We take a quick look at the Tephra-22, the latest suppressor from Aero Precision.
Aero Precision is a relative newcomer in the suppressor game, having only released its first can in 2022 with the Lahar-30 line. Since then, all three sizes of the Lahar-30 have received good reviews and have gained a general reputation of having very good performance in relation to both their size and price, so it’s exciting to see Aero continue to expand its suppressor lineup. The company recently announced its newest can in the form of the Tephra-22.
Weighing in at 7.2 ounces and shipping with 1/2×28 mounts, the Tephra-22 is rated for .22 LR to 5.7×28 and is compatible with both rifles and pistols. It features seven 17-4 stainless steel baffles as well as a stainless steel serialized housing and mounting hardware, and outside it features an aluminum tube and end cap. The stainless steel components receive a black nitride finish and the aluminum parts feature an anodized finish in either black or brown. Additionally, the Tephra-22 is user-serviceable and can be disassembled and cleaned without any specialized tools.
Both colors of Tephra-22 suppressors are available for pre-order now and are expected to begin shipping at the end of November. MSRP is $375 for both models.
We check out the Savior Specialist Range Bag, one of the many excellent range gear options available at Gunmag Warehouse.
Far too many shooters are guilty of using a subpar range bag. Sure, that old duffel may “work”, but why not make life easier with something specifically designed for the task? GunMag Warehouse has plenty of excellent range bags to choose from, one of which is the Savior Equipment Specialist Range Bag 2.0.
Savior Specialist Range Bag Storage
How many times have you gone to the range and been forced to waste several minutes digging through your stuff just to find that one tool or box of ammo? The problem with most range bags is they’re just bags. Featuring one large compartment and maybe a couple of smaller ones, they can fill up quickly and without any semblance of organization. This is where range bags like the Savior Specialist come in.
The primary draw of using a range bag like the Savior Specialist is its organizational features. Its main compartment is 13 inches long, 8.5 inches wide and 9 inches deep, providing a total internal volume of 994.5 cubic inches. That’s big enough to fit two whole ammo cans if you desire, but there are more efficient ways to utilize the space. This is aided by some of the accessories included with the bag.
One of those is a divider for the main compartment which is both adjustable and removable. When installed, it bisects the large space to help keep your kit logically separated. On one side, there’s enough space to store loose earmuffs, eye protection, ammo boxes or any similar shooting equipment, all while retaining enough room on the other side to store three handguns.
That leads us to the next organizational aid—three handgun pouches. These measure 12 inches across and 8 inches tall, so they’re big enough to fit some pretty large irons, and most average-sized pistols will leave enough room for extra magazines. That said, the bag’s front compartment features a better way to store spare pistol mags, as it has six elastic pouches that should fit most double-stack pistol magazines. Each pouch can also easily fit two single-stack mags.
The spare pistol mag panel is also removable for when you’re having a dedicated rifle day and just want additional space in the front pocket. Once removed, the pocket easily fits six AR-15 mags instead.
Many ranges charge by the hour, keeping you acutely aware that time is money. If that’s how your go-to range operates, it means that every second saved from rummaging through your bag means more time can be spent shooting. Being able to draw spare, loaded mags from a central location will certainly help with that.
It’s also worth mentioning the smaller compartments found throughout the bag because they can still fit quite a bit of kit. The front compartment where the spare magazine pouches are located also features zippered internal and external pockets, and the same is true for the two side compartments as well. One of the side compartments also has internal organizational pockets for pens, notebooks and other small tools, and both side compartments feature netting pouches on the outside for additional storage.
Finally, we’re just left with the top panel that covers the main compartment when zipped. This panel has two additional means of storage, including another zippered internal pocket as well as a MOLLE panel made of hook-and-loop material. That last detail means you can attach additional MOLLE pouches, such as an IFAK, to the bag’s top or attach a hook-and-loop accessory like the included spare pistol mag panel.
An IFAK pouch (not included) attached to the bag's MOLLE panel.
These features combine to make the Savior Specialist one very modular and versatile range bag. Regardless of what you plan on taking to the range on a given day, you can easily and quickly rearrange the various components to make a dedicated handgunner bag, rifleman bag or a mix of both.
For those who enjoy being extra organized, the bag also comes with six hook-and-loop label panels for the three handgun pouches if you want to mark what each one is specifically holding.
Other Savior Specialist Features
Better organization isn’t the only thing the Savior Specialist has going for it, as good range bags also protect your guns and other expensive gear like binoculars or range finders. Thankfully, this bag offers that in spades as well.
Firstly, the pistol sleeves and external side pouches feature much more padding than what’s found on typical range bags. They’re not bulletproof, but they’re certainly thick enough to keep what’s inside from getting too banged up.
More important is the durability of the main bag itself. While the external shell is made from the typical 600D polyester, what sets the Savior apart is its internal polymer frame. This keeps the bag rigid and offers multiple advantages over most soft-range bags.
Most obviously, that includes protection. It would take serious effort to damage the bag badly enough to compromise the polymer frame, and until that happens, whatever you put inside of it will stay perfectly safe from impacts. Speaking of safety, for protection against theft, all of the bag’s zippered pockets can also be locked with a small padlock.
The bag’s rigidity also means that it’s easier to load and unload, as it won’t be flopping over itself when empty like soft bags do. Additionally, the bag can conveniently double as a shooting rest. While it won’t be as ideal as a dedicated rest, the Specialist is both tall and rigid enough to easily serve as a gun rest.
As for carrying the bag, it’s about what you’d expect. It has a set of straps on the top for carrying with one hand as well as a removable strap for slinging it over your shoulder. That said, the shoulder strap is very generously padded, so it’s still comfortable to carry even when loaded with a lot of guns and ammo.
The final point to mention is fashion, as you do have several colors to choose from including black, green, gray, red and FDE. The range bag has an MSRP of $109.99, but GunMag Warehouse currently has the Savior Specialist available for $89.99. For the features this bag has, you’ll be wondering why you didn’t pick one up sooner.
Here we examine the twists and turns of early rifling development.
In the 1500s, spiral grooves cut into gun bores were used to spin-stabilize bullets fired through them. While the method of creating these grooves has changed, this system has remained the same and is considered “best” by nearly all barrel makers.
Attempts to improve land-and-groove rifling included choke boring, free boring, gain twist, deep and shallow grooves, few and many grooves, and odd and even numbers. No one system demonstrated significant superiority over another. About 1850, the first alternatives to land and groove (L&G) rifling made their appearance.
Charles Lancaster was considered the first to produce a rifled barrel using a spiral bore in England. Referred to as oval or elliptical boring, the oval interior was turned as though a straight oval tube was twisted, causing a bullet fired through it to be swaged into a slightly oval shape and spun as it traveled down the bore. The idea (in part) was to create a barrel that would perform equally well with a solid bullet or a charge of shot, but that goal did not succeed if experiments firing shot loads through rifled shotgun barrels are any indication. Nevertheless, the system worked with solid bullets. The success was tempered, for blackpowder fouling presented a more significant problem than a deep-groove rifled barrel.
The Civil War saw the Greene Oval Bore Rifle, an early bolt action wherein two bullets were loaded, with the second bullet with its powder charge acting as a gas check behind the charge of the first load. When the action fouled, the rifle had to be used as a muzzleloader. They were made in America with machinery bought from Lancaster. Recovered bullets from Antietam indicate some use.
Sir Joseph Whitworth (December 21, 1803–January 22, 1887) was an English engineer, entrepreneur, inventor and philanthropist. He devised the Whitworth rifle, often called the “sharpshooter” because of its accuracy, considered one of the earliest examples of a sniper rifle.
A similar spiral-bore effort used polygonal rifling. While it is unknown who produced the first such barrel, the best-known effort was by Sir Joseph Whitworth in England in 1853. While the hexagonal-bore Whitworth could be fired with a cylindrical bullet, it was soon found that the best accuracy was obtained only with a six-sided bullet contoured to a mechanical fit.
The 560-grain Civil War-era Whitworth bullet measures .450 inch across the flats. The design may have inspired the .45-70-500 gr. “long-range” bullet developed for the M-1884 and M-1888 Springfield rifles.
Semi-military Whitworth rifles, equipped with telescopic sights, were used by Confederate sharpshooters to pick off several Union officers. Major General John Sedgwick was the most famous who was killed by a single bullet at more than 500 yards. The system was also successfully used in artillery pieces, two of which were employed by Confederates at Gettysburg.
The Pedersoli Whitworth reproduction allows you to try a unique hexagonal-rifled gun like those used during the Civil War, which equipped the sharpshooters of the Confederate Army, hence the name “Whitworth sharpshooters.”
The last rifling innovation of the 19th century came in 1871, the work of William E. Metford, a British engineer. Metford’s system utilized shallow rifling with rounded lands, which reduced the bullet’s drag and deformation. Accuracy was excellent, and the design was used in the British military rifle designed by James Paris Lee in 1888.
William Ellis Metford (October 4, 1824–October 14, 1899) was a British engineer best known for designing the Metford rifling in .303 caliber Lee-Metford and Martini-Metford service rifles in the late 19th century.
Unfortunately, highly erosive smokeless powders and corrosive primers soon degraded the accuracy of the soft-steel barrels of the day. A similar system was used in Japanese Arisaka rifles, which benefited from better steel and maintained accuracy better than conventional L&G barrels. Barrels made in America by Charles Newton also used this system, utilizing five rounded lands and grooves.
