Friends Don't Let Friends Use Knives To Baton Wood

(Source)

In "Knife Maker Mike Stewart Discusses Thin Blades And Batoning Firewood" at Survival Common Sense, Stewart notes that batoning a knife to cut wood--particularly larger pieces of wood--is actually relatively recent phenomena.

Reviewers needed something to do to get attention and whoever the first guy was that did this started all of them doing it. Lots of people today actually think it is normal to crossgrain baton stuff – it was not until the last 25 years or so. Most skilled outdoorsman knew how to baton in an emergency but never actually did it because their skill prevented them from being in an unprepared emergency. Same with prying things with knives. It is a No-No. All the time.

While I'm no Cody Lundin, I don't think I'm completely ignorant of field craft and I'd never even heard of it until sometime after I started this blog. 

    But with people wanting knives that they can use for batoning, knife designers and manufacturers are producing knives suitable to the task. The results, however, are thicker, heavier knives that are not as quick or handy as their predecessors. Stewart notes, for instance, that "[b]owie knives were invented in the late 1820s. NONE of them were over 3/16ths-inch thick and most were closer to 1/8th-inch thick. Nobody thought they were a camp knife or a wood processing knife." He adds:

    Let’s look further back in history – to times when the knife was the only tool that most people in early cultures used – what do we see ?

    We see seven to nine inch blades (Sometimes a little longer) that are thin – usually 1/8th to 3/16ths inches thick. They vary in regional shapes but they are light – fast and very efficient. They were used for making shelters,  cutting kindling for fires, household chores and camp chores and even used to break down game to carry back to the village. They are all thin blades.

    Why are the big knives (called machetes) that are almost unique from Southern North America all through Central America to the tip of South America ALL thin ?

    It is because the thin blades work and work better for real time tasks than the thicker, slower and heavier knives. I have never seen a picture or a film or a video of any indigenous people from these regions batoning anything. They also know the difference between softwoods and hardwoods. When they encounter hardwoods, they go and get an ax or now – a chainsaw.

    People that actually know how to use large knives do not go smashing them around at trees or logs – it is just not done by skilled people.

POTD: Abandoned Shack In The Outback

 

Source: "These Incredible Photos Show the Beauty of Abandoned Places"--Redbook Magazine

POTD: Abandoned weather station on Kolyuchin Island in the Arctic Ocean

 

Source: Daily Timewaster 

Latest Bombs & Bants (Streamed Nov. 23, 2022)

 

VIDEO: "Bombs and Bants Live! Ep 62" (52 min.)

Meme of the Day: Don't Carry A Pistol With An Empty Chamber

 

Source: Western Rifle Shooters Association

VIDEO: "Use These To Not Die"

 

VIDEO: "Use These To Not Die"--Administrative Results (13 min.)

Garand Thumb joins the host of Administrative Results to test various weapons against barriers to demonstrate the difference between cover and concealment. The first barrier tested was a barn stall wall made of what appeared to be 2x8 or 2x10 boards laid edge-to-edge. The second barrier was a reinforced concrete wall that looked to be 6 or 8 inches thick. As would be expected, all rifles (calibers were 5.56, .45-70, .30-06, and 7.62x39) tested against the wood boards easily penetrated, although the 7.62x39 did keyhole. The concrete wall, on the other hand, was able to stop everything shot at it, including some .50 BMG rounds, although the .50 BMG caused significant spalling off the backside of the concrete wall that would likely have resulted in injury. Prolonged shooting with a .50 BMG machine gun, however, would probably have quickly reduced the concrete to rubble.

Winter Field Tips

(Source)

I've had a couple posts recently with some tips for dressing for the winter (see here and here). I definitely got to put some of them to use this past weekend. 

    Between the wet weather we had earlier this month (which turns the ground to a thick, sticky mud perfect for getting stuck) and other activities, I hadn't been out shooting for a bit. This past weekend, though, with morning temperatures in the teens, I decided it was probably safe to try and reach my favorite shooting spot because whatever areas hadn't dried would have frozen. I was mostly right.

    I had two main reasons for going shooting (well, other than I hadn't been for a few weeks). First was to test out the 1911 on which I had swapped out the flat main spring housing for an arched one (I wrote about that here). Second, with Idaho having such a large budget surplus, the legislature had authorized an additional tax return. Like a good, responsible person, I could have put it into savings; but being a gun guy, that just wasn't going to happen. I decided to check another off my "bucket list" of firearms and purchased a Smith & Wesson Model 317 "Kit Gun". 

