Gun & Prepping News #17

 Just some odds and ends:

• First up, Greg Ellifritz has a Weekend Knowledge Dump for this week including for this week including a link to the latest February 2025 Rangemaster newsletter (be sure to read the section on dealing with mentally ill and homeless people), a test of different AR15 barrel profiles and how heat buildup affected point of impact (strangely, the pencil barrel fared better than some of the others), an article on reaction time in a gun fight, a link to a 1966 article by Jeff Cooper on "The Carbine Compromise" (and that is "carbine" with a long "i" like "combine"--the type for harvesting wheat--and not "car-bean" he tells us). And more. 

    I have to say that Cooper really hated the M-16. His opinion seemed to be that if the recoil from a long arm couldn't make a grown man cry, it wasn't worth a hoot as a weapon.

• Ellifritz also mentions some of the products from Shot Show 2025 that caught his interest. I sort of like the revolver speed loader that holds three full reloads. 
• Speaking of new products from Shot Show, I happened across a video that mentioned this product: Titus Arms VZ61 Clone (TA61). Although the VZ61 "Skorpian" shoots the diminutive .32 ACP caliber, it is a fascinating arm because it was one of the few successful machine pistol designs. Plus it looks cool. The MSRP for this one is listed as $580, which low price point is apparently because the receiver is 3-D printed. 
• "10-Gauge: Still Alive and Kicking?"--Gun Digest (warning--loud music plays). From the article:

    10-gauge shotguns are not do-all shotguns like 12-gauges are. They were at a time, but not anymore. Today, this gauge specializes in distant, high-flying targets and is best suited for a goose pit or blind—geese, swan, the 747-class of migratory waterfowl.

    In fact, the 10-gauge is the largest legal waterfowl gauge allowed per the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1916 signed by the United States and Canada. The big-bore shotgun sure hammers Canada geese, but the guns are too heavy for a day spent chasing grouse or pheasant, and the lack of light factory loads does not endear it to busting clays.

•  "Smith Wesson Debuts New Mountain Guns, Shows off Classic Revolvers"--Guns.com. I had mentioned the S&W Mountain Gun before Shot Show, so it was interesting to see that Smith & Wesson was reintroducing it, sans the infamous "Hillary Hole" that mars most S&W revolvers. Interestingly, the Mountain Gun is being released not only in the classic .44 Magnum, but also in a 7-shot version in .357 Magnum. 

    Other firearms also being released without the internal locking mechanism are some classic models that include the Model 36 (a .38 Special J-frame) and the classic Model 10 (also in .38 Special), both with the deep blue finish, the pencil barrels, and half-moon front sight. Why might you want such guns? The two main ones are: (i) you already own one of these classics, but this allows you to shoot one with the same look and feel without the risk of damaging your classic (with the added bonus that these are rated for +P ammo); or (ii) you don't have one of the classic firearms yet and are willing to purchase a nice facsimile.

• More: "Wheelgun Wednesday: Smith & Wesson Is Closing the Hillary Hole"--The Firearm Blog. I don't believe that we will see the removal of the internal locking mechanism across the S&W line as a whole, but that those without the locking mechanism will remain special or limited run items.
  
• And another new weapon: "Old Cat, New Tricks - The Beretta Bobcat 20X"--The Firearm Blog. Beretta has been updating some of their classic designs. We saw that with the updates to their .32 ACP Tomcat (the relatively new Model 30X), their release of the Beretta 80X (an updated version of the Beretta 84), and now a new Bobcat with better sights, able to mount an optic, and available with (or without) a threaded barrel. The link above is to a video from TFB about the new model. 

    When the 80X was first released, it was only in .380, but Beretta is (or soon will be) offering a model in .32 ACP like the older Model 81. So I'm interested to see if in a year or two we see a 20X in .25 ACP. The advantage of the .25 ACP over .22 LR is mostly that of reliability, given that the .25 ACP is a centerfire cartridge. 

• "New Remington Ammo Including Quiet Revolver .22 LR Loads"--The Firearm Blog. Remington has some new ammunition that it is releasing, including its Core-Lokt Tipped Lever Gun ammo (which seems intended to compete with Hornady's Lever Evolution line), and a couple new .22 LR offerings. One of these is the the Performance Wheelgun load which, according to the article, fires a 39-grain tapered bullet at under 800 feet per second. 

