Thoughts on Semi-Automatic Rifles: Part 2

As promised, I am coming back and looking at some of the issues surrounding semi-automatic rifles in this post as well.  While not the most scientific method available for determining how often a type of rifle is used in a crime, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports do keep track of murders every year, and what weapons are most commonly used.  I say not the most scientific, because I realize that firearms can be used in other crimes than homicides, but, I think it provides a good baseline.  In 2011 (the full 2012 report hasn't been released yet) rifles (of all types, not just semi-automatics) were used in about 340 homicides out of a total of 14,612 homicides, which means about 2% of them.  You can go back to about 1960 in the UCR, and you will see that rifles traditionally are not used to murder people in America.  Usually both knives, as well as the hands/feet/fists section is responsible for more murders annually than rifles.

This brings up a very interesting question of why these rifles are demonized so much by politicians and the media, since they account for such a small percentage of criminal firearms use.  As I already mentioned in the last post, calling these rifles "assault rifles" or "assault weapons" is inaccurate and dishonest, and the criteria for what designates a rifle as one is generally rather absurd.

The text of the new ban that is expected to be introduced in the legislature has not yet been completely released (remember to be contacting your legislators and telling them to not support any new restrictions on our Second Amendment rights), so I am just going to use the previous ban to show how little sense these bans usually make.  Under the 1994-2004 ban, a rifle was banned if it was fed by a detachable box magazine, and had two or more of the following:

• A folding or telescoping stock
• A pistol grip
• Bayonet mount (bayonet lug would be the proper terminology)
• Flash suppressor, or a threaded barrel to accept one
• Or a muzzle mounted grenade launcher

It also included pistols that had two or more of the following:

• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel
• Barrel shroud that can be used as a forward grip
• Unloaded weight of more than 50oz
• A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm

And semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following

• Folding or Telescoping stock
• Ability to accept a detachable magazine
• Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
• Pistol Grip

There were also some firearms that were specifically prohibited by name in the ban.  For the purpose of this post however, I am just focusing on rifles.  So, under the previous ban, this rifle was prohibited:

However, this one would not be:

Both are actually the same rifle, a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle, which by the way in not a military rifle.  All I did was change out the stock with an aftermarket one.  Both versions have the exact same capabilities, it doesn't change how fast the rifle can be fired, or the round the rifle fires (.223 Remington, which is for practical reasons the same round that an AR-15 fires). With a folding stock the overall length is about 8 inches shorter with the stock closed.  But, there is still a minimum length that a rifle needs to be in order to not be a class 3 firearm, and even with the stock closed, the rifle is over that length.  At almost 30" long, it still isn't concealable.  So, I am going to take a look at the features specified for rifles, and offer some reasons why it is good for rifles to have them.