    For those of you unfamiliar with S&W's kit guns, it is in reference to the small .22 LR revolvers built on the J-frame with short 3-inch barrels: the idea is that these are revolvers small and light enough for a fisherman, camper or hiker to throw into his kit and use for taking small game, to dispatch snakes or other vermin, or for casual plinking. Barrel lengths have varied over time, but mostly have been in the 3-inch range.

    Tom Clapper has an excellent history of the developments leading up to the production of the first "kit guns" and its subsequent changes (link here).  The gist, however, is that the kit gun developed out of S&W's .32 hand ejector revolvers on the I-frame but chambered in .22 LR. After some starts and fits in the early 20th Century, but in 1936 S&W released its first .22 revolver labelled as a "kit gun": the .22/32 Kit Gun, still using the I-frame designed for the .32 revolver. In 1957, with S&W switching to a system of using model numbers instead of names, the kit gun became the Model 34. In 1958, S&W began production of the an "Airweight" kit-gun using a J-frame sized frame known as the Model 43. The steel framed kit gun was converted to a J-frame in 1960. In 1977, S&W released its first stainless steel kit gun: the Model 63. 

    Production has stopped and started again on different models, and changes have led to different model designations. As Dave Campbell reported in a 2018 article, "[t]he Model 34 was discontinued in 1991 though there were a few reissues. Today it exists in two more modern configurations, the Model 317 with an aluminum frame, 3" barrel and an eight-shot cylinder or the Model 63, with a stainless steel frame, 3" barrel and an eight-shot cylinder." 

    I've long wanted a kit gun, particularly after hefting the aluminum framed/aluminum cylinder versions. These weigh in at 11.7 ounces and have fully adjustable rear sights. Today's Model 317 also sports a bright green fiber optic front sight. This particular model is popular with hikers and backpackers because of its light weight. It is perfectly adequate for protection against aggressive dogs, raccoons or other critters, can be used for signaling, and if worse came to worse, could be pressed into use for self-defense. They are pricey--especially when compared to a .22 semi-auto--which is why I've held off buying one for so long. The MSRP is $839.00. I paid about $80 less for mine at a local gun shop. 

    Since my youngest son is supposed to be practicing his driving preparatory to getting his driver's license, after we got off the highway, I let him drive the paved country road from the highway to where we turn off onto a dirt path. He was going too fast trying to make the turn off, but I did learn that my SUV will drift without rolling. Anyway, after that bit of excitement and a few seconds to recover, I exited the vehicle and was glad to learn that the mud had mostly frozen, so off we went into the desert. 

    The one thing you can count on in a southern Idaho desert is the wind and we weren't disappointed. It wasn't terrible--it wasn't near strong enough to blow over targets which is not an infrequent problem--but it was a steady strong breeze that nevertheless seemed to find every opening in one's clothing. My youngest son had forgotten his gloves, but fortunately I keep a spare pair of cold-weather gloves in my vehicle. These are some insulated gloves made by Head that I picked up at Costco many years ago. I've since replaced them for regular wear because they got a slight tear in one finger, but the insulating and waterproofing layers are still intact.

    My oldest son and I both were wearing thin gloves conducive to shooting. These were also Head brand that I picked up at Costco years ago (are you sensing a pattern, here?) that are a thin polyester and intended for sporting activities. Importantly, they are thin enough to safely use when shooting and handling firearms. Better than bare skin, but still left us with cold fingers. 

    I started with shooting the Model 317. I wanted to test its function and reliability, but also had brought along some Federal Punch in .22LR to test. If I'm going to be carrying the kit gun hiking or camping, I wanted ammo such that the revolver could be pressed into a self-defense role. The weapon functioned fine--it went bang every time I pulled the trigger--and it pretty much shot to point of aim (POA) at 5 yards. It was cold and I still wanted to try the 1911 so I didn't spend a lot of time with the revolver. Besides, I figured, if your firearm functions flawlessly at 17 or 18 degrees F, it probably will work under most any conditions. I'll do a lengthier test later.

    We spent a little more time with the Remington 1911 mostly because my kids also wanted to shoot it. My oldest son, in particular, was interested in how the arched mainspring housing would help as his Kimber has a flat one. As I expected, it pointed more naturally for me and I was, therefore, able to shoot it more accurately at a decent pace of fire. It seemed to work better for my son as well. Instead of the paper target I'd used to test the revolver, we used the steel dueling tree I'd brought out. My sons shot against each other and I shot against my oldest son. He also tried the Remington on his own. After that I worked with my youngest son using the paper target so I could bring the target up close and help him with getting a proper grip and improve trigger control. 