That means it is very quiet, even in revolvers which can’t accept traditional silencers. The unique bullet shape makes it easier to load into the (often fidgety) little cylinder openings of single-action .22 revolvers. It is not just for handguns though, as it is very quiet in manually-operated rifles with their longer barrels. Due to the low muzzle velocity, it will not cycle most semiautomatics, though.

 I've found that .22 CB and .22 Long can also be very quiet, but I will be interested in this--particularly since it will feed out of magazines that can't quite work with .22 Long. 

• "Going 10mm: Glock or 1911?"--The Mag Life. Although there are other handguns offered in 10mm (including a couple different models from Sig based off the 220 and 320 platforms, respectively), the two most popular platforms are those based off the 1911 design and the offerings from Glock. The author compares the two and the pros and cons of each. Presumably the decision to carry 10mm is for self-defense (whether from 2 or 4-legged critters) so the author mostly focuses on reliability and cost. And with those criteria, if you want reliability coupled with a lower cost, he recommends the Glock pistols inasmuch as the less expensive 1911 options are not going to have the necessary build quality to be reliable. As the author notes, "You’ll at least have to purchase a Ruger SR1911 at nearly a grand price to get a reliable M1911 for long-term, high-round-count usage."

• "Concealed Carry Red Dots: Are They Worth The Hype?"--Ammo Land. The author thinks they are worth it based on his experience including the Achilles Heel Tactical Baseline Pistol Course. He explains:

When adrenaline kicks in, we focus on the threat, not on aligning tiny iron sights. Red dots allow us to stay target-focused, providing a clear aiming point superimposed over the threat. This leads to faster reaction times and more accurate defensive shots.

He also points out that the red-dot sights work better for those with aging eyes. But he points out some of the downsides, including the significant cost for a quality optic, the possibility of bad electronics or a battery dying, and the possibility of challenges when concealing the weapon. Although I've used red-dots on long arms for years, I've only recently purchased my first pistol red-dot, so it will be interesting to experiment with it.

• "Why Some Handguns Are Harder to Master"--Uncle Zo. The author explores factors (other than size) that might make a handgun easier to accurately shoot under time pressures by reference to the classifications for USPSA. He first sets out the different divisions as follows:

•      Open – Tricked out full size 2011 style pistols, like the Staccato P (but often larger), with gigantic magazine wells, frame mounted optics, compensators, and ported barrels.
•     Limited – Iron-sighted 2011 style pistols with large magazine wells, but no compensators or ported barrels.
•     Limited 10 – Same as Limited division but limited to 10 rounds, or iron-sighted single-stack 1911 pistols, like the Dan Wesson PM-45, using extended 10 round magazines.
•     Limited Optics – Same as Limited division but with slide mounted optics.
•     Production – Organization approved, mass produced, iron-sighted pistols (like the CZ Shadow 2 or HK VP9, but there are many more) without compensators, ports, or magazine wells limited to 15 rounds.
•     Carry optics – Same as production, but with slide mounted optics and no capacity limit.
•     Single Stack – Iron-sighted single-stack 1911 style pistols with flush fitting magazines.
•     Revolver – Iron-sighted wheel guns (like the Smith & Wesson 929).
•     Pistol Caliber Carbine (PCC) – Self explanatory, but PCCs with optics are prevalent.

Then he goes over statistics for each as to how well the shooters tend to do in the matches. As you would probably expect, the revolvers are at the bottom and there is a large gap between the revolver and the rest of the divisions. The Carry Optics, Production, Single Stack, Limited Optics, and Limited/Limited 10 divisions are virtually identical, which tends to cast doubt on how much optics can actually increase the performance for the average shooter. Then there is a small but significant jump to PCC and Open. The author's takeaway from all of this:

    The most glaring suggestion is that revolvers are hard to shoot. At least, more difficult to shoot well than other types of handguns. The most obvious explanation to me is the long heavy double action trigger pull which requires a lot of work to master. The heavier the trigger pull, the more work it takes to fire a shot without disturbing the muzzle-target alignment. Another way to think about it is that revolvers are less forgiving to less than perfect marksmanship fundamentals.

    Think about that for a second. It is entirely possible for a B-class shooter, which is a classification that still requires a commendable degree of marksmanship proficiency, with a striker-fired wonder nine like a Glock might be able to compete against a Master-class shooter, which requires a highly degree of marksmanship excellence, with a revolver. To me that means that suggesting a revolver to a beginner is not a good idea and only sets them up to start on a longer, more difficult road to shooting well.

And this makes sense. Most of the people who's opinions I respect tend to state that the two types of people to benefit from revolvers are the very skilled shooters and the non-shooter who just wants a firearm for self-defense, but is otherwise just going to throw it into a drawer and forget about it until they need it. In the latter case, ease of operation and reliability are going to trump other concerns.