The bolt-action Lee–Metford was a British army service rifle that used James Paris Lee’s rear-locking bolt system, detachable magazine, and an innovative seven-groove rifled barrel designed by William Ellis Metford.
In 1901, the first head-to-head tests of an oval-boring system versus conventional rifling began at the Springfield Armory. The details are fully documented in the Annual Reports of the War Department for the Fiscal year ended June 30, 1902, Volume VII, Reports of the Chief of Ordnance and Board of Ordnance and Fortification, Appendix XII.
The project began July 16, 1901, with the following letter to the Chief of Ordnance:
“Dear Sir: I have invented a gun with an elliptical bore of .30 caliber, suitable to take the ordinary fixed ammunition of this caliber. I desire to have a thorough Government test, such as will demonstrate the quality of the gun for service. I desire to have the test made at the earliest convenience in order that I may be present.
Very Respectfully, W.F. Cole M.D.”
The Chief of Ordnance was Brigadier-General A.R. Buffington, inventor of the Buffington “wind gauge” sight—the most sophisticated military type of its day—used on the M-1884 and M-1888 Springfield rifles and carbines. General Buffington ordered, “test without delay the gun presented by Dr. Cole” and invited Cole to attend the tests.
The Springfield Armory’s experimental shop (Building 28), circa 1923.
Two days later, Dr. Cole met with the Board to test his rifle, which had the same 30-inch barrel as the Krag and used the same ammunition. “The cross-section of the bore is an ellipse the short diameter being .30 inches, the long diameter .31 inches, and having a twist of one turn in 7.29 inches.”
The U.S. Springfield Model 1896 Krag-Jorgensen bolt-action in .30-40 Krag.
The rifle was tested against the Krag at 1,000 yards. Three five-shot groups for each rifle averaged 25.11 inches for the Krag and 13.72 inches for the Cole rifle (extreme spread). The next day, a 300-yard test was conducted with a different Krag with better results. Velocity tests for the Krag (at 53 feet) were 1,991.55 fps, and for the Cole, 2,058.66 fps. On July 23 and 26, three five-shot groups were fired at 1,000 yards. Results were 18.96 inches (Krag) and 17.46 inches (Cole.) The test on the 26th had the Krag set up with a different stock and fittings.
Results: 15.71 inches (Krag), 17.68 inches (Cole). On October 1, firings were done at 1,200 and 1,500 yards. At 1,200: 28.6 inches (Krag), 23.5 inches (Cole) and 23.1 inches (new model Springfield rifle 2,300 fps velocity). At 1,500 yards, the results were 40.3 inches (Krag), 37.0 inches (Cole) and 26.9 inches (Springfield).
At this point, the Board in charge of testing sought to conduct further tests to determine the effects of different twist rates and the type of rifling with “an exhaustive series of firings with a barrel rifled according to Dr. Cole’s plan.”
On June 14, 1902, the Board met to consider test results comparing a new Cole barrel with an 8-inch twist to the new Springfield barrel with 8-, 9- and 10-inch twists.
Through March and April, 80 five-shot groups were fired in the above three twist rates at 500 yards with a group average of 4.4 inches for the four-groove Springfield barrel. The same number was fired through a Cole barrel rifled with an 8-inch twist for a group average of 3.9 inches. 80 groups were shot through the Springfield at 500 yards from May through June using 8- and 9-inch twists for a group average of 4.07 inches. Through the same period, 72 groups were fired through the Cole, and the group average was 3.8 inches. From February through June, 46 groups were fired at 1,000 yards through the Springfield for a group average of 11.33 inches. Simultaneously, 38 groups were fired through the Cole for group averages of 10.33 inches. Pressure measurements for the Cole and Springfield rifles were virtually the same.
The Board recommended that Cole system barrels be made for the first 500 Springfield magazine rifles produced for field and armory testing.
By this time, Buffington, who had served as interim Chief of Ordnance, had been replaced by William Crozier. Crozier raised the issue that the superiority of Cole’s system may have resulted from gas escape in the four-groove barrel and recommended cupping the base of the bullet. Frankford Arsenal produced 3,000 rounds of this ammunition.
Beginning July 26, 1902, 20 barrels of each type were produced for further testing with a 1:10-inch twist. The results for 500-yard tests (one five-shot group per barrel) yielded an average of 5.6 inches for the Cole and 5.9 for the Springfield. At 1,000 yards, the results were 15.6 for the Cole and 22.3 for the Springfield. Considering the terrible results of the Springfield 1:10 twist, two additional barrels with a 1:8-inch twist were produced of each type. At 500 yards, the Cole averaged 4.6 inches and the Springfield 5.4 inches for five groups, and at 1,000 yards, the results were Cole 7.5 inches, Springfield, 10.0. In terms of velocity, at 1,000 yards, the Cole had an advantage.
At the request of Captain Lissak, the above two rifles were sent to the Seagirt, New Jersey range, where the National matches were being held. There, opportunities were offered to various and sundry to try them out. The reported results for 200, 600 and 1,000 yards rated both rifles equally accurate, with opinions favoring the Springfield rifling.
In its September 23, 1902, report, the Board recommended two other rifles be produced with the 1:8 twist, one with each type of rifling for analysis of accuracy plus endurance. To this end, the production of 10,000 cartridges was requested for a 5,000-round test for each rifle. The Board’s report garnered the following reply:
“OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ORDNANCE
Washington, September 29, 1902
Respectfully returned to the commanding officer, Springfield Armory. The experiments with the elliptical-groove system (Cole’s) should be discontinued. Dr. Cole has been informed that the Department does not consider that it possesses sufficient advantages over present system to warrant further experiments.
William Crozier
Brigadier-General, Chief of Ordnance”
The Annual Report offers no further comments from Board members or any expert shooters at the Springfield Armory, including Freeman Bull and Richard Hare!
In the January 13, 1910 Arms and the Man (which predated American Rifleman), gun-designer Charles Newton excoriated the Crozier decision. “In conclusion we have failed to find any point in which the land and groove system is proven or even claimed to be superior to the oval bore in a smokeless-powder rifle and the latter is conclusively shown by the Ordnance Department’s experiments above cited to be more accurate and it will hardly be questioned that it is more durable, more easily cleaned and delivers its bullets in more perfect condition than the land-and-groove type.”
To this day, barrels of every U.S. military small arm have been rifled with the land and groove system.
Rifling systems: While this chart doesn’t cover everything, it hits the high points. The main issue in the 1850s was the odd-versus-even land and groove numbers, the theory being that with an even number, the pressure of two opposed lands created more bullet distortion than when each land was opposed by a groove. What became the standard Springfield rifle resulted from extensive testing at Springfield and Harper’s Ferry, published by the authority of the Secretary of War in 1856. After 1855, rifles and carbines from the Springfield Armory (until the Krag was adopted) featured three grooves of approximately equal width. The Krag had four. The idea of gain-twist rifling never demonstrated any improvement over a fixed system.
The next phase in alternative rifling came in the late 1930s with the German application of hammer forging to barrel making. This method was first applied to the MG42 machine gun, where the barrel was hammered into shape over a mandrel placed in the bore of a barrel blank, shaping, rifling and chambering in one step. Hammer forging requires expensive machinery.
In the Post-War era, this technique is mainly used to produce what is now termed “polygonal rifling.” For clarity’s sake, the only actual polygonal rifling was that in Whitworth-pattern barrels with flat sides and angled corners. Current “polygonal” bores have sloping sides and rounded corners. This term also encompasses Metford rifling and oval boring.
In the 1960s, Heckler & Koch (HK) began marketing a line of rifles and handguns with polygonal rifling. While the details of HK’s testing are proprietary, its conclusion is as follows: “Compared to conventional land-and-groove profile barrels, bullets fired through polygonal barrels have a higher muzzle velocity, as there is little gas leakage. This increases the amount of energy acting on the base of the bullet. There is no chance of the propellant gases “overtaking” the bullet and adversely affecting its flight properties and directional stability.
A polygonal profiled barrel does not have any sharp internal edges. This virtually eliminates the deposit of residues. A polygonal barrel is easily cleaned, reflects heat more efficiently and has a high resistance to erosion. With no sharp edges as with land and groove barrels, the notching effect on bullets is also avoided. The net effect is increased barrel service life plus no need to finish machine the barrel or chrome plate it. Manufactured with HK’s famous cold hammer-forged barrel process, these polygonal barrels are made of HK proprietary cannon grade steel.”
The Heckler & Koch rifling system features rounded corners and sloping sides.
Given the advantages of longer barrel life, virtually all current polygonal barrels are used on semi-automatic and automatic guns (both rifles and handguns), which see far more shooting than other actions.
Additional advantages of polygonal bores: they can be produced through buttoning and cutting. There is controversy over the use of lead-alloy bullets, particularly in semi-auto handguns where lead buildup just forward of the chamber can cause excessive pressures. Careful inspection and cleaning are the rule and heeding warnings issued by the manufacturer.
Currently, polygonal rifling is used by HK, CZ, Kahr, Glock, Magnum Research and Tanfoglio. The only American company to enter this market is La Rue Tactical, which produces high-end uppers for M-16 platform rifles and its own competition/sniper models.
Will polygonal rifling become the new standard? Significant changes may soon follow with the U.S. Army’s adoption of the HK M110A1 Squad Designated Marksman Rifle, Cal 7.62×51 (.308). A modified version, the G28 Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System (CSASS), is the latest.