    There were a couple times when the 1911 didn't fully go into battery, which probably was because of the cold. Years ago I was out shooting with some friends in temperatures that were even much colder, and the best we could do was 4 or 5 rounds from a semi-auto before having feeding problems. We'd then have to put the guns inside our coats for a few minutes to warm up and shoot some more. They were having more problems than me, which I put down to them typically using more lubricant than I do. They were also having problems with their ARs. I had an Mini-14 at the time that worked without issue, but I again put this down to differences in lubing practices. My pump action shotgun I'd brought out also worked fine. But I vowed after that trip--which had temperatures in the low single digits or perhaps even colder out on the flats in the desert--that I was never again going to practice in that cold of weather.

    But back to my recent trip. Did I say it was cold with a strong breeze? The main problems were my hands, because of the thin gloves, and my ears because I had not brought a hat that covered my ears. My kids were complaining of the cold as well, so we packed up early, I drove out to the paved road, let my youngest drive back to the highway, and then I drove the rest of the way back home. I haven't told my wife about my son "drifting" the car. That's a story for his friends.

    In my earlier post on cold weather tips, I mentioned some ideas from one of my readers. He has some more tips which I'd like to share:

    A small pc cut from an old yoga mat can be used to sit on in snow and keep your ass from getting wet.

We decided to call it a day before moving to shooting some rifle so fortunately I didn't find myself sitting on the ground (although I had a shooting mat with me). But this seems a more compact solution and would work if I found myself using a formal shooting range with shooting benches and chairs. My wife hasn't used her yoga mat for a few years so I'm sure she won't notice. 

    Also, he adds: 

    There are gloves, intended for use by auto mechanics I think, available at many hdwr stores that fit tightly/ have textured grips.  I often wear a pair of these under warmer gloves/ mittens.  If I need to deal w/ something that requires a degree of dexterity, I can ditch the outer glove/ mitten and even in extreme cold have a minute or two before my hands become so cold that I lose feeling/ dexterity.  Also, I can touch metal (ski bindings, a knife blade, gun barrel/ slide, etc.,) w/o freezing/ losing skin.

    If you carry a Bic lighter, pry the little "child protection" wheel off of it.  Child proof can become adult proof in cold weather as you lose feeling/ dexterity in your fingers.  Also, keep lighter in inside pocket next to your body, as this can make a big difference in getting flame in extreme cold.

He also adds:

I always keep a few feet of duct tape wrapped around my Bic lighters.  This means I (almost) always have duct w/ me.  Further, duct tape makes OK tinder.  Not great, but workable.  (Do you know the PJCB [ed: petroleum jelly cotton ball] in a milkshake straw trick?  I learned it from a guy who went by "curdog".  I know Ellifritz posted about this, but if it's new to you let me know and I'll explain more fully.)  Finally, w/ cold hands this makes the lighter easier to grasp. 

Finally, and something that I knew better and should have done:

    I carry a thermos w/ either hot chocolate or hot tea when I know I'm going to be out for a while.  Adding half a stick of butter to hot chocolate really bumps up the caloric value and tastes pretty damn good  on a cold day.

I haven't tried adding a stick of butter to hot chocolate. I think I'll dig out my large Thermos and give it a try for my next outing.

New Bombs & Bants (Streamed Nov. 16, 2022)

 

VIDEO: "Bombs and Bants Live! Ep 61" (47 min.)

Video: "Why Won't the Ruger Mini-14 Just Die?"

 

VIDEO: "Why Won't the Ruger Mini-14 Just Die? [Part 1]"--Lucky Gunner Ammo (15 min.)

    Since this video is the first part of a two-part series, it doesn't answer the question. Rather, it sets up the question by going over the history of the rifle, looking at pro's and con's, and comparing prices versus a Colt AR-15 and a budget AR over time. For most of its history, the Mini-14 cost less than an AR-15, and this gap widened considerably in the late 1980s and going into the 1990s. I can remember when you could walk into a gun store and the Mini ran about 50 to 60% of what an AR15 costs. But that has changed: the price gap has narrowed and, over the past couple of years as the video shows, the Mini-14 costs more than a Colt AR-15 and significantly more than a budget AR. Also, as the video notes, the magazines cost double (or more) than you would pay for an AR magazine, there are no good ways of attaching optics or lights, and the rifle still suffers a bit in the accuracy department (although the modern models are more accurate than the earlier models of Mini-14). Yet people are still buying the weapon and so the question posed in the title: why won't it die?

