Weapons Lights are the a Necessity or a Gimmick ??

Weapons Lights are the a Necessity or a Gimmick ??

 

We as humans have been blessed with many unique abilities. Unfortunately one that we could use is the ability to see in the dark, not so that we are completely blind in the dark, but we do fall short in this category. To make up for this Thomas Edison invented the light bulb the year was 1879. We have been improving the way and ability to see in low light conditions ever since. Now that we have agreed we need help to see in diminished light conditions, we can discuss the ways that we enhance this ability.

Most people who want to see in the dark grab a flashlight, in the beginning these light were large and cumbersome sometimes requiring two hands to operate. This caused a problem when using the light in conjunction with a weapon, because even a handgun requires at least one hand to manipulate. So here was the deliminna put down the big light and to use the firearm and shoot blind, or try to juggle the light and the weapon at the same time. While this is possible most people will suffer a break down in grip structure, therefore their ability to employe direct effective fire will also diminished. If you have any concerns about other people in the house this is an unacceptable compromise.

Over the last 15 years or so lights have started a slow shrinking process to the point that we have small lights that will far out shine their larger, older ancestors. The use of LED (Light Emitting Diode) technology we have dramatically increased the brightness and the runtimes of these small lights. In fact they are now small enough to be able to be attached to a handgun.

I feel that if you follow some simple guidelines for weapon light use it can be a safe and effective tool for self-defense use.

1. Always use a hand-held light in conjunction with a weapon-mounted light to avoid pointing your weapon at something you don’t intend to destroy.

2. Don’t use your weapon light for a normal flashlight.

3. If you choose to use a weapon-mounted light, make the commitment to train and have it attached to your weapon.

So to answer the question of wether or not the weapon-mounted light is a Necessity or a Gimmick, most certainly is isn’t a gimmick, but I wouldn’t call it a necessity. I would say it is a tool that takes commitment on the part of the user to be used effectively and safely. I personally choose to have to as a tool on about 95% of my firearms and I carry them that way and train with them that way. We will continue to address this subject in the future.

IMG_0108 (1) IMG_0055 (1) IMG_2028 IMG_2982 IMG_2980 IMG_0269

Advertisements

Glock 42 the Reliable Deep Carry Option

Glock 42 the Reliable Deep Carry Option

Hello my name is Mike and I’m a Glock fanboy. I don’t believe that I have had a pistol made by Glock that wasn’t reliable and accurate. I was in search for a deep carry option, you know the gun when you can carry a gun. Something small enough that you almost forget you have it on. So when the rumblings of a small single stack Glock hit the internet I was excited to say the least, I thought finally a small single stack 9mm that will work. Well the Glock 42 didn’t turn out to be what I thought it would be.

Upon receiving the G42 and opening the black clamshell case I thought that maybe somebody had left a G17 out in the sun or put it in the dryer on high. That being said the gun fits the hand well and will conceal like a dream. The gun is insanely thin which will lend itself to being with you at all times, Having a gun at home when you need it with you serves no purpose. So on to the range session, I think where it went of track with me is that I wanted it to shoot just like my Glock 19’s. Well let me say this wasn’t fair to the G42 as it isn’t supposed to do so, it wasn’t designed to do so and no matter how I want it do, it just won’t be able to. This is a deep concealment pistol meant to be hidden until needed, not a full size fighting pistol. So I may have jaded my opinion from the get go.

Form Factor:

It is a Glock so it just looks and acts like a Glock. On a scale from 1 to 10 I give it a 10

Concealment:

This pistol as said before will hide like a ghost in a dark corner, practically disappearing under any garment including a t-shirt. This would be a gun I would take with me when I couldn’t have a gun it hides that well. The various holster makers have jumped onboard with getting quality carry options available. So on a 1 to 10 scale it gets a 10.

Reliability:

I hade one malfunctioning the first magazine, it was 100% good to go from there. Ran it 250 rounds from there without a bobble. So we will give it a 9.5

Shootability:

I was able to achieve a necessary level of comfort in engaging targets from concealment out to 15 yds. It was easy enough to engage multiple targets with reasonable speed. So it gets a 9 out of 10.

