optics Ready Carbine). I'm excited to get out and do some more shooting. Powdering clay targets on a dirt hill is extremely fun with this guy.

If you are wanting a lightweight, durable, reliable, optics-ready AR-15, take a look at the Bushmaster Carbon 15. Hopefully you will still be able to find this rifle for many years to come.

Finding the Middle Ground?

I occasionally find myself going over to the dark-side of social media - I have, on more than one occasion, caught myself looking at the different pages of anti-gun groups like the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign. I feel that if we want to make a compelling argument for the rights of gun owners, we must understand what the other side's viewpoints are. Anyone can sit there and say "YOU'RE WRONG and I'M RIGHT," but nothing ever gets resolved with this method. I see ignorance on both sides of the argument. Gun control activists see gun owners as a bunch of irresponsible, law-breaking thugs and rednecks who want nothing more than to use their guns to provoke violence at every turn. Gun rights activists see the other side as uneducated, naive, constitution-hating liberals who only want to take away their guaranteed right to self defense. The interesting part of this is, we all want the same thing! We all want to see the end of unnecessary violence.

There's always a shred of truth behind all stereotypes. Of course, gun control activists don't hate the Constitution, nor are all gun owners irresponsible. But guns are a hot topic of late. There could be a gruesome chainsaw murder in a quite town in Kansas, but we'll never hear about that from mainstream news sources. However, if a gun accidentally goes off and strikes a person in the toe, the media marks that up as another mass shooting and the entire anti-gun population erupts into one giant hate-filled rage mass. When the hate-filled rage mass descends on social media channels, the gun owners of the U.S. get defensive (pardon the pun). Pro-gun people see that the person who accidentally fired a round was acting irresponsibly and press for more gun education. The other side refuses to see this as a learning opportunity and want to remove the gun in question from everyone due to one person's action. They want confiscation. 

This reminds me of a scene from the movie classic, Full Metal Jacket. The movie follows a group of Cadets who are at boot camp and training for deployment to Vietnam. During this time, one of the Cadets breaks a camp rule by bringing food into the barracks. From then on, if that Cadet did anything worthy of punishment, the entire squad would have to share in his punishment. After breaking several rules, the squad had enough of being punished for his mistakes and turned against this particular Cadet and initiated him by hitting him repeatedly with bars of soap in pillow cases while he slept. Gun ownership is exactly the same! Law-abiding gun owners all cringe when we see someone acting irresponsibly with guns. When we hear of a young child who accidentally shoots his/her sibling with their parents' gun that wasn't stored properly, we want to bludgeon said parent with a pillowcase filled with bars of soap...numerous times. We don't believe it's fair to be held accountable for someone else's actions...and it's really not. 

The anti-gunners see a person being irresponsible with a firearm and immediately think that every gun owner is as irresponsible as the perpetrator.  

The part I can't wrap my head around is that the anti-gun community seem to completely ignore the person who uses a gun for harmful purposes. Every time something bad happens and a gun is involved, the Brady Campaign kicks things off with the headline: "Another victim of gun violence" and then continue to talk about how "the gun" murdered two people in an alleyway in South Chicago. They completely miss the most important part of the story - the person. 

How could we have stopped this person from committing a crime? 
**This is where our opinions differ.

Anti-Gun Response: Remove the deadly tool that the bad guy used in hopes that he cannot/will not commit crime.

• This answer to me is like saying, "Let's revoke Vin Diesel's driver's license so that he can no longer drive so fast and furiously."

Pro-Gun Response: Use an equally deadly tool to defend yourself and others from the bad guy.

• Make criminals think twice about pulling a knife on you and have the ability to take control of the situation at hand.

For me, the choice is easy. I feel that a majority of people that are anti-gun don't know much about the tool that they want to ban. It's often very apparent. I'd love to have a conversation with a person that has experience with guns AND is still against civilian ownership of firearms. Those people are in short supply. I wonder why?

Which side do you stand with?

Should Buy Your Child a Firearm?

I've seen people argue about this often. A father (or mother) takes their son (or daughter) of 9 years to a gun shop and buys them their first .22 LR rifle. Afterwards, other parents hear of this purchase and protest that no child should ever be given a gun as a present.