    I can think of several reasons. First, notwithstanding the issues with aftermarket magazines that developed after Ruger stopped selling factory 20- and 30-round magazines to the public, the rifle always had--and I believe continues to have--a reputation for eating everything you feed it. In the 80's, the Mini-14 was considered by many in the prepping community to be more reliable than the AR (partly because of a couple well-publicized incidents where cops with ARs facing down criminals with Mini-14s came down on the losing side).

    Second, it is a light and handy gun. It weighs less and, in my opinion, is better balanced than the AR. It doesn't have all the things--pistol grips, magazine wells, and high-rise sights--that tend to catch on clothes, seat belts, brush or branches, and so on.

    Third, it has a traditional look and feel about it, especially with the wood stock. Not only does that appeal to people that like traditional looking rifles, but is less likely to frighten those members of the public that are 2nd Amendment impaired.

    Fourth, it's accuracy is acceptable for the person that actually uses a gun in the field. The reality is that the original Mini-14, sporting a pencil profile barrel, was never "inaccurate" compared to the original AR sporting a pencil profile barrel. The "inaccuracy" issue arose when comparing the original Mini-14 to the A2 models with the heavy barrels and the improved peep sights. Sticking better peep sights and a heavier barrel seemed to alleviate a lot of those issues. Also, as I've noted before, up until the end of the 1980s, the Mini-14 sported a 1:7 twist at a time when people were still mostly shooting 50 and 55 grain bullets, and probably would have done better with a 1:9 or 1:12 twist.

VIDEO: Appendix Carry For Heavy Set Guys

 

VIDEO: "How to Appendix Carry for Fat Guys (continued) / EDC"--Yota Blaster (23 min.)

This is a topic that needs to be discussed more often because most men (or women, for that matter) are not thin. Although the video title says it is for "Fat Guys" the guy making it is not really what I would describe as fat as he doesn't have a gut that actually sticks out much over his belt line such as with the so-called "beer gut". 

More Tips For Dressing For Winter

Fireplace at twilight

Last week I published a short post on the topic of "Dressing for Winter." A reader has shared some additional tips and tricks, writing:

    First, like you, I favor parka length garments.  I've had a few over the years that extended 3-4" farther down the thigh on the back, while I don't see it as a "must have", I liked this feature.  I do see pocket space as a BFD.  I like a couple of bellows pockets on the chest, pouch and slot pockets at the waist.  I try to carry a spare pair of gloves, a spare cap, and a scarf.  (There's a trick you may know, but as I learned it later in life, I'll mention it anyway.  If you fold a scarf in half, lengthwise, put it around neck and pull loose ends through folded end, it will cinch up very nicely and prevent heat leaking around neck via the chimney effect.) 

    I try to keep a few of the hand-warmers in my pockets.  I have sev'l "saves" on children who were on verge of hypothermia using these.  Kids go hypothermic pretty quickly and many parents are ill prepared (I bailed out one family two successive winters while XC skiing.) I'd carry them for this reason alone, but they've many uses.

    W/ rgd to your suggestion of keeping a light weight jacket to allow you to moderate/ adjust body temp, let me suggest a fleece vest for this purpose.  Especially one that reverses from Blaze Orange to a camo pattern.  The utility of such a garment is greater than many other garments, signaling, warming, hiding...  I also like to keep a reversible cap in my coat.

He also adds:

The little hand warmers have a number of uses.  One thing that works well is to melt water frozen in a Nalgene bottle.  They don't put out enough heat to melt the bottle, but if you duct tape a couple to a frozen Nalgene bottle they will pretty quickly provide you w/ drinkable water.  

 As I looked over my collection of jackets and coats, I noticed that I also had a few that were cut longer on the back than on the front: I assume this is to make it easier to sit while still covering the butt to protect from the cold. I also like more capacious pockets as I tend to stuff items in my pockets when not needed. I keep a Chapstick in my winter coats, as well as storing gloves in the pockets (I don't have a pair for every coat but I'm getting there)--that way I don't have to hunt for gloves when I grab the jacket or coat. I will also stuff keys in an outer pocket when bundled up. And if I'm really bundled up in my heaviest winter coat, a small revolver will go into an outside pocket since there is probably a snowball's chance in Hell that I could get to a weapon on my belt if I needed one.

