We take a look at Stan Chen Customs’ excellent aftermarket 1911 thumb safeties.
It’s easy to become a snob in this business. There are many truly good products, but by the same measure, there can’t be too many. I’ve known Stan Chen for (mumble, mumble, how many years?) a good long time, and he never ceases to amaze me.
He just sent me some of his thumb safeties—and wow. OK, so you want a safety on your 1911, but which one? How big, what shape, what need?
Stan makes three; they’re all stainless, and they’re all perfect.
You’ve got the “baby bear,” which is the short, narrow, thumb safety for deep concealment.
If you have bigger hands or less need of deep concealment, then the “mama” safety—the longer and wider one, but not too long or wide—will serve you perfectly.
And then, for those who don’t worry about concealment or have learned to dress around the gun and want all the leverage they can get, there’s the “papa” safety—longer, wider but not lower. (Not a ’49 Hudson, so to speak. It’s an inside joke.) Open carry, competition, or just “I want a big safety.”
The Stan Chen Custom thumb safeties come in two steels, blue and stainless, and three sizes. One of these will be perfect for you.
All three are de-horned, so there are no sharp edges or corners to bite or gnaw your hands. They are all deeply grooved on top, so you will have full purchase to press them off when the noisy times commence. With the deep grooving, those of you who are doing it properly, that is, your thumb riding on the safety when firing, will not have to worry about your thumb slipping off during recoil.
And they are, after being machined, bead-blasted so they don’t show the toolmarks (not that Stan would leave any) and will blend in with any finish except a polished stainless or nickel 1911. (Who does that?)
And those of you who have had an opportunity to wrestle with various 1911s will appreciate this: The detent angles and engagement surfaces have been designed and engineered so it clicks on and off cleanly and precisely. No squish, no “is it off or on?” where is the lever riding—Stan won’t have it otherwise.
The thumb safeties are precisely machined, ergonomically correct, aggressively grooved and bead-blasted for a final finish. No bites, nibbles or sharp edges to cut you.
They do require fitting, because there is no such thing as a drop-in thumb safety on a 1911. And since you are springing for top-end parts, you might want to practice on a lesser thumb safety before touching a file to a Stan Chen Custom part.
If stainless isn’t your thing, or you have a blued 1911 and don’t want the contrasting finish, of course Stan makes them in blued steel. C’mon, get real. The safeties, like all the other Stan Chen Custom parts, are made in-house by Stan or an assistant who has been trained by Stan. Stan doesn’t send things out or have subcontractors and thus doesn’t have to gauge everything nor negotiate “good enough” specs and dimensions. It’s right or it doesn’t get packaged and shipped.
Quality doesn’t come cheap, but remember the old adage, “Buy right, cry once.” At $75 to $80 each, you could buy any of a wide selection of thumb safeties for less … even half that. And after you’ve fitted it, then de-horned it and adjusted the up-and-down engagement, the saved money will be nothing but a memory, replaced by the recollection of the hassle of refining your “inexpensive” part.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the July 2024 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
We take a deeper look at the history of the 1911, tracking its journey from the mind of John Browning to its place today as the most iconic American handgun ever made.
When the late physicist Stephen Hawking was working on his book, A Brief History of Time, his publisher told him that each equation he used would cut the book sales in half. He rolled the dice and risked it, including just one equation. The book was a success, and when it came time to update it to a second edition, he included a second equation. I’m no Hawking, but I will resist putting in equations unless necessary. And I’ll try to be brief.
You may hear 1911 fans talk about “Saint John” or “The Mormon Genius.” The period we’re looking at here is the last decade of the 19th century. Smokeless powder was still new but was around long enough that gunmakers were now comfortable with it. A self-loading pistol would be the hot new property to make some lucky somebody rich. The bolt-action rifle had been perfected (several times, in fact). While the double-action revolver was a good thing, Smith & Wesson had revealed in 1898 the frame that would become the K-Frame and the .38 Special to go with it—a self-loading pistol would be a real money-maker.
The only problem was design. And the designers of the age were stuck in the “receiver and breechblock” paradigm. The exemplar here would be the Luger, which was a receiver with a barrel screwed into it, just like rifles, and used a breechblock that cycled inside of the receiver. Another was the Mauser Broomhandle, the C96. Again, a barrel in a receiver and a cyclical breechblock. The difference is that the Luger breechblock locks itself, and the C96 locks to the lower frame.
