Some links that may be of interest:
According to the update [from the company], “Aero Precision, Ballistic Advantage, Stag Arms, and VG6 are currently operating through a receivership process while a transition to new ownership is underway.” The company also said its core team remains in place and that manufacturing, shipping, customer service, and partner support remain active.
As he mentioned in some of his writings on .25-caliber cartridges like the .257 Roberts, O’Connor fancied the .270 Winchester for its forgiving trajectory and lower recoil than what the .30/06 and heavier cartridges produced. He used his .270s across the west and the world, hunting everything from groundhogs to elk to African game to mountain sheep with them. His stories, as much as his successful use of the cartridge, gave his readers an emotional connection to the .270 Winchester to match its merit-based appeal.
The author acknowledges that it is not as inherently accurate or efficient a cartridge as the 6.5 PRC or 6.5 Creedmoor, but it still compares very well against other cartridges used to hunt North American game. "In fact," the author states, "with modern components, it’s more effective than it was in O’Connor’s time."
[Garand Thumb host Mike] Jones’s honest answer to “would you carry a 1911 as your primary?” is no, with the caveat that he doesn’t feel undergunned with one. The reasoning matches what most serious defensive shooters have reached over the past two decades: the 1911 is a maintenance-intensive platform that rewards training and care, while modern striker-fired pistols (Glocks, M&Ps, Sig P320s) tolerate neglect and still run.
The 1911 is, in Jones’s framing, a “race car” — capable of high performance with proper maintenance, but slower to recover from neglect than more modern designs. For shooters who carry every day, train regularly, and maintain their platforms, the 1911 still earns a place. For shooters who load up a magazine once a year and call it good, a striker-fired gun is the right answer.
For buyers in the $1,000-$1,300 1911 market specifically, the Operator AOS deserves to be on the short list. Garand Thumb’s video makes the case credibly, and the platform’s compatibility with red dots and suppressors out of the box reflects where the broader 1911 market is moving.
From 1970 to 1990, the NYPD averaged 450 so-called “firearms discharge incidents” per year. There were 994 in 1972 alone. During that era, NYPD officers carried revolvers. Uniformed officers generally carried six-shot revolvers with fixed sights and 4-inch barrels, and detectives often relied on snubnose five-shot revolvers. Duty revolvers included the Smith & Wesson Model 10 and 64, the Ruger Police Service Six, and the Dan Wesson Model 11. Snubnoses were the S&W J-frame and the Colt Cobra. At this time, speed loaders for revolvers either didn’t exist, weren’t reliable, or officers simply didn’t carry them due to their bulk.
Most officers in the ’70s and ’80s didn’t use or weren’t aware of Speed Strips either, which hold six cartridges in a row and made reloading a bit quicker. For reloading, a uniformed officer likely had a dump pouch or a leather pouch on the belt with a snap. Undo the snap and the pouch dumped six cartridges into an officer’s waiting palm. Plainclothes officers — if they had extra ammo on them at all — tended to carry loose rounds in a pocket. Reloading a revolver with loose ammo out of a pocket or a dump pouch was slow and involved, and more so if they had to do it during a gunfight.
Enter the NYPD Stakeout Squad. The NYPD Stakeout Squad was famous, infamous, or notorious — pick an adjective. Its most well-known member was Jim Cirillo. The Stakeout Squad would go to where the worst violent crime was, usually involving armed robbers, and wait for the bad guys to come to them. I’ve heard it described as “hunting over bait.” They were armed with shotguns, M1 Carbines and revolvers, and they got into a lot — a lot — of shootings. Cirillo himself was involved in more than a dozen gunfights. They soon realized the weaknesses of carrying revolvers: They were low capacity and slow to reload. So, they began practicing and advocating for what became the “New York Reload” — meaning a second gun.