• Folding or telescoping stock: First I don't particularly like folding stocks, and the Mini-14 is the only rifle I have that has one.  I don't like them because most of them don't lock up very tight, or allow the shooter a good cheek weld, which means that they generally make the rifle more uncomfortable to shoot.  But, a lot of people like the way they look, and if you are in a situation where you want to save space, they can make sense.  Telescoping stocks also have value as well.  It is a basic fact of life that people come in different shapes and sizes, and because of that, telescoping stocks are a great thing.  It means that two different people can shoot the same rifle, and just adjust the stock for a different length of pull, and do so comfortably.  I didn't realize that it was a bad thing to be able to customize a firearm to the shooter so that they can have a proper stance and eye relief to shoot it accurately.  Full sized stocks are too long for some people to shoot comfortably.  It also means that you don't necessarily need to buy a youth firearm for a child to learn on, that he will eventually outgrow.  You can buy a rifle with a folding stock, and extend it as the child grows, allowing him (or her) to keep that rifle they are familiar with.  
• A pistol grip: I guess some people think that they make a rifle look scary, but for the past 60 or so years, rifles with pistol grips have been around, and commonly available.  They actually make a rifle harder to conceal due to the added bulk, so they don't really effect that.  If you are strong enough to shoot a rifle one handed with a pistol grip (not something I advocate by the way), then you could do it with a normal stock.  It really is just a design that allows you to grip the rifle in a slightly different manner, and does nothing to enhance the capabilities of the rifle.
• Bayonet mount:  I have yet to see a single crime report where a rifle with a bayonet is used in a violent crime.  If anyone knows of any crimes committed with a rifle that had a bayonet attached in the last century, I would actually be very interested to see it.  Bayonets add length to a rifle, and make them a bit more unwieldy in confined spaces, and pretty much impossible to conceal unless you want to cut yourself.  Which should be a good thing, right?  If telescoping and folding stocks aren't allowed because they make the rifle shorter and easier to hide, then isn't something that does the opposite desired?  If a criminal is already using a rifle (which they rarely do anyways), what difference does it make if there is a bayonet or not on the end of it?  I would be more concerned about the rifle attached to the bayonet if presented with the threat.
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel to accept one:  Many rifles, including many bolt actions, have threaded muzzles in order to allow different muzzle attachments to be added.  I personally think this prohibition was more about the ability to add a sound suppressor than the flash suppressor, since most sound suppressors use threading to attach.  Sound suppressors, by the way, are a Class 3 restricted NFA item, that requires special procedures to purchase, and are already heavily controlled.  But, back to flash suppressors.  If I have to defend myself at night and am using a rifle, I would like to be able to see after the first shot, which a flash suppressor would help me be able to do.  Most also are designed in such a way that gasses are controlled in a way to help reduce muzzle climb.  I personally think that being able to control my firearm while I am firing it for the safety of myself and anyone else around me is a good thing.
• Grenade launcher:  This is not actually talking about externally mounted launchers, like a M-203, but muzzle mounted devices.  Before the advent of the standalone or under barrel style grenade launchers,  many rifles had muzzle devices that you could mount on the muzzle of the rifle.  Then, using special rounds, you would fire the rifle, and launch the grenade.  It is not the most effective method to launch a grenade, because it means you can't use your rifle at the same time.  And aside from that, I have never once seen such a grenade available to purchase by the general public, because explosive are very heavily controlled.  So really, what difference does an extra inch or two of metal on the muzzle of my rifle make?  Some rifles were just imported with them, its not like they add any capability to the rifle without a grenade to launch. Similar to the bayonets, if anyone knows of a muzzle mounted grenade launcher being used to be launch a grenade from a rifle in the last century, I'd be interested to hear about it.  

None of these features really has anything to do with enhancing the capabilities of a rifle.  They are all cosmetic features that some people don't like the way they look, they think that they make the rifle look "scary."  To me it shows the absurdity of banning firearms based on just those features. Although I think firearms bans in general are absurd, because they only effect law abiding citizens and not criminals, so I am sure that I am biased.  

Thoughts on Semi-Automatic Rifles; Part 1

I am going to spend probably the next few posts tackling the issues surrounding modern semi-automatic rifles, often given the misnomers of "assault rifles" or "assault weapons."  Words have power, they are used to influence how people think about a topic.  Some words develop negative connotations, and are then mis-used to confuse those who are not knowledgeable about the topic.  So, I will be using proper terminology in this post, and would encourage everyone else to do the same.  First "assault weapon" is not a classification for a type of firearm, it is just a term that was made up, probably because it can be used to scare and confuse people.  Taking the definitions of the words from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Assault: a : a violent physical or verbal attack

b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces

c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary)

Weapon:

a : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy

b : a means of contending against another

So, an "assault weapon" is something used to injure, defeat or destroy in a violent physical or verbal attack.  That could be pretty much anything, from a fist, to a rock, to a ballpoint pen to a thermonuclear weapon.    If you can cause harm with it, it is an "assault weapon".  

Assault rifles on the other hand, have an actual definition as a classification of firearms, coined by the Nazis in World War 2.  An assault rifle is a select fire,  shoulder fired rifle, that is fed by a detachable box magazine, and fires an intermediate cartridge.  The major difference between civilian rifles and those used by the police and the military is that "select fire" bit.  For those who may not understand the significance of that, a select fire firearm has some sort of fully automatic capability, either truly fully automatic, or a multiple shot burst capability.  No matter which setting the firearm has (some have both burst and fully automatic) the gun has the capability of firing more than one round for every pull of the trigger.The vast majority of civilian rifles are semi-automatic only, which means one bullet fired for every pull of the trigger.  These rifles can not be easily or safely converted to fully automatic without parts that are strictly regulated and require more stringent background checks than normal firearms purchases.  They may look similar to actual assault rifles, but the way they operate and function is different.  I did say vast majority of civilian rifles, because there are a very limited number of fully automatic firearms in civilian hands, but they have been heavily licensed, regulated and taxed since 1934, and no more have been made available since 1986.  There are a lot of hoops to jump through for civilians to own one of these rifles, and it is a time consuming and expensive process.  