Along came John Moses Browning. He had been designing rifles and shotguns for Winchester for 15 years, and his latest was a self-loading shotgun. He wanted to make some real money with this one and spurned the customary process of a flat fee from Winchester for the design. He wanted royalties, a piece of the action. Winchester declined (one of the stupidest decisions ever made in the history of, well, history), so Browning headed off to Belgium, after several other problems, for a meeting with the new firm of Fabrique Nationale. Having fulfilled its Belgian Army rifle contract, FN needed new products and customers. Browning arranged for them to make his shotgun, which he would purchase for export to the U.S. and which FN could manufacture and sell in Europe.
Browning also had a self-loading pistol design, the FN1900, which FN executives fell all over themselves to acquire. Browning had been working on it for a while, and it was a transitional design—a kinda-sorta receiver-and-breech system. The barrel was screwed into the frame, but the breech looked like a slide, and it was blowback, so there was no need to lock the mechanism. It was chambered in a new cartridge, the .32 ACP, which Browning designed for the pistol. It was flat, compact, lightweight, reliable, and accurate, and, in 1900, no one sneered at the .32 as a defensive cartridge. It sold like hotcakes. FN made and sold a million of them in the next 12 years. The sales of the FN1900 slowed down mainly because Browning himself came up with better designs in short order.
The FN1900 is the pistol that saved Fabrique Nationale from bankruptcy and established John Moses Browning as a pistol and rifle designer. He even developed the cartridge for it, the .32 Auto. No design aspect of this pistol made it into the 1911.
But, the 1900 was already an obsolete design even before the first one left the Liege factory. Browning was also working with Colt, for which he had designed a new approach to pistol mechanisms: the slide enclosing a barrel and the slide and barrel lock to each other, not to the frame or receiver. The Colt 1900 (yes, two Browning pistols, each called the 1900 by two different manufacturers, in different calibers. Browning was a busy and prolific designer.)
The Colt 1900 and its successors appear odd to us. Browning had ideas about what worked, but the end-users had their own. Things like a safety that was the rear sight and had to be pushed to permit firing didn’t go over well. And that brings us to the reason for many of the details on the 1911 that we see today: the U.S. Cavalry. The Cavalry was the premier arm of land militaries in all armies of the period. They were the paratroopers, special ops, SEALs, Rangers and LRRPs of their day, all rolled into one. And they used pistols. Oh, they had rifles, but a pistol and a saber (or sabre) were the classic arms of a cavalryman. And while the Colt 1900 showed significant promise, there were things about it that they did not like.
First, the cartridge. In 1900, the .38 Auto was a hot number. A 130-grain bullet at 1,100 fps was plenty good enough for people, but cavalry had to stop horses. So, it had to be a .45, or they would not buy it. Second, many functions of the Colt 1900 required two-handed operation. So Browning, in the next decade, would change, alter, redesign, and ditch whatever he must to use a .45 cartridge (and stand up to hard use and long service life) and make it as much as possible a one-handed pistol. That’s why all of the controls on a 1911 pistol can be managed with one hand: your firing hand. Safety on and off, magazine drop, slide release—they take one hand. To load it took two, but hey, there were limits even for Browning.
He did all this design work at a time when the average man stood 5 feet 8 inches tall, and the word “ergonomic” hadn’t been coined, yet he was a master of ergonomics. And, like the FN1900, the resulting 1911 was flat, powerful, accurate, reliable, durable and sold like hotcakes.
Much like the original 1900, the first 1911 had some design quirks. Bill Laughridge, owner of Cylinder & Slide, went to the trouble in the early 21st century of recreating the exact design of the first-production 1911, in the details before the various changes were made, as a centennial model. He tracked down as many un-molested original pistols as possible from the first production run and made exact replicas. These were beautiful pistols, pistols that were maddening in some regards. I tested one, and he asked me not to take the magazine catch assembly apart. “No one has ever managed to take one apart and reassemble it without scratching the finish,” he said. And a beautiful, mirror-finish blue job it was, I might add, so I did not take it apart.