The reader may well wonder at the abrupt and apparently nonsensical decision to abandon oval boring on the part of William Crozier. The politics within the American military bureaucracy gives new meaning to the word “byzantine.” This dynamic is documented in the 1994 book Misfire: The History of How America’s Small Arms Have Failed Our Military by William H. Hallahan. Though this work has been criticized for specific technical errors, in terms of analyzing the personality quirks of those in charge of small arms development, it appears dead on.
A.R. Buffington was required to retire at age 64. Crozier (then a captain) was a popular and highly respected inventor in the Ordnance Department. His work on an improved Krag had little resemblance to the 96 Krag. Crozier was on good terms with Teddy Roosevelt and his Secretary of War, Elihu Root. When Root appointed Crozier Chief, the latter jumped over thirty officers his senior and rank to brigadier general. The old guard fought the appointment in Congress, but Root won in his shake-up of the military. Roosevelt and Root pressured Crozier to deliver a rifle equivalent to the Mausers Roosevelt had faced in Cuba.
The Model 1896 Krag figured prominently in early U.S. military rifling tests.
It would seem understandable that Crozier had little interest in any modifications that might delay the delivery of the new rifle. The M-1903 Springfield was indeed an equivalent to the 98 Mauser. In fact, it bore enough similarities that the government paid Mauser $200,000 to avoid a patent-infringement lawsuit. Crozier later tangled with Isaac Newton Lewis over his machine gun. After a Senate investigation, Crozier was fired.
We take a quick look at 6mm ARC, a cartridge that’s ballistically superior to 5.56 NATO in almost every way.
The 6mm ARC (Advanced Rifle Cartridge) SAAMI cartridge (and chamber specs) was introduced in January 2020 and revised in June 2020.
Hornady ballistician Jayden Quinlan said, “The 6mm ARC began with a simple question: What can we do with today's technology to maximize the performance of the AR-15 platform? We subsequently modeled and tested a variety of designs in different calibers until we were able to produce the most flexible cartridge possible within the limits of the AR-15 system.”
The 6mm ARC was engineered using a long, high-B.C. bullet in modern autoloading rifles. The SAAMI maximum average pressure is 52,000 psi. The twist rate should be 1:7.5 to stabilize 105- to 108-grain high-B.C. bullets and 1:7 twist to stabilize the 115-grain Berger VLD.
According to an article by Richard A. Mann on June 18, 2021, “Hornady … identified a need for an ‘unnamed' Department of Defense entity and a concept cartridge was discussed. The entity showed extreme interest, so Hornady began development. Ultimately, the result of that collaboration is what's now known as the commercially available 6mm ARC.”
“However, the 6mm ARC isn't really new. In about 1975, Dr. Louis Palmisano and Ferris Pindell took the .220 Russian case, which is based on the 7.62x39mm Soviet cartridge, necked it up to 6mm (0.244 inch) and changed the shoulder angle to 30 degrees. Even though the 6mm PPC never gained SAAMI approval, it found great popularity in the bench-rest competition circuit. Most shooters made their own brass and loaded their own ammo.”
“However, note that there are several versions of the 6mm PPC. Though they're minutely different, this results from a cartridge not having SAAMI approval. While some believe the 6mm ARC is based on the 6.5 Grendel cartridge, it's really nothing more than yet another variation of the 6mm PPC.”
Quinlan said it delivers less felt recoil than larger short-action-based cartridges. However, it also uses modern, heavy-for-caliber 6mm bullets that provide excellent accuracy and ballistic performance at an extended range. The 6mm ARC delivers better ballistics than the 5.56 NATO with similar recoil. It delivers comparable ballistics to the .308 Winchester with 30 percent less weight on the firearm platform and ammunition.
General Comments
The maximum cartridge overall length is 2.26 inches, the head diameter is 0.441 inch, and the case capacity of the 6mm ARC is 34 grains. With Hornady's 108-grain ELD-Match, the 6 ARC drops and drifts less than any .223 Rem. bullet. The 6mm ARC is available in: 105-grain BTHP Hornady Black, 108-grain ELD Match, and 103-grain ELD-X Precision Hunter. Hornady lists reloading information for gas guns (52K max pressure) with bullets as light as a 58-grain V-Max.
6mm ARC Factory Loading Data And Factory Ballistics:
We take a quick look at the Galco Hawkeye for the SIG P365 XL, a leather IWB holster designed for optic-equipped pistols.
Who says you can’t have a classy leather holster for your red dot-equipped carry pistol? The Galco Hawkeye makes that possible, and the company has just added a new fit for the popular SIG Sauer P365 XL.
The Galco Hawkeye is made from reinforced premium steerhide and is available in tan or black for right-handed fits. Unfortunately for lefties, no left-hand options are currently available. The design features snap-on belt loops so the holster can be attached or removed without taking off one’s belt, and each will come standard with 1.75-inch belt loops. However, 1.25- and 1.5-inch replacement belt loops are also available for purchase separately.
SIG P365 X-Macro model shown.
If you couldn’t tell from the name, the Galco Hawkeye was designed to accommodate pistols with compact, carry-style red dot sights installed, and as such it features a protective leather optic shroud. The holster also features an open-top design with a butt-forward cant to help facilitate a full firing grip when drawing.
SIG P365 X-Macro model shown.
The Galco Hawkeye for SIG P365 XL pistols is available now and has an MSRP of $149. Other available fits for this holster model include the SIG P365 X-Macro, the SIG P365 XL Spectre Comp, the Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 3-inch, the Smith & Wesson M&P Shield Plus and the Taurus 856 T.O.R.O. 3-inch.
We discuss some of the best aftermarket parts for upgrading a SIG P365, one of America’s most popular carry pistols.
SIG Sauer’s P365 is one of the most popular carry guns in the country. Since it was introduced, it has quickly outpaced the sales for other guns in the same category and has inadvertently created something of an arms race all its own.
Why? Well, it’s extremely tiny, but it has an onboard capacity of 10+1 rounds standard. Not only did this completely upset the balance of power in the micro-compact world, but it also set the stage for a reinvention of what we know when it comes to accuracy and reliability in the size class. It could be said that the P365 completely redefined the carry gun.
Modular Madness
However, we as a people rarely leave well enough alone. In many cases, this hubris results in “upgrades” that are anything but. We’ve seen it time and time again—some type of gimmick becomes all the rage but ends up offering no real benefit for the shooter in the end.
I remember that feeling of coming home with a blank slate whenever I picked up a new Glock, Beretta or 1911. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve permanently altered something because of the words of an instructor I saw on YouTube, or the creeping sensation that if I didn’t have the right stippling on my grip I was at a serious disadvantage.
Most guns on the market today are fine just as they are. Even though many people regard the standard Glock sights, for example, as merely dovetail protectors, they’re, in fact, quite functional and perfect for most end uses. Yet, it’s very hard to find somebody at competitions, carry classes or even the range who shoots with stock sights. The culture of “customizability” has infiltrated every aspect of shooting, and up until now, you had to take a gamble on your gun’s value if you wanted to increase certain aspects of its performance.
It took the shooting public quite a while to realize the potential of SIG’s modular handgun systems. The original attempt to add such a design wasn’t well received, and I wonder as I write this how many shooters even remember the P250, the progenitor of the P320. While not a reinvention of the handgun wheel, the P250 was a step in the right direction when it came to treating a user to a customizable pistol that could be quickly and easily converted between full-size and subcompact on one internal chassis. This design was eventually discontinued.
However, the stage was set and, while not a groundbreaking design in its own years of production, the P250 is owed the credit of being an important design. In the following years, the P320 and subsequent P365 have dominated the national scene. Unlike some others, SIG has embraced the aftermarket and even endorsed the use of third-party parts on their guns. While this might seem insignificant in the world of modular everything, this is really the first time in the commercial history of arms production that small shops have the ability to supply a major manufacturer with custom parts … and have those parts assembled out of the factory for shipping to the customer.
The Mischief Machine Omega module has 1911-style grip panels that allow you to change textures and colors quickly and easily.
P365 Barrels
My top recommended brands for P365 barrels are True Precision and Faxon. I’ve shot these brands extensively with zero issues. They are, in my direct experience, slightly better in terms of on-paper accuracy than SIG factory, Grey Ghost Precision and ZEV.
In the author’s opinion, True Precision makes some of the more accurate barrels for the P365, though by merit of size alone the gun is limited on long-distance accuracy.
How much better? Well, True Precision and Faxon average about 1 inch at 10 yards for five shots, the others 1.5 to 2 inches. At 25 yards, True Precision offers the best across the board, about 3.5 inches for five shots of any given load. The sights on the P365 aren’t exactly fine, but they’re precise enough. The sight radius is the real limiting factor, and at a point you just can’t expect to be shooting dimes with a micro 9mm.
A threaded barrel isn’t a requirement on a modern pistol, but since there’s the affect length of the flashlight to consider, a bit more barrel won’t hurt.
Luckily for you, all the above brands are readily available online. These barrels are great, but the stock P365 barrel is very accurate. Most of these barrels are a cosmetic upgrade, and if you want added function, you’re looking at a threaded model. I’d consider the cost of the threaded models to be worth it simply if you want to buy yourself an additional 50 fps on most loads.