Accuracy:

Here is where I may have failed the Glock 42, I tried to run it thru the drills meant for a full-size fighting pistol. Shooting at extended ranges was difficult for me, we are talking 50-100yds. I found that I was pushing the gun to the left trying to squeeze out the accuracy I wanted. This platform and cartridge combination was never meant to perform at these ranges. The energy level at these ranges would almost leave it ineffective so this may be a mute point. so given that I was demanding more than I could have expected I will give it a 8.5 out of 10

Conclusion:

So let us add up the points. the Glock 42 will get a 96\100 which is impressive for a weapon that I was initially disappointed with, so did I keep to or trade it. Well I couldn’t see me over the long run wanting to keep it and having to amass yet another caliber of ammo, that is really the only reason. At the time of the review 380 ACP ammo wasn’t the easiest to find, now that I have been able to locate a less expensive source of ammo thru Detroit Bullet Works http://www.detroitbulletworks.com/380-acp-100-grain-rn/ and they also offer a ammo club subscription for auto shipment of quants of ammo to your door here is a link http://www.detroitbulletworks.com/380-acp-100-grain-rn/ with is option you have the choice of having 300 rounds a month or a quarter shipped this would allow me to train and increase my skill with the small gun.

You might see another one in the fold in the future.

IMG_0087 (1) IMG_0089 (1) IMG_0090 (1)

Big Bore Action from Sig Sauer

The AR15/M16 family has been through many changes since its adoption by the United States Air Force in 1962 as the AR15, the US Army began testing the weapon system  as the XM16E1. In 1967 the US Army adopted a product upgrade known as the M16A1. This was later improved to the M16A2 in the early 1980’s, this eventually morphed into what we see today as the M4 family. Early on during the switch to the 5.56mm weapon system some people questioned moving away from a full-bore battle rifle which at that time was the 7.62×51 NATO. The smaller and lighter projectile was seen as a negative to this new hi-tech weapons system. What most people don’t know is that a 7.62×51 NATO(308 Winchester) battle rifle was developed by Eugene Stoner in the 1950’s a full decade before the adoption of the AR15 by the Air Force known as the AR10. While these were not adopted by the US military, they were widely accepted by various countries Africa. The design of the AR10 was scaled down and improved to become the iconic family of weapons we see today known as the AR15/M16/M4.

When I was in the search for a AR pattern rifle that would provide increased ballistic performance I had a choice to make stay with the AR15 family and use the 6.8SPC or the 300 Blackout (supersonic loads) or move up to a AR10 size weapon (308 or 7.62×51). There are more than a few calibers to choose from I choose to use a standard cartridge the 7.62×51. I also knew I wanted a piston driven gun as to keep all of the fouling and junk out of the receiver group. AT the SHOT show in 2013 SIG introduced the Model 716 a (308 Winchester/7.62×51) chambered version of their Model 516 (223/5.56×45) rifle. The SIG 716 is the weapon I chose to provide this increase in ballistic performance, what I wanted was a round that would turn most normal things that provided cover against the 5.56 round into just concealment.

As one would expect the 7.62 platform weighs a bit more than the 5.56 weapon systems. The sig 716 weighs in at 9.3lbs without optics or empty mag where as my Noveske Rouge Hunter weighs in just a tad over 6.5 lbs. Both weapons have 16in barrels and backup sights and 2 point slings. The extra weight does help soak up the additional recoil generated by the 7.62×51 round. During my testing of the Sig 716 I found it accurate out to the limit of my 100yd range with groups in the 3.5 in range with iron sights, this due the slightly heavy trigger pull, the trigger also exhibited some gritty creep. This wouldn’t be a deal breaker as you could drop in a Geissele Automatic trigger even their G2S 2 stage trigger I have this in another AR15 and even as an entry-level trigger it has a very nice pull with a smooth 1st stage pull and a crisp 2nd stage break.

The biggest difference between the 5.56 and the 7.62 platform is the ability to run it fast, while you can do it with the 7.62 platform it is vastly easier to do with lighter easier to maneuver 5.56 platform. With appropriate ammo you can achieve the same level penetration I was looking for M855 ball will easily defeat any of the barrier I will face in a self-defense situation. Would I say there is no place for the 7.62 platform, by no means do I think that on the contrary if I was out where the ranges could be stretched this 7.62 will have longer legs and the ability to engage a threat at vastly longer distances with more retained energy.

So if you are looking for a platform with great penetration and extended ballistic capabilities look no further that the Sig 716, gives you the big bore package without the great cost associated with other comparable models from other various manufactures.

IMG_0257 IMG_0251

 

 

 

 

IMG_0252