So, jumping into some of the arguments that I have heard against semi-automatic rifles lately, and offering some counter points.  "These rifles don't have any sporting or hunting use."  That is actually quite false.  Aside from the fact that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with sporting or hunting, I have gone hunting with an AR-15, as do hundreds of thousands of other Americans every year.  The round is a bit anemic for deer, however, in the great land that is America, there is a lot more to hunt than deer.  I have taken my AR-15 out coyote hunting, and for that it is a logical choice.  It is accurate, easy to mount an optic and flashlight on for night and low light hunting, the .223 has great ballistics on coyotes, and the fact it is semi-automatic and has low recoil allows for fast follow up shots.  The AR-15 is a very common varmint and predator rifle in America, and used by many for hunting.  Also, it has taken over the world of high power service rifle competitions.  A majority of competitors at Camp Perry for the National Matches now shoot AR-15 variants.  It also is used by many competitors in a sport that is called 3-gun.  So, the rifles have a use as both hunting and sporting arms.  

"You don't need any more than X bullets to defend yourself."  I really wish that I had the psychic ability of these people to predict what I may need in the future.  If so, I would know when I would need a gun to defend myself, and not show up to the encounter.   Nobody knows the future, and what encounters others may face.  Last night around Cincinnati there was an armed home invasion that had six suspects (link to the news story: http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news/6-suspects-remains-at-large-following-elmwood-place-home-invasion#ixzz2HwfsTfY8).  That makes 7 or 10 rounds seem wanting.  Anyone who has ever been in a gunfight can tell you that it is not like the movies.  It is a very dynamic, chaotic, confusing, terrifying experience, and is very different than standing at a shooting range punching holes in paper.  When you start adding multiple threats into the situation, being ham-stringed by magazine capacity limits could get law abiding people killed.  Aside from that, what the media calls "high capacity magazines" are actually standard capacity, and have been for the past 50 or so years.   

"The Founders couldn't have imagined rifles like this when they wrote the Constitution, they meant muskets!"  Well, no, probably not, but, they had just defended themselves against a tyrannical government using munitions equal to or better than those being used against them.  Colonists who were able to were encouraged to buy cannons, and a single 1770s cannon round can do far more damage than a single round from a 5.56 rifle.  I am also pretty sure that the Founders could never have envisioned the advent of blogging or the internet, but like to think that this post, and all my other ones, are covered by the First Amendment.  If not, I guess that I should buy a Gutenberg printing press and use that to share my thoughts with the world.  The Founding Fathers were extremely wise men, and they intended for the Constitution to last for generations of Americans.  Had they not done so, they would have specified restrictions on our rights based on technology at their times.  As an extra historical note, the Pennsylvania long rifles that some Revolutionary War soldiers carried was superior to the issued Brown-Bess musket issued to the British troops.  The advent of rifled bores meant that the rifles were more accurate at longer ranges than the muskets.  

I think that is enough of a primer to get people thinking, if anyone has any feedback or questions, please let me know.  You can either leave a comment on here, or find us on Facebook or Twitter (@lmtactical).   The next post should look more in depth at modern semi-automatic rifles, and their uses, and purposes for civilians in modern society.

Some Magazine Basics

One topic that people seem to confuse on a rather regular basis is what is a magazine, and what is a clip.  In the picture above there are both magazines, and clips.  First are the four magazines, starting from the left, a 30 round AK-variant magazine, a 30 round Magpul Pmag for 5.56 rifles, a 15 round Sig 226 9mm magazine, and a 6 round .45 ACP Glock 36 magazine.  On the right side are two clips, a stripper clip holding 10 5.56x45 cartridges, and a 5 round stripper clip holding 7.62x54R for Mosin Nagant rifles.  When looking at the two groups above, it is easy to see that there are some differences between magazines and clips.