One aspect of Browning’s design genius is that the grips aside, the 1911 is not held together by screws, pins, or other fasteners. Instead, he used interlocking assemblies, which lock each other into a mechanism and require a specific sequence to assemble or disassemble. That’s part of what we’ll be covering in this book.
With the manufacturing, assembly, and maintenance details taken care of, we entered World War I, and Colt made as many 1911 pistols as possible. Springfield Armory (the government arsenal, not the later company) also produced pistols. Post-war, the Army wanted changes based on feedback and use in The Great War. Those changes resulted in the 1911A1, which included larger sights (still minuscule by today’s standards), a grip safety tang and hammer spur combo that didn’t bite, and an arched mainspring housing.
Leading up to WWII, the government actually had some foresight and engaged the services of a few companies to let them learn how to make 1911A1s “just in case.” Just in case quickly turned into “make them now, as many as you can” and they made millions.
Even the Singer Sewing Machine Company got into the act in WWII, doing a test run of 1911A1s, all 500 of them. Finding one of these is like getting a winning lottery ticket.
One detail about the 1911 that might interest Glock fans is that parts interchangeability was paramount to the companies producing 1911A1s for the WWII effort. Government inspectors would look over pistols as they were being made to ensure quality. Each lot of 5,000 handguns had a certain number test-fired to more than the “magazine’s worth of ammo to make sure it works” level. One in each lot was fired a whole lot more than that, and if it failed, the entire lot would be rejected, reworked, and tested again. And, at regular intervals, representatives of each company would meet and bring a box of regular production pistols with them. They would each disassemble a pistol and toss all the parts from each manufacturer’s pistol into bins. Then, the handguns would be assembled by those present, who grabbed a random part from the bin until the samples were all back together again. The resulting pistols would be inspected and test-fired. If a pistol failed, an immediate analysis would determine which part was the problem, who made it, and the problem corrected.
Everyone got into the act when it came time to tool up for World War II. It was patriotic to shoulder part of the war effort, and Union Switch & Signal did a contract run of 1911A1s. They are now rarities of the first order, as Union only made 55,000.
Once the war ended, and we had more 1911A1s than we’d need for decades, all the institutional knowledge vanished. The Army immediately started looking for a replacement, which would not be concluded for over 40 years. (And this would not be the only time it would take decades to replace something. The Army is still looking for a replacement for the Browning .50 machine gun, which first saw service in 1921. My prediction is that it never will.)
During the ’50s and ’60s, the only place the 1911A1 saw use (well, in the holsters of GIs and Marines, but pistols in military service are way down on the list of essential items, except to the people who are getting shot at) was in Bullseye competition. As a general rule, if a tool is used in one environment for one purpose, it will be gradually or not-so-gradually modified by the users until it is suited only to that use. A Bullseye 1911, while accurate, wasn’t useful elsewhere. And with no other design driver, the choices were USGI, box-stock as it were, or a 1911/1911A1 set up for Bullseye. Then, the IPSC (International Practical Shooting Confederation) came along. The idea that a pistol, especially a 1911, could be both accurate and reliable was new to many. But it could be built that way. You might snicker, but in the early days of IPSC competition, the standard of reliability we strove for was no more than one malfunction per thousand rounds fired. Part of the learning process was the pistol, part the magazine and part the ammunition, but we could exceed that level with work. And at that level of reliability, the 1911 delivered Bullseye-level accuracy.
This is the kind of accuracy you could expect from an IPSC gun of the 1980s (and this is a Brownells’ recreation of the same) when fed the classic IPSC load of a 200-grain L-SWC and 5.8 grains of WWS-231. This was a limited run, so don’t look for it in Brownells’ catalog.
A brief aside: It is now common for 1911s to be far better than that old-school “one malf (malfunction) in a thousand” reliability standard. These days, you might never see a 1911-induced malfunction shooting a current-production pistol. And it is typical for them to be quite accurate. Les Baer guarantees his pistols will shoot no larger than 3 inches at 50 yards, and you can pay a bit extra to get 1.5 inches at 50 yards accuracy.