P365 Grip Modules
Because the serialized part of the P365 is the internal chassis (fire control unit), you’re free to swap out your grip style as much as you like. Polymer versions are pretty nice and can be had for relatively cheap. If you want to practice your own stipple patterns, SIG sells OEM grip modules. If you mess up, you aren’t out a gun. SIG makes these in several styles, including 10- and 12-round sizes, and in a few colors.
Aluminum modules are all the rage now, and there are a growing number of companies that offer them. Icarus Precision has several variations encompassing any finished size and barrel length currently made. These are very well-made pieces; however, I find them to be too slender in the grip and have some uncomfortable bumps on the trigger guard. You might feel differently. SIG offers Icarus models on the P365 build studio.
Mischief Machine makes a variety of grip modules, such as the manual safety version here and variants for the XL models. The author prefers a manual safety on his guns, having spent so much time with 1911s.
Mischief Machine is another company that’s hitting the aluminum module market quite hard. These are very clean designs that mimic the shape of the stock unit. They work with all of my normal P365 holsters. Available in both a single-piece and with grip panels, the Mischief Machine designs are very well made and have some nice, subtle performance-enhancing touches, such as a 4140 steel recoil lug and bushings for the grips. Not only does this grip module have a tangible impact on accuracy, but it’ll also likely outlast the rest of the parts with just how well it is made.
Wilson Combat's P365 grip module.
Wilson Combat makes an excellent polymer grip module that’s an affordable, functional upgrade over the SIG stock module. At a retail price of about $65, it offers quite a bit, including an undercut trigger guard, optional weight channels to balance the gun, an extended beavertail and comfortable texturing. For the money, this is a very good P365 upgrade, and it’s a fraction of the cost of an aluminum module.
Optics
Optics are starting to appear on all types of pistols these days, and SIG was one of the first companies to offer optically equipped pistols from the factory. Grey Ghost makes a great optics-ready slide that’s at the top of my list. I’ve put many rounds down range with one, and it was a clean and well-made upgrade. If you prefer something a bit flashier, ZEV has their Octane slide with RMSC optics cut, and it has about as much serration as the Emerson knives I carry. While it may appear to be overkill, the P365 is a very small gun, and extra traction never hurts.
Last on the list is the True Precision Axiom. Like the others, it’s a drop-in proposition and allows for a couple different types of optics to be mounted. I wasn’t a huge fan of the cosmetics and the ports cut in the sides—while it might a be a moot point, I don’t like places where lint can collect, but to each his own.
Small P365 Upgrades & Parts
The nice thing about the P365 is that you can order most of the small parts direct from SIG. They have a parts shopper on their website that’s very helpful. A growing number of companies are also producing small parts, such as triggers and enhanced springs. But, at that point, you might just want to invest in a SIG FCU and build up your gun around it.
Sig Sauer stocks a large number of small parts. The flat trigger upgrade came directly from Sig.
The P365 is a relatively easy gun to work on—though there are more things going on in that small gun than you’re probably aware of. If you want to make some changes, make sure you educate yourself or watch enough tutorial videos on how to navigate the inner workings.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the 2022 Everyday Carry special issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
We tested CR920X vs CR920XP to see which compact Shadow Systems came out on top–the compensated XP or non-compensated X.
In general, I’m a fan of Shadow Systems and what they’re doing. It’s innovating, it’s putting out new products that meet market demand quickly. It’s dropped 4 new pistols in less than a year. Three of them have integrally compensated barrels that fit into readily available holsters.
Most recently the company released the CR920X, its most requested pistol, akin to a Glock 43x or Glock 48. I say “akin” because it’s cross-compatible with Glock holsters and has the slim profile of a single stack. However, it boasts a 15+1 metal magazine in addition to all the trimmings we expect from Shadow Systems: stippled frame, optics ready, cross-compatibility and accuracy.
Then last month, they released an integrally compensated CR920XP. While it boasts many of the same features of the X, it has a slightly longer dust cover and most importantly an integral compensator machined from steel with a tool-less novel locking mechanism. This last feature makes it quite a different animal.
We will examine both of these offerings and compare and contrast them.
CR920X Overview
ECR920X vs CR920XP, it doesn't matter, either case you get a pistol with an attractive spiral-fluted barrel.
The CR920X is a slimline, single-stack width 9mm pistol, but it contains a double-stack steel magazine that holds 15+1 or 18+1 with a plus 3 extension. The magazine has an enhanced spring to ensure proper feeding and all the trimmings we expect from Shadow Systems. Ergs
The ergonomics on this pistol are second to none in the sub-compact space in the writer’s opinion. My natural point of aim and indexing of this pistol allows me to line up the sights quickly and effectively which is mission critical with a carry pistol, in addition to the additional grip of real estate making it controllable. I own and have shot the standard CR920 and CR920P quite a bit (these are the true subcompact offerings—think Glock 43 size). While it’s definitely a less-snappy sub-compact, with a flush-fit magazine it’s near impossible to get all 4 fingers on the grip.
The grip also has a nice magazine well, with some sloping and geometry that makes magazine changes a breeze. From a capacity and dimensions standpoint, it’s a double-stack Glock 48 with more ammo onboard. Since it’s a subcompact, it will only fit a handful of lights, like the TLR7sub.
CR920X Reliability
In the CR920X vs CR920XP the non-compensated model wins in the size department. Seen from above, the CR920X (bottom) most definitely offers a more compact package.
As mentioned, unlike my other Shadow Systems pistols that require a break-in period to function reliably. The manual recommends 500 rounds—and I urge this to pressure check any pistol—before it’s broken in. I’ve even had some front-end malfs with other Shadow Systems pistols. That said, I had zero failures from shot one with the CR920X. It has been 100 percent reliable with various ammunitions and incredibly accurate despite its 3.4-inch barrel.
CR920X Fit & Finish
The machining on the pistol is yet again what I expect from the company’s guns—flawless. The pistol has ample serrations, as well as lightening cuts in the slide to reduce the “coupled mass” of the slide as it cycles.
The CR920XP is built on almost the exact frame as the CR920X. As I mentioned, it has a longer dust cover, but this keeps the compensator hidden. For those familiar with Shadow Systems, it’s similar to how the XR920P (their integrally compensated crossover that’s roughly the size of a Glock 17) is set up.
This design, I think gives the pistol a more refined aesthetic. Though from a size point of view, it does make the gun more a compact and less of a sub-compact. The CR920XP in this respect is essentially the same size, albeit slimmer, as the MR920 or Glock 19 but it’s compensated and has the same capacity (15+1).
CR920XP Ergonomics
CR920X vs CR920XP is a draw in ergonomics. Both models have excellent grip texturing, plenty of grip real estate and flared mag well for fast reloads.
To the quick, the grip frame is the same as the 920X and it points similarly, but the compensator makes the pistol’s balance different. The device adds a touch of weight to the front of the gun. This adds balance to the gun you feel when you point it initially and also under recoil. Not that I don’t like the way the CR920X points, but the XP’s heft in the front, in addition to the downward force from the compensator, helps you get on target and stay on target.
CR920XP Reliability
Typically I’m leery of compensated guns because I’ve experienced reliability issues with some models, especially in the beginning. And I did have some issues with CR920XP, but nothing that raised red flags. The pistol suffered a failure to extract and failure to battery in my first 10 rounds shooting my 125-grain handloads. However, after switching to 147-grain factory ammo I had no issues—including with my handloads when I went back to them.
CR920XP Shootability
I’ll admit, I didn’t expect there to be as stark of a difference between the pistols from a recoil mitigation perspective. I find 9mm to be incredibly controllable and never felt like it needed to be compensated. Then I shot the CR920X next to the 920XP. The difference in both perceived recoil and muzzle flip between the pistols is not only palpable but significant.
Do I have a problem controlling the CR920X? Not in the slightest, it’s pleasant to shoot for as light as it is at 19 ounces. The CR920XP however is more controllable, flatter, and faster, with minimal muzzle rise and is only 2 ounces heavier with the steel compensator.
Point shooting with the 920XP is a breeze and the rounds land in basically the same hole with minimal effort at high speed. As with most comped guns, if your grip isn’t strong, you can get some feeding issues, but if you hold it like you mean it, this problem disappears.
I ran both of them on a plate rack, and the XP shoots flatter ergo faster, but not by an insane margin. My fastest clean run of a 6”x6” plate rack at 15 yards with the 920X was 3.63 seconds, with the 920XP posting a 3.31-second time. I’m not winning the match with these, but I’m putting accurate fire on multiple targets quickly—a big need with a carry gun.
CR920X Vs CR920XP Accuracy Test
Ammunition
Pistol
Average Group Size In Inches
147gr Winchester
CR920X
0.95
147gr PMC
CR920X
1.61
125gr RN Reloads
CR920X
1.87
147gr Winchester
CR920XP
1.09
147gr PMC
CR920XP
1.43
125gr RN Reloads
CR920XP
1.49
The average is taken from four groups of five shots from a rest at 10 yards.
Parting Shots On The CR920X Vs CR920XP
The CR920XP proved a very controlable and accurate pistol–especially for one tailored for concealed carry.
Both of these guns are home runs in my book—from a size-to-feature ratio, value for the money ($800-900 MSRP), innovation, and cross-compatibility with Glock holsters. Naysayers will ding them for the proprietary mags, but they’re $30 or less and made of steel with reliability in mind. Furthermore, the ergonomics are amazing, and these guns point naturally where your natural point of aim will indeed be your point of impact: a critical function of a carry gun.