So, what are the functions of each respectively?  The four detachable box magazines are used to hold ammunition in a semi-automatic firearm, and able to be quickly replaced.  They are inserted into the magazine well, and remain in place while operating the firearm.  The clips, on the other hand, are used to reload magazines.  The Mosin Nagant rifle, and the vast majority of other bolt action rifles, have non-detachable box magazines.  This means that they are internal to the rifle, and are usually loaded through the top of the action, with the bolt pulled to the rear.  Instead of having soldiers try to load loose rounds by hand in the heat of battle, most military bolt action rifles had the ability to be loaded with stripper clips.  The bolt was pulled to the rear, the clip placed into some guides cut into the receiver, and then the rounds pushed down into the magazine.

Stripper clips can also be used to reload detachable box magazines.  As you can see in the picture above, there are metal stripper clip guides that can be placed onto magazines.  Then you insert the stripper clips into the guide, and simply push the bullets down into the magazine.  Loading a 30 round AR-style rifle magazine with 3 stripper clips is a whole lot easier and faster than loading 30 loose rounds by hand.  

Magazines really are rather simple mechanical devices, but the picture above shows the components, which are common for either pistol or rifle magazines.  There is the magazine body, a piece of metal or plastic formed to hold the rest of the components.  The magazine follower, which is the usually plastic piece on top of the spring, which is that the last round in the mag pushes against.  The spring itself, which may or may not have a plate on the bottom to help keep it level and from binding, and the base-plate.  

Even though they are so simple, there are a number of things that can cause a magazine to malfunction.  In semi-automatic firearms, a very high percentage of malfunctions are magazine related.  The springs can go bad with use over time, thankfully that is usually very easy and cheap to fix.  The P-mag follower above is an anti-tilt follower, which is why it has the two long pieces of plastic on the sides.  This keeps the follower level while in use, and keeps it from binding, preventing proper feeding.  Not all magazines have that characteristic, so whenever possible, it is desirable to get magazines that do.  For some magazines you can also buy aftermarket anti-tilt followers.  Also, the feed lips which hold the rounds in the magazine at the top, and allow the bullet to line up with the bolt and chamber, can over time spread out due to the constant pressure on them, which can allow double feeds and other malfunctions to happen.  Also the base plate can become damaged, and allow the spring and bullets to fall out of the bottom of the magazine, although that is fairly uncommon, unless the magazine suffers a hard impact, like being thrown on concrete.  

Hopefully this clears up some of the confusion on the magazine vs clip dilemma, and provided some basic knowledge about one of the important aspects of semi-automatic firearms. Next time you think about asking someone to hand you a clip, remember the picture below.

AR-15s: Iron Sights vs. Optics

For the purposes of this post, I am mostly going to focus on AR-15 style rifles, but the same can be applied to other platforms.  But, if I started straying from that lane, I could have an almost endless blog post, so I will try to stick with AR's.  By the way, "AR" does not stand for "assault rifle," it stands for "Armalite rifle."  Armalite was the company that first produced Eugene Stoner's direct gas impingement rifle, and the name is now used to describe civilian, semi-automatic versions of the rifle, regardless of manufacturer.

So, one of the first things people want to know when they get a new AR seems to be: "What optic should I put on it?"  And honestly, my answer to that question for a new user is usually not to put one on.  As I will outline below, I am not anti-optic.  I do believe, however, that you should always learn iron sights before you move on to other aiming techniques.  That applies to lasers on pistols, as well as optics on rifles.  99% of pistols you pick up will have iron sights.  For rifles that percentage is lower because a lot of rifles meant to have scopes mounted don't come with sights.  But, if given the chance, you should still learn them, and you should have them on your rifle.