One obstacle to that performance level was Colt itself, which spent much of the 20th century in dire economic straits. It just couldn’t get a break between two World Wars (and the miscalculations involved in over-working machinery, etc.), economic downturns and at least one factory flooding. For the last half of the 20th century, Colt was owned by one or another conglomerate that viewed it as a cash cow, and thus, it was always strapped for new machines, designs and labor. My Colt Series 70 is an example.
In 1981, I attended the Targetworld National Championships. In those early years, IPSC was like drag racing, and if your match could get enough people from enough states, you’d call it a national championship. By looking over the sign-up sheet and seeing who was where (the list of top shooters was small enough that we all knew each other, not that I was a “top shooter” in 1981), I managed to place high enough as a Pro shooter to win a gun. That prize of a new-in-the-box Colt Series 70 was magnificent. And it was unreliable. One in a thousand? It wouldn’t go a full magazine without a malfunction. And it wouldn’t “malf” the same way twice in a row. In desperation, I learned gunsmithing to make my pistol work properly. And that was the case for all of us back then. By the early ’80s, the 1911s to build on were GI-standard surplus 1911/1911A1s or Colts. Both needed work to be competitive; they just needed different kinds of work.
After the 1911 and A1 were issued, they were everywhere. Here, Private Stack of 9 Commando, at Anzio, is all set with his.
And that is the source of the urban myths—myths now, back then, truths—about the 1911 that “It needs a gunsmith to be reliable” or “You can have reliability or accuracy, but not both.” Today, no one makes an unreliable 1911 simply because they would be out of business quickly if they did.
Into the 1980s, the standard 1911 for IPSC was a 5-inch .45 ACP. And the Power Factor for Major was 185. (For example, a 230-grain round nose going 805 fps is now called a +P load.) But two competitors, Robbie Leatham and Brian Enos, changed that. Just as we were all learning about the advantages of a “comp,” a compensator, they also switched to .38 Super. Comps work by re-directing muzzle gases. The Super runs at a higher pressure, and higher pressure gases are better than lower for comps. In short order, we had all switched over to .38 Supers; then they got red-dot optics, and then a few years later, we swapped our single-stack red-dot guns for hi-cap Supers with red-dots. By 1995, you were uncompetitive if you were not running a red-dot hi-cap Super with 28-round magazines. And the howls of “not real-world” were deafening. (I can’t help but look around now at hi-cap, comped 9mm pistols for everyday carry, with slide-mounted red dots, and smile a little.)
The evolution of the IPSC gun happened so fast at times that it was hard to keep up. In the fall of 1989, this was a top-end competition gun without the optics. A year later, even with the optic, it was obsolete for winning matches.
The early 1990s saw a new 1911 design with a plastic grip and a steel rail section made by STI. Now, it is named Staccato, and there are other makers of the same approach, from overseas and here in the U.S. by Springfield Armory.
Look around you today and see how many shooters carrying a pistol for defense (and law enforcement agencies) have a red-dot optic on a 9mm holding at least 17 rounds, and with some straight from the factory compensated, and consider again the guy in your gun club who says “competition isn’t real” and “IPSC will get you killed.” No, competition pushes the boundaries. Determining if the changes benefit you in a defensive role is up to you.
Simultaneously, the equipment categories in IPSC (by then, the USPSA or the United States Practical Shooting Association) fragmented. The origins of “run what you brung” had proven what won, but not everyone wanted to be shooting a Super. So, competition added equipment divisions. And there, the .40 S&W proved to be—for various, arcane reasons—the alternative to the Super in some divisions. The Production Division allowed 9mm pistols to compete and grow until IPSC/USPSA, the home of the .45 1911, had most competitors shooting a 9mm pistol that wasn’t a 1911. Such is life.
In the mid-1980s, Springfield Armory saved us from Colt by offering 1911A1s. At first, they were parts kits, everything you needed to assemble a 1911A1 in the box, but no tools, assembly required, or batteries were included. I won a bunch, bought them, and built them. Springfield Armory then offered assembled pistols and sponsored competitions. Other companies entered the competition field and offered their guns, gear and equipment—so much so that you could shoot in a local club’s annual championship and win a Springfield. If you practiced and were good, you could win enough loot to build a better gun, load enough ammo to get better, and then really get a leg up on the competition.