From a holster point of view, that’s one area where I personally need to get a new holster; this gun needs a Glock 48 holster. My T-Rex Arms Sidecar for a 43x MOS that fits all my other CR920s could not accommodate the CR920XP, as the compensator is much blockier than the CR920P.
The pistols are modular and accurate—especially for a 3.4-inch barrel—and Shadow Systems’ customer service is top-notch. What’s more, in the event you use your gun in self-defense, the company replaces it. Oh, and they’re made right here, stateside, in Plano, TX.
Step Into the Shadows: Explore Shadow Systems Insights
We take a quick look at Charter Arms’ new Coyote line of .380 ACP snub-nosed revolvers.
You don’t see .380 ACP revolvers every day, but anyone interested in owning one has just been given another option in the form of the Charter Arms Coyote.
Because .380 ACP is a rimless cartridge that was designed for use in autoloaders, Charter Arms Coyote revolvers must be loaded using moon clips. Each gun will ship with two TK Customs moon clips to feed the 5-shot cylinder. Additional moon clips are available for purchase separately as well. Sporting 2-inch barrels, these are double-action/single-action guns with exposed hammers and standard snub-nosed revolver sights. One trick up the Coyote’s sleeve is that the barrels are also ported to help reduce recoil.
Charter Arms Coyote revolvers are relatively lightweight at 14 ounces, mostly thanks to their aluminum frames and the lightening cuts in their underlugs. They’re available with either a standard metal-colored frame or with a pink or lavender finish, but all three versions will ship with checkered rosewood grips. The MSRP for all Coyote models is $448.14 and they’re available now.
Here we take a deep dive into the development, history, function and use of the German Gewehr 43 self-loading rifle.
The Gewehr 43, or G43, was an excellent semi-automatic combat rifle produced late in World War II by Germany. Nobody can say for sure, but if the Germans had G43 rifles at the onset of the war, the outcome may have been different. At the very least, the Allies likely would have lost more men were they forced to contend with this rifle’s impressive firepower.
The increased use of semi-automatic rifles during World War II changed the concept of the combat rifle from manually operated bolt actions to fast-firing semi-autos. This change didn’t happen overnight, but the writing was on the wall that self-loading rifles were the way of the future and virtually every major player of WWII was investigating how to get more of them into the hands of their armed forces.
At the turn of the 20th century, armies around the world were experimenting with semi-automatic combat rifles. The French, in an effort to replace their Lebel bolt action rifles, adopted the Fusil Automatique Modèle 1917 and put it into service in the latter part of the First World War. It used a gas-operated system with a long-stroke piston with a rotating bolt and fed off an internal 5-round magazine. Troops found the rifle heavy at over 11 pounds, too long, the magazine was too fragile, and the rifle difficult to maintain in the trenches. Bolt action rifles were still more reliable in the mess of war and cheaper to produce on a mass scale, but that did not deter further development of other semi-automatic rifles.
The next significant self-loading rifle came out of Russia in 1915 with the Avtomat Fedorov. This also saw limited use in WWI. It was a short-recoil operated, locked-breech rifle that was actually a select fire weapon capable of both full-auto and semi-auto fire. Later models had a 25-round detachable magazine. This rifle had reliability issues, was difficult to maintain and when used in automatic mode it heated up too quickly.
M1 Garand
The first truly successful self-loading military rifle arrived in 1936 with the American M1 Garand. It not only lacked the bugs and reliability issues that plagued previous designs but was also able to be mass-produced and widely issued to American armed forces. While older self-loading rifles had seen action before, their numbers paled in comparison to how widely the Garand would end up being issued.
The Garand was the first standard-issue self-loading rifle adopted by the U.S. military, and it proved to be a great advantage when facing troops mostly armed with bolt-action rifles like the German Karabiner 98k.
The Soviets were also determined to replace their bolt-actions, but their efforts weren’t as successful as the American’s given they never managed to produce enough self-loading rifles to make them standard-issue equipment by the war’s end. Soviet efforts to produce one seriously started in the 1930s and resulted in designs like the AVS-36 and the SVT-38, but both designs had many issues and neither was truly combat-ready. That changed with the adoption of the improved SVT-40 rifle in 1940, and while it still saw widespread use during the war, too few were produced to replace the Mosin Nagant.
The Road To The Gewehr 43
Well aware of the existence of the SVT-40 and M1 Garand in the hands of their enemies, Germany realized that a self-loading rifle was sorely missing from its inventory. The response was the development of the Gewehr 41 in 1941. Or, more accurately, the Gewehr 41s considering there were two of them: the G41(W) and the G41(M).
The German Army provided specifications for a semi-automatic rifle to several firearms manufacturers. Two of the design criteria seem odd by today’s standards. One specified that no holes were to be drilled into the barrel to port gas into the operating mechanism, as they believed the gas port could cause premature erosion of the bore and lead to accuracy issues. Another design feature the German Army requested was a manual bolt action backup in case the auto-loading system failed.
Walther and Mauser submitted prototypes, and both designs employed a cone-shaped gas trap at the muzzle that deflected gas into a long-stroke piston that operated the mechanism. The rifles were chambered for the same cartridge as the Karabiner 98k, 7.92x57mm Mauser, and were loaded via the same stripper clips used with the bolt action. The new Walther and Mauser designs, however, used fixed, 10-round box magazines. Both designs were adopted by the German Army as the G41(W) which was the Walther design and the G41(M), the Mauser design.
The Mauser G41 followed the German Army’s design specification criteria to the letter and as a result, it looked a lot like a Mauser bolt-action rifle. It even incorporated a traditional bolt handle that automatically disconnected the bolt assembly from the recoil spring if the rifle was used in manual mode. The controls and sights were also similar to the Karabiner 98k bolt action.
Walther ignored some of the specifications sent to them, and they were better off for it. The Walther G41(W) design did not include the manual bolt-action backup system and was the better of the two G41 designs. But—there’s always a but—neither the Mauser nor the Walther Gewehr 41 were very successful.
Like many semi-automatic combat rifles before them, they were a nightmare to maintain in field conditions, were too heavy, hard to disassemble and frankly didn’t work all that well. Gas fouling issues plagued both designs and both rifles required intricate machining that was time-consuming and expensive to build. The Walther, being the better design of the two G41s, was built in larger numbers but still saw very limited use. Given the many issues with both G41 versions, Germany’s journey to a semi-auto combat rifle was not yet over.
Rise Of The Gewehr 43
In June of 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union, and in combat, they encountered small numbers of Soviet troops armed with SVT-38 and SVT-40 rifles. All’s fair in love and war, so some captured examples of these were sent back to Germany for evaluation. After looking under the hood, it was clear that the SVT-40 was a superior design to either G41 variant.
As a result, Walther copied and refined the SVT-40’s short-stroke gas system and combined it with some elements of the G41(W) to produce the Gewehr 43 in 1943. The G43 used a simpler and more reliable ported gas system to operate the bolt. Many of the machined parts were replaced with stamped metal parts which helped cut manufacturing costs and production time.
The Gewehr 43 action used an improved gas-operated short-stroke piston taken from the SVT alongside a flapper-style locking bolt borrowed from the G41(W). In a flap-locking system, a pair of flappers on the sides of the bolt lock into the receiver when the bolt is in battery. The flappers unlock and pivot into the bolt when a shot is fired, sending the bolt backward to cycle the rifle.
The G43, like the G41, was chambered for 7.92x57mm Mauser. However, unlike the G41, the feed system on the G43 was again inspired by the SVT as it was given a 10-round detachable box magazine that could be recharged while installed in the rifle via 5-round stripper clips.
Just over 400,000 Gewehr 43s were produced between 1943 and the end of the war in 1945, a truly impressive amount for such a short time and given the state of the German industry that late in the war. That said, the later-production rifles often look noticeably rougher around the edges than the earlier production models. As Germany became more desperate for arms, the priority shifted from making fine weapons to merely functional ones.
It's also worth noting that in 1944 the Gewehr 43 was redubbed the Karabiner 43 or K43, however, the guns are identical besides the name they were stamped with.
The general consensus on the G43 is that it was an excellent combat rifle for its day. Its only real issue was that it arrived too late and in too few numbers to become the standard-issue infantry rifle.
Gewehr 43 Sniper Variants
Much like the SVT-40 that helped inspire it, the Germans also attempted to use the G43 as a sniper or designated marksman rifle. Also like the SVT-40, it was found to be more effective as an infantry rifle and was used far less by snipers/designated marksmen than the more accurate optic-equipped bolt actions of each respective nation. That said, about 50,000 Gewehr 43s were equipped with 4-power magnified ZF-4 scopes for sniping roles.
Essentially, the G43/K43 is only for serious collectors, truly dedicated to owning this piece of history. Even with production numbers of over 400,000 rifles, the G43 is relatively rare and commands a high price. The prices vary based on condition and other factors, but at the time of writing, the rifles are generally selling for between $3,000 and $5,000. For a shooter-grade example with some condition issues or one sporterized or rechambered for a different cartridge, you may be able to snag one for closer to $2,500. Any way you skin it, these are expensive rifles to buy today.