The author continues with a test comparing reloading a 9mm revolver using moon-clips (which is generally faster than a speed loader) versus drawing a backup revolver (i.e., the New York reload). The New York reload was half the time of a reload using moon clips, with no bad runs, and allowed the author to keep his eyes on the target.
There's a very significant difference between sport bike riders and guys who ride Harley cruisers. The vast majority of Sport Bike riders who carry guns, in my experience, are usually technical guys and are either a part of the 2011 group or high-end Glock guys, where the Harley Davidson crowds are the ones still carrying the vast majority of revolvers around the community. ...
I cycled plenty of birdshot and buckshot through the gun. I shot the cheap stuff primarily, including Monarch buckshot, some Sterling, and a few Fiocchi loads. Everything fired and choked its way in and out of the gun. Patterns with basic buckshot were fair.
We saw 7 to 8 inches at 15 yards. I mixed old and new by shooting some Flitecontrol from a gun designed in 1887. The cylinder choke created a pattern that looked more like a slug than a load of buckshot. At 50 yards, I could ding steel over and over.
The gun does have one small accuracy problem. The bead sits directly on the barrel, creating an effect where buckshot and slugs appear to hit high. You have to aim a bit low to compensate for it. With buckshot, I aimed five inches low and landed buckshot center mass. With slugs, I aimed at the bottom of the belly button of the target to land chest shots. It’s accurate to the Winchester 1887, but still worth mentioning.
I also grabbed some mini shells. They work okay. In a tube of seven rounds, at least one will fail. The two-inch shells ran a bit better, and the 2.25-inch shells ran perfectly. I don’t recommend mini shells for serious work, but they run mostly okay in the Cimarron 1887 Terminator and tune-down recoil.
- Yes: "The Savage Mk II Is A Versatile, Affordable Rimfire Rifle"--The Firearm Blog. The downside is that the comb on the stock is intended for those shooting iron sights rather than a scope, so if you are going to use a scope you will either need to get a different stock or get a cheek riser that you can attach. The article has a bit on the history of this rifle, the different versions, and some general thoughts about the rifle.
- Probably not: "Iron Sights for Handguns: Are They On the Way Out?"--The Truth About Guns. The author states: "I am a strong advocate of red dot sights for defense — but only if the shooter is willing to train. If not, they’re better off with an iron-sighted handgun."
- "Use the Right Target"--Tactical Wire. The author relates:
... If the drill calls for a B-8/B-8 repair center, use that – or the FBI-IP, essentially the same target without a tie-breaking X-ring.
Do not use the NRA B-16 repair center. What’s the difference?
The B-16 is the analog for the B-6 50-yard slowfire bullseye; it’s to be used to shoot the NRA “short course” bullseye event when all you have is a 25-yard range. It’s the slowfire target for 25 yards.
It is not for the Tom Givens-inspire Baseline Assessment Drill. ...
American gun culture is often reduced to a debate over rights. Who has them, who shouldn’t and where may the government draw lines … if anywhere? But, historically, rights were only half the equation. The other half was responsibility.
Early Americans were not merely expected to own firearms. They were expected to know how to use them, maintain them and exercise judgment in their use. Gun ownership was active not passive. Competence was assumed. That tradition deserves revival.
The rest of the article goes on to describe how training was the norm for militia troops in early America and it was expected that arms be carried responsibly and safely. While I agree that it is important that people practice with their firearms, I am somewhat wary of the author's stance because I'm suspicious that he is making a backdoor argument that there should be a training requirement in order to own firearms.
Also, I think he is overly romanticizing the past. Yes, most jurisdictions required, by law, that members of the militia turn out with firearms (or other weapons) and drill once per month. However, most of the drilling was practicing marching and forming up into lines or other battle formations. It wasn't firearms training like we would recognize today. Contemporary accounts suggest that often it was an excuse for the younger men to dress in their uniforms and show off for the young women. Also, based on the bits and pieces I've read, I'm not sure that our fore-bearers were any safer with firearms.