    The data also seems to suggest that 1911s and 2011s are capable of performing slightly better than most of the common modern mass-produced pistols that are marketed for defensive applications to the general public. Consequently, that suggests that 1911s and 2011s are more forgiving to less than perfect marksmanship fundamentals. Whether or not that is worth the price difference between the more affordable mass-produced pistols and the more expensive 1911s and 2011s is debatable, but ultimately up to the individual making the purchase while also considering the differences in the manual of arms and safety features between the different types of pistols.

    What I found most surprising was that the performance difference between optics and irons on similar types of pistols was not as pronounced as I expected. I suspect this a side effect of comparing data limited to what’s currently possible at or near the current limits of human performance. Nevertheless, I expected to see a larger gap given I hold the option that it is easier to develop marksmanship proficiency using pistol mounted optics than using iron sights. However, skill development and peak performance, while related, are different things.

• In my last "Diversity Report," I'd mentioned the incident of the Border Patrol agent killed in a shootout with a transgender terror group (for more info, see "The case of the radical ‘Zizian’ vegan trans cult and the shooting death of a Border Patrol agent"--New York Post). I came across a piece by Freddy DeBoer writing about this incident entitled "I Told You: Chaos is Coming." DeBoer does not think that the Zizian group is significant in and of itself, but believes it's actions are a harbinger:

... anyway I’m not really interested in this group’s ideology. I’m interested in them as a test case of what I’ve been saying for some time: that violence is coming, and that people will find a way to package it with meaning. They want to. They need to. They have to believe that it comes from something other than themselves.

He continues:

... Our culture has erased transcendent meaning and left in its place short-form internet video, frothy pop music, limitless pornography, Adderall for the educated and fentanyl for the not, a ceaseless parade of minor amusements that distract but never satisfy. And people want to be satisfied; they want something durable. They want something to hold on to. They want to transcend the ordinary. And I’m afraid that, with God dead and the romantic ideal ironized into annihilation, the pure thrill of violence is one of the only outlets left to express the inexpressible, and committing violent acts is free. People make fun of me about all of this, but I’m quite certain. We are approaching a new era of cults, of terrorist cells, of mass shooters pouring out of our society like ants from an anthill in pursuit of a discarded candy bar. In a world that is not remotely atheist but still relentlessly secular, we are bound to find some folk worship of Shiva, people kneeling in reverence before the bomb like they do on the Planet of the Apes.

• "Prepping and Preparedness"--Modern Survival Blog. This is a big picture type of article for what you should be doing to prepare for different lengths of time (and disruption) due to a SHTF event: (i) 1 to 2 weeks of disruption; (ii) prepping for 1 to 2 months; (iii) preparing for 1 year of disruption; and (iv) self sustainability. The author adds this realistic assessment:

Anyway, those are my general thoughts on an attempt to categorize prepping into basic, moderate, advanced, and expert. Most people don’t have time to devote to this. And I get that. My wish is that people would at least get to level 1 prepping – which would cover most all of the likely-to-occur circumstances. Level 2 is an attainable goal too. Take it as far as you want.

• "Camping Water Hacks: How to Save Water When Camping"--SHTF Preparedness. The article lists 9 "hacks" of which the first five are actually ways for filtering/purifying water. The latter four "hacks" are actually those having to do with saving water: (6) don't consume foods/drinks that will make you thirsty; (7) don't carry too much water because the extra weight will make you work harder; (8) keep your body cool; and (9) pre-hydrate by drinking water about two hours before you hit any trails. 
• "Signal Like a Pro: The Art of Getting Noticed"--Athlon Outdoors. The author explains the difference between passive signaling (e.g., wearing brightly colored clothes or packs) and active signaling (e.g., using a signal mirror) before explaining some specific methods or tips for signaling using signal mirrors, fire, and an emergency whistle. 

A lot of preppers, from my observations, tend to eschew bright colored clothing or gear. I think it is the result of either trying to have a tactical mindset (such as using camo) or a gray man mindset (not wanting to stick out). But outside of actual combat conditions, I think it is important when going into the outdoors to consider the ability to be seen and found. If you spend any times outdoors, you know that if you are wearing camo or even neutral colored clothing and were to be injured and possibly unconscious, people could pass you by even if you are just a few feet from a trail behind a screen of brush or grass, let alone if you got lost or otherwise wound up far from the beaten path.