If you’re fortunate enough to own a Gewehr 43, there’s something you need to be aware of if you plan on shooting it. Like the M1 Garand which can be damaged by using modern ammo, so too can the G43. The gas port of G43/K43 rifles was made quite large to compensate for heavy fouling, but this means that shooting some types of ammo through it can result in excessive wear. To prevent damaging the rifle or potentially injuring yourself, it’s a good idea to install a modern, aftermarket shooter’s kit that’s designed to ameliorate this issue. Kits like this enable you to adjust the amount of gas flow to a low enough level to safely cycle a G43/K43 without hurting the gun.
Legacy Of The Gewehr 43
The G43 may not be the most iconic or influential rifle of WWII, but it’s nonetheless historically significant. While it wasn’t the first or the best self-loading rifle to be fielded during the war, the story of its development is an important chapter in the transition between bolt-action and self-loading military rifles that occurred during this period. Germany may not have entered the war with a semi-auto rifle, but it certainly tried to end it with as many as it possibly could.
An IRA member armed with a G43.
Of course, the Gewehr 43’s story doesn’t end with WWII. It went on to see some minor, mostly peacetime use by countries like France and Czechoslovakia after the war, as well as some action in the hands of non-state actors such as the Provisional IRA. Today, they’re mostly historical relics to be enjoyed by private collectors and displayed in museums, but with over 400,000 made, likely, they’re still being put to practical use somewhere.
In the eyes of a jury, your choice of carry pistol could be the difference between murder and acquittal.
What you carry everyday can affect the outcome of your self-defense trial. You might even be found guilty of murder because of the carry pistol you chose.
How could that be so, you ask? The jury. The jury will be either 6 or 12 citizens from your home county, all of which have clean criminal histories, and typically middle aged or older. Occasionally, younger folks get on, but not often. And, when deciding your guilt or innocence, they’ll take into account all the facts presented at trial, including the type of gun you used.
Case in point: I worked as an expert in a Tucson, Arizona, case, where the prosecutor made a big deal about the Glock 19 pistol the defendant used, and the number of rounds it held. He did so in an attempt to sway the jury against the defendant, at one point calling him a “gun nut.” Did it work? Not really, because the trial ended with a hung jury, with the majority voting to acquit and the minority to convict.
As with many hung juries, the Pima County prosecutor decided to prosecute again. This time, I advised the defense attorney to ask each police witness what gun they carried (Glock 17s) and how many bullets were in the gun. This time, there was no mention by the prosecutor about the gun the defendant used. Interestingly, the second jury also hung, and the judge eventually dismissed the case.
Another case where the prosecutor (again in Arizona) made a big deal about the type of gun used was when a retired school teacher, Harold Fish, was hiking and forced to shoot and kill an attacker. Fish used a 10mm 1911 pistol, and during trial the prosecution made a big deal about the power of the 10mm. The jury came back with a guilty verdict.
Your Carry Pistol As Evidence
You see, when a person uses a gun in self-defense, the gun will be confiscated by the police as evidence in the shooting, and if you’re prosecuted, it’ll become a lead witness in your case. Typically, the gun will be introduced in court, waived around in front of the jury and, absent a cogent and logical argument from the defense, might just prejudice a member or two of the jury against you.
However, in most cases, skillful work by the defense can nullify or even turn the argument into a positive one for your side. Let me explain, using myself as an example, with a hypothetical cross-examination in a hypothetical court case. I personally carry a 10mm 1911 pistol for daily carry, and a line of questioning might go like this:
Prosecutor: Mr. Hayes, the 10mm pistol you used in this shooting was a powerful gun, right?
Me: Yes, it is.
Prosecutor: In fact, the FBI carried it for a little while, but it proved too powerful for their agents, right?
Me: That is what they claimed, but as I understand the issues, it was more about the gun they chose rather than the power of the 10mm cartridge.
Prosecutor: Can you explain your answer? (Note, the prosecution, by asking an open-ended question, they do not know the answer to have just sealed their fate in this issue.)
Me: They chose the large-framed Smith & Wesson 1076 pistol which, being a large-framed pistol, was simply too large for many agents to use effectively. The large frame resulted in the agents with small hands having to shoot the gun by grasping the pistol and having the backstrap of the pistol recoil against the knuckle of the thumb, instead of the web of the hand. This can be very painful and eventually cause injury to the shooter’s hand. Additionally, that particular gun was heavy, and since most agents wore suits and ties instead of a duty belt in uniform, the agents also found it difficult to conceal.
Prosecutor: I see. Well, then, isn’t this an issue for you?
Me: Absolutely not. You see, if I carried the Smith & Wesson 1076, I too would find it difficult to conceal. Instead, I carry a Nighthawk 10mm Commander, which is both lighter and smaller. It is, in fact, easy to carry.
Prosecutor: (Not knowing when to stop.) OK, Mr. Hayes, what about the extreme power of the 10mm pistol?
Me: Being a firearms instructor early in my professional career, and now as an expert witness myself, I have both heard of and seen cases where less powerful ammunition resulted in an armed citizen or law enforcement officer needing to fire several shots in order to stop their attacker. The more times a person has to shoot to stop an attacker, the more chances there are to miss and hit innocent individuals. Additionally, I have seen many cases of the person being shot twisting and turning and taking shots in the back, resulting in an indictment for an otherwise justifiable shooting.
Prosecutor: Thank you, Mr. Hayes, no further questions.
Note: I would make sure the defense counsel brought up the issue again, where I could explain more in depth about my level of expertise and the selection of the ammunition I choose to use. In a normal self-defense trial, this role would be for the expert witness the defense hired to explain these issues to the jury.
In addition to the gun and ammunition you used, there are other issues to consider. One is the name on the side of the gun and the name of the ammunition. If both these marketing decisions are implemented to tickle the imagination of the purchaser, to make them feel like a “badass,” then it’ll also perhaps persuade the jury you are a “badass.” Names like “persuader,” “ultimate kill machine,” “the assassinator,” etc. would probably work against you, not for you.
Take Law Enforcement’s Lead
So, what to choose and why? The safest gun and ammunition to choose is what your local cops choose. And since it’s a concealed carry pistol, a smaller version would be fine. As far as ammunition, avoid the boutique ammo makers and stick with the make law enforcement regularly use.
Every choice I make regarding what I use for self-defense is filtered through the eyes of my potential jury. I would recommend you do so, too.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the 2022 Everyday Carry special issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
We check out Warne’s new line of HyperLite Scope Rings, made using a lightweight yet very durable alloy.
Ultra-lightweight rifles have been incredibly popular recently, with manufacturers incorporating materials like titanium and carbon fiber to shave off every extra ounce possible. Well, light rifles need light accessories when the goal is keeping the setup’s weight at a minimum, and Warne’s new line of HyperLite Scope Rings will help with that.
Made out of Warne’s MagnaFusion alloy, the company says that HyperLite Scope Rings weigh up to 35% less than comparable aluminum models while retaining the same level of strength and stability. The rings are made in America and are precision CNC machined before being given a Cerakote finish. They feature integrated recoil lugs, dual-screw clamps and a STANAG 4694 mounting interface that makes them compatible with both Picatinny and Weaver-style bases.
Brian Motland, CEO of Warne, said this about the new rings:
Our new HyperLite Scope Rings represent a significant advancement in the world of lightweight shooting accessories … By incorporating our advanced MagnaFusion Alloy, we’ve created a product that not only reduces weight but also maintains the exceptional durability and reliability that Warne is known for.
Warne’s HyperLite Scope Rings are currently offered in low, medium and high options for 30mm, 34mm and 1-inch tube sizes. MSRPs range from $109.99 to $119.99 and they’re available now.
We take a quick look at .224 Weatherby Magnum, the smallest belted case commercially manufactured.
The Weatherby line of proprietary cartridges was somewhat incomplete for lack of an ultra-velocity .22. The previous .220 Weatherby Rocket was actually an Improved wildcat based on the .220 Swift case, and Weatherby never manufactured this cartridge. The .224 Varmintmaster was introduced in 1963, but, according to the late Roy Weatherby, development work went back 10 years prior to that.
Introduction of the cartridge was delayed because of lack of a suitable action. The cartridge was offered in a reduced-size version of the Weatherby Mark V rifle, but the gun is no longer available. Weatherby continues to sell the ammunition.
The .224 Weatherby lies ballistically between the .223 Remington and the .220 Swift. It’s a belted case with the advantages and disadvantages inherent in this type of construction.
For the handloader, it mitigates certain headspace and case-stretch problems and should provide maximum case life. It’s an excellent long-range varmint cartridge with performance similar to the .22-250 Remington. Its popularity was determined largely by economic factors. One could buy a Remington, Ruger or Winchester bolt-action in .22-250 for much less than a .224 Weatherby.
It was the smallest belted case manufactured commercially.
.224 Weatherby Magnum Loading Data And Factory Ballistics:
When it comes to your reloading recipe, the technique is just as important as the ingredients.
I attended a cookout late last summer, spending a wonderful afternoon with some friends and acquaintances well versed in reloading. Over a couple of cold beers, the conversation turned to reloading gear and techniques. I’m always intrigued by how other people reload, the habits they form and how what can seem normal to one reloader can seem completely foreign to another.
As an example, something as innocuous as charging your cases can become a source of controversy. I’m the guy who will pour the powder charge into the case and then immediately seat the bullet, while many of my colleagues will fill up all the cases in the loading block before seating a single bullet. To further complicate matters, a couple of guys weighed in that it depends on whether the case could potentially be double charged before they decide which way to go.