Dressing for Winter

Alexander Ivanovich Surikov in a winter coat
(study by Vasily Surikov for the
painting "Taking a snow town", 1889)

I came across an article a few days ago on the subject of dressing for the winter called, appropriately enough, "How to Dress for Winter, According to Nordic Adventurers". Waking up to temperatures of 21 degrees Fahrenheit (-6.1 Celsius) this morning, I decided that it was close enough to winter to share the article and discuss the topic.

    The article raises 5 main points:

• First, use a layering system comprised of 3 layers: a base layer next to your skin that is comfortable (the article recommends Merino wool because even if it gets wet, it will retain its insulating properties), a more insulative second layer such as a thicker wool sweater or technical layer (like PrimaLoft), and a third top layer/outer shell with wind-breaking/wind-stopping qualities (the article recommends Gore-Tex). The article also mentions that "[t]o layer your legs for warmth, wool long underwear under a wind-breaking shell pant should suffice, though extreme conditions may call for a third layer."

    I'm no Arctic adventurer but I basically went over to this system many years ago even for just day-to-day dressing in the winter, largely abandoning the heavier coats that I'd previously used. I generally don't don a special base layer figuring my underwear (a t-shirt undergarment and bottoms that go nearly to my knees) and street cloths are enough considering the typical winter temperatures where I live. I will then wear a cardigan sweater or its fleece equivalent as a second layer (or a flannel or wool shirt if I'm feeling outdoorsy). And, when outside, I will generally put on a windbreaker of some sort. I've tried more water resistant jackets but I don't like how they trap the moisture. If the temperature drops closer to 0 F, I will exchange the windbreaker for a leather coat or wool coat and, if I'm going to be outside a lot, at least put on a base layer (long underwear) over my legs. And if it gets really cold, I have a thick down coat that I can use as the outer layer.

    Also, something I learned as a child when I lived in a much colder area of Idaho, is to avoid the short skiing or bomber type jackets as the outer layer. They are great if you have to sit a lot in the cold, but otherwise you want something that at least extends over your hips and down to the top of your thighs. 

    I've tried the muli-layer coats that you can detach the shell from the liner, but never really liked them. I prefer the ease of being able to remove or replace independent layers of clothing. 

• Second, the article cites another experienced traveler who recommends packing a thin down jacket to adjust your temperature in a hurry rather than wearing one heavy coat. Basically, something that you can put on when colder, but can take off and stuff into a bag or pack when you get warmer. I see this as really a recommendation as to a second layer or a type of outer layer when wind or precipitation is not an issue.
• Third, the article states, a good hat is a must. "'Think of your body as a chimney where heat rises, so you’ll want to cover it off effectively,' says Rølvåg, who recommends choosing a hat that wind won’t easily penetrate. (Tight-knit merino wool does the trick.)"

    While beanies or stocking caps are great for working in the yard or tromping about in the countryside, I prefer something a little more stylish when going to work or just going about town. My preference is a flat cap of some type with no brim in the back. My current and favorite hat of this type is the style known as a "poorboy" or "newsboy" (see, e.g., here and here for sellers). With no brim on the back, I don't have to worry about my car seat or head rest pushing against it (a problem I have with my Fedora) and many styles (including mine) have ear covers that you can unfold to cover your ears and the back of your neck if the weather calls for it. Also, again because of the absence of a brim, I can pull the hood on my windbreaker over the hat should it be raining or snowing. If it is really cold, I have a bomber cap. 

    I have also found that the the old truism--if your feet are cold, put on a hat--is generally true. A good hat lets you get away with lighter gloves and footwear. 

• Fourth, protect your other extremities. In other words, use gloves/mittens and insulated shoes and socks.

    Karin Strand, vice president of expeditions for Hurtigruten, who has traveled to Antarctica more than 100 times, says wool does the job for socks.

    “I wear mostly my own hand-knitted socks because I get them the way I want,” says Strand, who also recommends buying woolen insoles for your winter boots to keep the cold at bay.

    Folsland says to opt for winter shoes or boots that are a bit larger than your regular size (1.5 or even two sizes larger works as a rule of thumb).

    “That way you can adjust the number of socks you’re wearing underneath and, more importantly, there’s air around your feet,” she says. “They won’t get squished and your blood circulation can keep flowing.”

In his video, "Winter SHTF tips: Bug out bag tricks", Prepared Airman discusses the topic of cold feet and related that because he sweats a lot through his feet, he had problems with his feet being cold even when using insulated boots, which he solved by going with ventilated boots which allowed the moisture to be wicked away from his feet. Something to consider if you have that issue.