So, what are some advantages/disadvantages of iron sights?  First the good, when it comes to the traditional AR set-up.  They can be very accurate, in Marine Corps boot camp recruits shoot out to 500 yards with iron sights, at human sized targets, and most get a high percentage of hits.  They also are generally easy to make adjustments on for different ranges, and for the wind.  Once you get the sights zero'd, you can mark their positions, and it is easy to return to that zero after making adjustments.  It is also generally very hard to break your iron sights, they are rather robust, and can take a good amount of abuse.  The bad is that with the standard set-up, there is no contrast between the color of the sights, which can make proper sight alignment hard to achieve.  Also, since it is a peep style sight, it is hard to shoot accurately with both eyes open at distance, which reduces your field of view.  Also, there is no magnification to assist in aiming and target identification.  Below is a picture of a typical AR-15 with the standard iron sights and carrying handle

In the last decade, the U.S. military began issuing optics to everyone in combat arms, and in my humble opinion as a former infantryman, that is one of the biggest technological leaps in infantry small arms post World War Two.  Particularly the Marine Corps ACOG, which doesn't require batteries, is very rugged, easily compensates for range while helping you judge distance, and has a low power of magnification.  For general use, I like the 3-4 power range for most rifles.  If you are trying to enter into precision competitions, that probably isn't going to be enough magnification, but, for general use inside 600 yards or so, that should be plenty to get you on target.  It is powerful enough that it is useful, but not so powerful it detracts from what modern optics do so well.   My rifle currently has a no magnification red dot sight on it made by Aimpoint, however, if I wanted to, I could buy a 3 power magnifier with a flip to the side mount to use in conjunction with it.

So, what is it that they do so well?  The first thing is they help with quick target acquisition.  Not only do many of them have some sort of illuminated reticle, it means you only have one focal plane to focus on, so there is no sight alignment that you need to take time to line up.  You can also usually adjust the brightness and size of the dot, for different conditions or more precise shooting.  And in low/no light conditions, the illuminated dot is much easier to use that black on black iron sights, allowing for faster, more accurate shots.

The next advantage has to do with something that is known as the Bindon Aiming Concept.  I am not going to even attempt how the concept actually works inside our body, but with a red dot sight the advantages are quickly obvious.  With a low magnification red dot or holographic optic, like 0-4 power, if you have the optic in front of your dominant eye, and have both eyes open, you don't really see the optic itself.  Your sight picture is basically the dot or reticle floating in the air in front of you, and your hits go where you place the dot on the target.  It is hard to explain in text, but very easy to show students, and it is very easy to tell when it clicks for students using optics.  The faster target acquisition, better target identification abilities, and full use of peripheral vision are some of the main reasons I believe the military went to issued optics.

So, now for the downsides on optics.  First, quality ones are expensive.  The top holographic sights are made by EOtech, the top red dots by Aimpoint, and then Trijicon has their ACOG line, which are kind of fiber optic.  You can look through their catalogs, but you are looking at spending at least a few to several hundred dollars for one of these optics.  Next is that they can break, especially the ones from lower tier manufacturers.  Also, the batteries in them can die, although with some it isn't too much of an issue.  The Aimpoint I have on my AR-15 has a 50,000 hour battery life on some of the lower settings.  And they add extra bulk and weight to your rifle.

Now, the good news, is that as you can see in the picture above, you don't actually need to choose between the two. Many people run both an optic, and what is know as a Back Up Iron Sight (BUIS).  A BUIS is a stand alone rear sight, some of them fold, some of them don't, that replaces the rear sight in the traditional carrying handle.  I prefer non-folding for most applications, because it is one less moving part to break, and I can transition instantly from the dot, to iron sights.  This option really is only available if you have a removable carrying handle.  If you have a rifle with a permanent carrying handle, I would recommend sticking with the iron sights.  While they do make mounts that allow you to put an optic or scope on the carrying handle, that generally places the sight too hight above the bore axis of the rifle to work well.  It also is generally to high to get a good solid cheek weld, and can make shooting a bit uncomfortable.  But, back to removable carrying handle rifles, you can have both a BUIS, and an optic.  If you want to run a full sized scope, you can still find a folding BUIS that can fit under the rear of the scope, so that you can take the scope of and use it if you need to.  But I am of the opinion that you should always have a BUIS in case your optic fails, which also means you need to know how to use irons.

One of the great things about the AR family of rifles is that they are very versatile, and you can adapt them to fit a lot of different roles.  From hunting, to target shooting, to high power competitions, to defensive usage.  There are hundreds of different sight options for them, and you need to find the one that works best for you. But hopefully this post shed a little bit of light on the options, and will help guide you along the way to selecting the right one for you.