I can’t really argue for any method. Rather, I’ll explain that I feel most comfortable with my charge-load sequence because I can visually check that the case is empty before pouring powder into it, and by seating the bullet immediately, I avoid the chance of a double charge. Again, this technique works for me.
The method of priming cases also became a point of interest. For years, I’d prime only from the press—until I realized how I could get much more consistent results using a hand primer. (I feel the press generates too much pressure and can have an adverse effect on the primer.) Some of the guys agreed with me, in that the hand-priming tool is the only way to go, while others insisted the Dillon progressive presses—which prime the case on the press—make wonderfully accurate ammunition.
I can see it both ways, yet I still prefer the feel of the hand-priming units. Ultimately, I’d like to end up with one of those tools I saw in the Norma ammunition plant that measures the depth of the primer, and then I could adjust my primers to a more uniform depth, as I feel this plays a role in uniform velocities.
Measure Twice
Measuring powder also stirred some emotion. I use an automated powder dispenser—the RCBS ChargeMaster Link, to be specific—and check every 10th load or so on a balance beam scale; Redding’s Model No. 2 has been a favorite of mine for years, and it’s built like a tank. Some of the guys are still completely untrusting of the digital scales—in spite of the fact that in the course of thousands of cartridges I can’t find any serious fault with any of the RCBS units—and will weigh all their charges.
Balance beam scale or digital scale? The author uses both, but readily admits the modern digital scales are nearly flawless. Photo: Massaro Media Group.
I can’t disagree with the idea of weighing every powder charge; it certainly makes sense this would be the most consistent means of establishing a uniform powder charge. Some go the route of using a good powder thrower, like one of the Redding models, and trickle the difference. There’s no right or wrong answer, so long as you get a uniform charge for each case. For me, I like the speed and convenience of the RCBS machine. I’ve heard of a Canadian product called the AutoTrickler, which is supposed to throw accurate charges within 10 seconds, with a margin of error much lower than any of their competitors.
The choice of press varied a bit among us, with the majority preferring a single-stage, traditional press, like the RCBS RockChucker or the Redding Big Boss. I like them, but I’m especially fond of the Redding T7 turret press and also appreciate the extra room of the Redding Ultramag. Lyman’s Brass Smith has garnered some attention, and one or two of the guys were fans of the Hornady Lock-N-Load Iron Press.
The consensus seemed to be that serious rifle ammunition was made on the single-stage or turret presses, and the high-volume pistol or plinking ammunition was handled by the progressive press, with a couple of guys insisting that the .223 Rem. and .308 Win. ammo made on a progressive was as good as that made on a single stage. So many good presses are on the market; if you find one that works for you, go with it. I’ve made consistent ammo on a Lee three-hole turret press with all sorts of wiggle and movement, but I feel much more confident on my Redding T7.
Though there are many good single-stage presses on the market, the author likes the strength, ruggedness and flexibility of the Redding T7 turret press. Photo: Massaro Media Group.
Just In Case
Regarding case preparation, I was surprised to find out the different ideas or points of concentration. Some guys were extremely concerned with neck thickness and were obsessed with turning the necks religiously; others weren’t as obsessive. I like to keep primer pockets and flash holes as uniform as possible, as I feel that consistent ignition is an important factor in keeping velocity spread as low as possible; others paid little attention to that.
Most of us liked the option of the VLD chamfer tools and prefer the powered trimmers to keep case mouths good and square. We did differ on the idea of when—during the case preparation process—to clean the cases. Some preferred to tumble their brass first thing, with the mindset being that only a savage would run dirty brass into a resizing die, and they also wanted to avoid any potential dents in the case mouths during tumbling. Others wanted to resize first, as the tumbling process would clean the primer pockets and remove any lubricant that remained after a wipe down.
I use a combination of both ideas, but I incorporate a universal decapping die, in order to pop out the spent primer first and then tumble my brass, running clean cases into my resizing die. I don’t suppose it’d be detrimental to resize before tumbling—though it may require you to clean your sizing die a bit more often. We were all split on case lubricant choices; I generally prefer the Imperial Sizing Wax, while many others like the Hornady One Shot lubricant in the aerosol can. Among the lot of us, there were only a couple who annealed their brass cases.
We were nearly unanimous on the idea of micrometer adjustable seating dies, with everyone agreeing they give those finite adjustments that make a big difference, especially with the latest crop of long-ogive bullets.
Talking Shop
I got a chuckle when the conversation turned to pet loads, as we all had our own secret recipe, and when we compared notes for the more popular cartridges, there was no shortage of cocked eyebrows. “You’ve got to try Powder X in the .300 Winchester; it’s the best!” Now, Powder X was a different choice for almost all of us, as was the “bullet that worked best.” Cell phone photos of targets showed each of us was telling the truth, yet got to the accuracy result from a different direction.
Monometal bullets often have multiple grooves cut in the shank of the bullet to reduce pressure, and a powder on the faster end of the spectrum can keep velocities higher and more consistent. Photo: Massaro Media Group.
All in all, the techniques we discussed weren’t all that different, though each of us had his own little quirks and habits. It was quite obvious that reloaders love talking shop, and while there was a lot of experience amassed in that backyard, we were all open to hearing new ideas and techniques. I’m always open to hearing someone else’s experiences—it was nice to have my theory of monometal bullets liking powders on the faster side of the burn rate chart validated by others—as it helps me learn and saves me time. As my grandfather used to say, “Life is too short to make all the mistakes yourself; learn from the mistakes of others.”
There are plenty of good books written on the basic reloading process—and I’ll unabashedly include my own A-B-Cs of Reloading, 10th edition—and each might offer a slightly different technique. I’ll leave it like this: As long as it’s safe and it feels comfortable to you, there are many correct answers to the same question.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the November 2022 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
We take a quick look at Weatherby’s new lightweight Mark V Backcountry Guide and Guide Ti hunting rifles.
Weatherby is continuing to expand its Backcountry line, this time with two models of lightweight mountain hunting rifles. Called the Mark V Backcountry Guide and the Mark V Backcountry Ti, the two models are available in 12 different chambering options, and 6 of those are available in left-handed options as well.
The greatest appeal of the new Backcountry Mark V Guide rifles is how lightweight they are, making them ideal for being carried for long distances. The standard models range from 5.4 pounds to 6.6 pounds depending on their chambering, and the titanium-action Ti models range from 5.1 pounds to 5.9 pounds. Chambering options include .240 Wby Mag., .243 Win., .257 Wby Mag., .280 Ackley Improved, .300 PRC, .300 Wby. Mag., .300 Win., .308 Win., 6.5 Creedmoor, 6.5 Wby. RPM, 6.5-300 Wby. Mag. and 7mm PRC.
Designed to be handy in the field, Backcountry Mark V Guide rifles feature shorter barrel lengths than usual. They also feature Peak 44 Blacktooth carbon fiber stocks that are durable, lightweight and come with two factory-installed Spartan Precision Gunsmithing adapters on the forend as well as a Blacktooth 3D Hex recoil pad. Other notable features include threaded BSF carbon fiber barrels, adjustable TriggerTech triggers, Accubrake ST muzzle brakes and their Cerakote finish.
The standard model Weatherby Backcountry Mark V Guide has an MSRP of $3,299 and the Ti version with a titanium action has an MSRP of $3,799.
We take a quick look at the .480 Ruger cartridge, Bill Ruger’s handheld namesake.
After a half-century of production, millions of shooters use Bill Ruger’s firearms—but only one very special pistol cartridge bears the man’s name. The .480 Ruger was never intended to be the biggest and heaviest-recoiling handgun cartridge on the block. It splits the difference between the .44 Remington Magnum and .454 Casull cartridges.
Using a Hornady 325-grain XTP Magnum bullet (diameter 0.475 inch) and Hornady brass, the .480 Ruger offers a significant velocity and energy increase over the .44 Remington Magnum cartridge, but without the recoil disadvantage of other super-powered handgun cartridges.
The key to delivering the two-thirds of a ton of muzzle energy is a well-reasoned balance among bullet weight, velocity and operating pressure, in a cartridge derived from the venerable .45-70 case.
The cartridge is chambered in Ruger’s rugged double-action six-shooter, the Super Redhawk, which wears an integral scope mounting system on the top strap. It has served big-game handgun hunters and metallic silhouette target shooters with distinction.
We discuss the development, design, history and use of the FN FNC, an oft-forgotten Cold War military rifle.
It took years for NATO to agree to standardize on the 7.62x51mm cartridge only for the U.S. to turn around and lobby for the adoption of the 5.56x45mm cartridge instead. This made many European countries in the NATO alliance feel as if the U.S. was trying to force them to buy American equipment, and they weren’t happy about it.
Many of these nations were using 7.62 FN FAL rifles at this point, and while they’re excellent guns, NATO leadership saw the writing on the wall that 5.56 was the next logical progression in cartridge choice.
FN had developed the FN CAL (Carabine Automatique Légère), a rifle that was essentially a scaled-down version of the FAL chambered for 5.56 that was designed to replace the FAL, but the CAL fell short of its big brother’s reputation. Part of the design intention for the CAL was to be a cheaper rifle to produce, but it ultimately proved to still be too complicated and expensive among other issues. FN knew that a new design was needed, and by the early 1970s, FN introduced the FNC (Fabrique Nationale Carabine)—the heir apparent to the FN FAL.