This is an issue where I can see both sides of the argument rather clearly. Yes - a child is inexperienced, and from the outsider's point of view, it's the equivalent of giving a child a knife and telling him to go play with it. While on the other side of the argument, if a parent purchases a rifle for a child and takes the time to teach the kid how to maintain, use, and store their rifle properly, an accident is far less likely to happen. I agree with the latter. You hear stories about kids that accidentally shoot their parents or friends. If you look into it, most of these accidents occur because their parents were being irresponsible and left a firearm where their inexperienced child could get their hands on it.

This is my stance: If you want to teach your child about guns and gun safety, do so. But know that you, as the parent or guardian, have the responsibility to practice the same level of gun safety that you teach. You may be more experienced, but that doesn't make you immune to firearm accidents.

Bothersome MHS Dilemma

As you may or may not know, the Modular Handgun System (MHS) is the process of researching and testing an of-the-shelf, commercial pistol to replace the current sidearm of the United States military. The Beretta M9 has been the primary sidearm since 1985 and is due to be replaced within the next year or so. The trials have commenced and some of the media has decided to interview some of our soldiers and ask their opinion as to what should be the next military sidearm.

Now, before I go any further, I need to clear the air about one thing: I am not a soldier. I have not served in the U.S. armed forces. My hat goes off to all of those who've made sacrifices for our country. However, most of the people that I know personally in the military don't know much about guns. I know what you're thinking; "The guys and girls in the military must know everything there is to know about guns." They know how to operate their own tools very well, outside of that, they all seem to come out of the military knowing only a couple things about guns, and they are:

• The Beretta M9 sucks
• We should've kept the Colt 1911 .45
• I want a Glock

If asked why.....

• Why does the M9 suck?
• "The slide is known to break and injure the operator."
• "The parts feel cheap and can cause jamming."
• Why keep the 1911?
• "It's a legend. It also shoots a .45 which is more effective than a 9mm. Just one shot can kill 5 terrorists."
• Why a Glock?
• "Because it's the best weapon in the world and never jams. Everyone knows that."

Sounds a little funny doesn't it? Let's start by looking at the claims against the M9. In the 1980's, an early model M9 did indeed brake and the slide came off and hurt a Marine. There was only one instance of this happening.... almost 30 years ago. Yet many soldiers believe that this could happen to their sidearm today. The model used today has many improvements over the one used back then. As for the jamming, you can thank the U.S. Government. To cut military costs, the U.S. Government decided not to buy M9 magazines from Beretta, and buy them from a third party instead. Surprise, surprise! The magazine caused all kinds of failures in the gun - which made our soldiers blame the gun itself. We've since switched back to Beretta magazines, but those off-brand ones are still floating around.

Why keep the Colt 1911? I mean, I will not argue the weapon's history. It's a beautiful piece that shot the almighty .45 ACP cartridge. But I seriously doubt that a soldier would rather give up their 16 -round 9mm magazine for an 8-shot .45 ACP. The FBI recently decided to switch back to 9mm after using .40 S&W for years, this is because new expanding 9x19 ammo is so good, it's proven to be just as effective as the .40 with the right loads, they value the greater capacity, and it causes less wear and tear on service weapons. There has been talk of the military using expanding ammo, and if this happens, you can forget any talk of a larger caliber. 

Why do Marines want a Glock? EXCELLENT QUESTION!!! I don't know if I can answer this, but I'll try. Let me go back to my original story. The media has decided to interview some of our soldiers and ask their opinion as to what should be the next military sidearm.  Their response was somewhat comical to me. 

One (newly enlisted) soldier stated "The Beretta just felt cheap and poorly made" and then he goes on to say, "I prefer a Glock 17 or 19. Those or the .45 variant."

Really guy? You think the all-metal, Italian-made weapon feels cheap and your comeback gun is a Glock?!? The Glock doesn't even have a fully-supported chamber! I bet he doesn't even know what this is or what one looks like! Nor does he know the model number for the .45 variant. All he knows is that he "wants a Glock 'cause it's the best." So many people that come out of the military feel this way. And I CANNOT for the life of me figure out why they believe this. If you're wondering where all this frustration is coming from, just check out my first-ever blog post. 

But I do agree that it's time for a weapon that is a little more modern to take the reigns. Sig Sauer has an entry, Beretta has a new gun, FN has a new gun, and Ruger might enter their new gun in the trials as well. And I suppose if Glock wants to enter...I can't stop them. I guess we'll just sit back and see what happens.