• Finally, the article reminds readers that good clothes are rarely inexpensive, so treat the clothes as an investment. If you don't mind used clothing, you can sometimes come across good quality clothes at thrift stores, perhaps luck into a quality hand-me-down from a relative or friend, or get surplus military clothing through various military surplus sources. The best quality surplus will generally be European if you can figure out their sizing systems and are small enough to fit into their clothing--British surplus clothing, in particular, seems to be sized for children or crack addicts.

New Bombs & Bants (Streamed November 9, 2022)

 

VIDEO: "Bombs and Bants Live! Ep 60" (47 min.)

When Firearms Don't Hold Their Value

    Everyone likes to think that firearms at least hold their value if not gain in value over time, but that isn't always true. Case in point is the most recent "HOT GAT or FUDD CRAP?" column at The Firearm Blog which looks at a "custom built" AR pattern pistol being offered for $999 starting price at Gun Broker. The description from the listing reads: "Spike's Tactical Custom AR9 Pistol 4" barrel keymod rail with handstop. The lower accepts Glock pattern magazines. Includes reflex sight and Magpul BUIS. Includes 4 x 32rd Glock pattern magazines. Condition is like-new; <100rds through it." 

    I would not be surprised if the seller was simply trying to recover the money that he had sunk into the weapon. It looks like a pretty clean build, although there is not a lot of detail about the parts used for the build. But there are various reasons why this firearm may not sell at the asked for price, or sit for a period of time before it does sell.

    First, and foremost, is that firearms are a bit like cars: as soon as you take them home from the store and unbox them, the value falls. Shooting them causes the value to fall farther. One source I located states:

In general, new factory-produced firearms depreciate about 15% when they are purchased. However, after that initial depreciation, the gun will hold its value for the next 15 years while only losing an additional 2% per year. Guns that are 15 years old don’t lose any value until year 50 when they start to appreciate about .5% per year.

Elsewhere, the same article states that new firearms will depreciate by 15 to 25% when purchased, but "[a]fter that, though, their value stays fairly consistent for at least the next 15 years." It adds:

Common guns do not hold value very well, because they are usually very easily available to the general public. Because there is a large supply and not a lot of demand, they do not tend to be as expensive to purchase and they just are not as valuable as other guns can be. If you maintain this type of gun well, it will still have that initial depreciation in value, but you should still be able to get 75-80% of the original value when selling it.

    Second is that it is a "custom built" weapon: i.e., probably a hobbyist build or put together by a small shop. It may be a fine weapon that shoots flawlessly. But it doesn't have the cachet that a name brand would carry and, in fact, has a negative connotation because so many home-builds or off-brand firearms are assembled incorrectly, use cheap parts, etc. In other words, there is a risk that the firearm will not function as intended and that risk will be reflected in its selling price. In addition, even if it had been customized with the best parts available, it won't have been customized the way that most buyers would want. I say all of this as someone that has built all of my ARs; but I did so knowing that I would never come close to recovering what I had spent in the parts if, for some reason, I tried to sell any of them.

    Third, there is nothing special about this weapon that would increase the price. If the manufacture of new ARs had been banned, there was high demand for AR pistols but no one made them, or someone famous (or notorious) had used this particular weapon, that would be one thing, but AR style pistols, and the parts to make them, are commonly available.

    Fourth, although it doesn't bother me because I would probably switch sights anyway, the included sights (and most specifically the red-dot sight) screams "cheap" and does nothing to increase the value of the firearm. In my opinion, the inclusion of such a cheap red dot actually lowers the value of the firearm because it emphasizes that the build was probably done as cheap as possible. The seller probably would have been better to sell it without the red-dot.

    Fifth, and similar to item 4, the handguards use the Key Mod system rather than MLOK. One can argue the advantages and disadvantages to both, but the reality is that MLOK won the battle for accessory mounts such that many consider Key Mod to be obsolete. I had thought at one time that Key Mod might hang on as the mounting system of choice for the high end (i.e., snooty) shooters, but that pretty much went out the window once SOCOM determined that MLOK was a stronger system.  

    Sixth, and finally, the weapon mounts a soon to be NFA regulated SB Tactical arm brace. That means that the buyer will have to replace the arm brace with something else (or simply remove and destroy it), keep it and register the weapon as an SBR, or keep it on the weapon and break the law. In short, it equates to a hassle for whomever buys the weapon. 

New Bombs & Bants (Streamed Nov. 2, 2022)

 

VIDEO: "Bombs and Bants Live! Ep 59" (36 min.)

I was missing in action, but the rest of the gang showed up.