For the most part, its reception was crickets. NATO countries did not jump at the chance to adopt the FN FNC.
The FNC was an excellent rifle design, but it never approached the popularity of the FN FAL during its lifetime. By the 1980s when the FNC design was refined and improved, many countries were already looking at more modern rifle designs like bullpups or had simply embraced the M16 platform. Never quite in the right place at the right time, the FN FNC is truly an underappreciated Cold War military rifle.
FN FNC Development
As mentioned, FN’s first attempt at a 5.56 version of the FAL was the CAL, but it ultimately just wasn’t a good design and never really went anywhere other than the sale of a few small batches. Besides some problems with the rifle itself, the goal of this endeavor was to make a gun that was very inexpensive to manufacture. While cheaper and simpler than the FAL, it was still too complicated and expensive to produce.
The story of the FNC really starts in the early 1970s when the French military was interested in a carbine-length rifle chambered in 5.56, and the French were already internally developing the FAMAS to fill that need. The French were open to adopting a foreign design, however, as they had tested the FN CAL in earlier trials. They rejected the CAL, however, and this inspired FN to go back to the drawing board and refine it into the FNC in hopes that they could still get a piece of the military contract pie. The French didn’t end up biting as they adopted the FAMAS instead, but the story doesn’t end there for the FNC.
By 1976, the design had been improved and the new prototype rifle was called the FNC 76. This version took part in some Swedish military trials, but newly discovered issues resulted in FN going back for some further development. By 1980, it was dubbed the FNC 80, and this is essentially the final version of the original FN design.
The FNC did not experience the widespread NATO adoption that FN hoped for, but it was still a relatively successful product for the company. A few countries purchased rifles outright, and two of those would go on to license production from FN so they could build their own. Indonesia adopted the FNC in 1982, and later the firearms manufacturer PT Pindad licensed the design to produce a modified version called the Pindad SS1. This licensed copy was tweaked for the tropical environments of Indonesia and Indonesian armed forces have relied on the SS1 and the updated SS2 ever since.
In the meantime, the Swedish military conducted trials and adopted a modified FNC design into service in 1986 as the Ak 5. Sweden is the only other country besides Belgium and Indonesia to build the rifles themselves. Belgium, the home of FN Herstal, would also adopt the FNC as a replacement for their aging FN FALs.
Some smaller nations like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tonga, Sri Lanka, El Salvador and others also adopted the FNC, and it continues to see service around the world today.
An El Salvadorian soldier with his FNC. Photo: Wikipedia.
How The FNC Works
The FNC was designed as a select-fire rifle with a gas-operated long-stroke piston system with a rotating two-lug bolt. Sounds a lot like an AK, doesn’t it? Well, the engineers at FN went with simplicity when designing the FNC and it resulted in some fundamental similarities with the Kalashnikov system. That said, the two designs are still very different and have zero parts compatibility between them.
The FN FNC carbine has a barrel length of 14.3 inches and an overall length of 35.9 inches with the stock extended. One nice feature of the FNC is that the stock folds to the right of the receiver and it can be fired with the stock folded. The overall length of the carbine model with the stock folded is 26.3 inches and it weighs 8.2 pounds. A rifle version with a 17.7-inch barrel was also produced.
As for magazines, the FNC is compatible with STANAG M16 mags, but they’re not entirely identical. While both types of mags will function in both rifles, the FNC does not lock open after the last round is fired so the follower of its magazine has no bolt-hold-open feature like those of M16s/AR-15s.
The FNC’s sights are reminiscent of the FAL and consist of a rear sight with flip apertures, one for 250 meters and the other for 400 meters, and an adjustable post front sight protected by two sturdy wings. The FNC could be equipped with an optic, but it was designed in an era when optics were not the norm on military rifles.
Cost was a large consideration when developing the rifle, hence it is built with less expensive components. The lower receiver is aluminum, similar to an M16, and the upper is stamped steel similar to many other military rifles of the era like the AK. Stamped steel is more cost-effective than machined aluminum, though it does add weight to a design. Despite having a barrel that’s just over 2 inches longer, an M16A1 weighs about 2 pounds less than the rifle variant of the FNC, though that also has to do with their different operating mechanisms.
Controls on the FNC are similar to the M16. On the right side of the lower receiver is a familiar-looking magazine release button. On the left side is a 4-position fire-selector that allows the user to flip between automatic, 3-round burst, semi-auto and safe. One interesting feature of the FNC is its moving dust cover for the reciprocating charging handle. The spring-loaded dust cover is positioned over the charging handle slot in the upper receiver and as the charging handle moves rearward when cycling, it moves to cover the slot when firing, keeping the internals protected at all times.
Here you can see the dust cover to the left of the charging handle. It moves out of the way when the action is cycled, keeping the system closed at all times. Photo: Rock Island Auction Company.
The FNC’s gas regulator is another good piece of design worth discussing. This is because unlike being located on the gas block on the muzzle-end of the barrel like on most guns with adjustable gas, the FNC’s is instead found on the top of the barrel at the breach end next to the receiver. This allows for the regulator to stay cool to the touch so it can be operated with your fingers after firing enough to heat up the system. The FNC regulator has just two positions, one for normal firing mode and one for adverse mode which directs all the gas into the piston in the event the rifle is fouled and needs more gas to cycle. A gas cut-off lever is also built into the front sight base for launching rifle grenades.
An image from FN's FNC operator's manual. Notice how its upper and lower receivers mate similarly to an AR, but its bolt carrier is attached to the long-stroke piston like an AK.
The FNC field strips similarly to an M16, with two captured pins holding the upper receiver to the lower receiver, but it also strips a bit like an AK as the bolt carrier/piston assembly is a single component.
Legacy Of The FN FNC
While the FNC has been used in many smaller conflicts across the globe, it never became a notable gun that was very strongly associated with any of them. As a Cold War rifle, it was always overshadowed by AKs, M16s, and battle rifles like the G3 or even the FN FAL that inspired it. Interestingly, the conflict that the FNC may become the most strongly associated with is one that is still ongoing: the Russo-Ukrainian War. This is because Belgium donated a large number of rifles as aid to Ukraine and they’ve been seen in the hands of many Ukrainian soldiers since then. This donation garnered some attention within the gun world and brought the oft-forgotten FNC back to the minds of many shooters.
A Ukrainian soldier with an FNC. Photo: mil.gov.ua.
That said, it’s highly likely at this point that the most lasting legacy of the FN FNC will be from Hollywood rather than any real-world conflict. This is because the FNC was prominently used by Al Pacino’s character in the most famous scene of Michael Mann’s iconic heist movie Heat. The film is a must-watch for any gun guy, and it provided some of the best footage of the FNC in action that exists. Is it a rifle that a Los Angeles detective in the 1990s would actually have? Of course not, but the rule of cool trumps realism every time.
Al Pacino in Heat (1995) firing an FN FNC carbine. Photo: imfdb.org.
Owning An FNC Today
About 6,000 semi-automatic sporter FNC rifles were imported into the U.S. before the 1989 ban. The importers were Steyr, HOWCO and Gun South, and between them, they brought in a few variants with different barrel lengths and stock configurations.
If you want to own an FNC today, be prepared to drop some big bucks. Of the roughly 6,000 rifles imported before 1989, a large number of those were legally converted to transferable machine guns before the registry closed in 1986. This means that of the relatively few that were imported, even fewer of them are still standard semi-auto rifles, resulting in their value going up quite a bit. For a normal, used semi-auto model, online prices are currently hovering at around $7,000. For a transferable machine gun FNC, average prices are closer to $30,000.
The high price of the semi-autos is further explained by another complicating factor: transferable auto sears. To make a long story short, because the upper assembly of the FNC is what’s legally classified as a firearm in the U.S. (as opposed to the lower receiver on an AR), it makes it legally possible to modify an FNC's lower to accept a registered auto sear. On an AR-15, because the lower is legally the firearm, it's been impossible to do this since the registry closed in 1986 as it requires modifying the lower which counts as manufacturing a new machine gun.
S&H Arms realized this before the registry closed in 1986, so they manufactured and registered as many FNC auto sears as physically possible. The result is that there are almost certainly more registered FNC auto sears in the U.S. than FNC rifles themselves. For many years, this meant that the FNC was one of the easiest and most affordable machine guns to acquire post-1986, as all one needed to do was buy a semi-auto FNC alongside one of the abundant registered auto sears and put the two together. This, of course, raised the desirability of semi-auto FNCs along with their prices, and today they’re very expensive regardless of whether you want one as a machine gun host or not.
The Pindad SS1-C pistol.
If you still want to own one but don’t have very deep pockets, don’t despair just yet. At SHOT Show 2024, Pindad of Indonesia had some interesting guns on display, including a semi-auto FNC variant called the SS1-C. For importation reasons it appears that they will legally be pistols and brought in without stocks, but registering one as an SBR would allow you to add one. These are yet to hit U.S. shores and no price has been announced, but if these are successfully imported they’ll almost certainly be less expensive than any of the FN-made guns currently available on the second-hand market. Here’s to hoping that Pindad’s efforts will help bring about a small FNC renaissance in the States. We’ll be eager to review one if they ever become available.
More Classic Military Guns:
Why The Mauser C96 “Broomhandle” Still Looms Large
Looking to go armed, but are stuck in the weeds as to what to arm yourself with? Here are 20 excellent concealed carry gun options that will keep you on the defensive.