As did Colt and Smith & Wesson, Springfield sponsored a team, and smaller, specialized companies would sponsor individual shooters. The era of the professional practical shooter was born. The top shooters could travel the circuit, compete, win, get paid, and, on the side, be paid to teach other shooters. Of course, this was a gypsy life, spending most of the year on the road, and divorces and near-divorces were common.
By the mid-to-late 1980s, it looked like the days of the 1911 were over. Oh, it would still maintain a presence in Bullseye, at least as long as those using it were still competing. But the 1980s saw the rise of the “Wonder-nine” high-capacity 9mm pistols with a double-action firing mechanism and holding many rounds. A Browning Hi Power didn’t much threaten a 1911 with 7+1 of .45 ACP with 13+1 rounds of 9mm. But a G17 with 17+1? An S&W M59, a Sig P226, a Beretta 92, and more to come? With the adoption of the M9 for military use and police acceptance of 9mms, ammo makers were turning to make hollow-points that actually expanded.
The 1911’s days were numbered. But they were saved by, of all people, Bill Clinton. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 vilified some features of the AR-15 and made magazines of over 10 rounds verboten. This did two things: First, tell Americans they can’t have something and many will ask, ”Where can I buy one?” By the time the ban expired 10 years later, there were markedly more AR-15 manufacturers than before.
And in the pistolverse, people rightly figured, “If I can only have 10 rounds, I want 10 big ones, not smaller ones.” A G17 with a 10-round magazine was just stupid. And at the height of all this, Glock 17-round magazines were offered for as high as $150 per. (No, I’m not kidding or making it up. I don’t know if any sold, but that was the asking price.) The sales of 1911s jumped.
If you get lucky and score a CMP pistol, it will be rebuilt like this Range-Grade 1911A1. The happy owner has kitted it out with the right web gear, holster and ammo box.
At the beginning of the 21st century, Kimber decided (after various business changes) to get into the 1911 market. But, rather than make stock guns—as Springfield had when it entered—Kimber went semi-custom. It could exploit modern manufacturing techniques and build a 1911 with mid-level custom details as a production item and sell for less than you’d pay a custom pistolsmith to upgrade your box-stock pistol. Similarly, the Dan Wesson company jumped in and offered semi-custom features on production guns. Rock Island Arsenal brought parts and pistols from the Philippines, and its catalog is full of options. The newest entrants are the Turkish makers, such as Tisas, which make custom-featured 1911s at excellent prices compared to what we paid for those as extras “back in the day.”
The price of USGI 1911s has gotten so high that 1911 makers are now producing GI clones. This Rock Island Armory only needs some USGI plastic grips to be a close enough copy that you’d have to look at the slide to see the difference.
Now, a couple of decades later, if you want a USGI-level pistol, you must hunt down that variant in a catalog of 1911s because everything else is now semi-custom or higher-featured. Of course, at the moment, the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) is selling off the 1911s and 1911A1s it has, so if you get lucky and score one, you can get a real-deal GI pistol. It won’t be new; it will be rebuilt, but it will also cost you less than an identical one would require in gunsmithing should you win one at an auction. Today, the details you can get out of the box on newly made pistols are often better than custom-built ones in the old days and for less cost. And yet, anything made by the hand of man is imperfect. So, your 1911 might need some work. Or you want something a bit different from what the maker offers. Or, you have worked yours hard, and it needs some TLC. Maybe you want to know how things work, what cleaning entails, or what a given part does in the scheme of things.
Heritage Manufacturing has just announced the Roscoe, a classic .38 Spl revolver available with two barrel length options.
The popularity of snub-nose revolvers as concealed carry guns has dwindled over the decades, but it never died out. That said, most available today have modern features, finishes and aesthetics. For those with a penchant for the classics, especially anyone who wants to emulate the noir detectives of old, Cerakote and rubber grips just won’t cut it. With a marked lack of affordable, retro carry revolvers on the market, Heritage Manufacturing is aiming to fill the void with the Roscoe.
Made in Brazil, the Heritage Roscoe is a 5-shot .38 Special +P DA/SA revolver that features all the classic style of the guns of yesteryear. Namely, an attractive glossy, polished black finish and old-school wood grips. They’re available with either a 3-inch or a 2-inch barrel as well. Other features of the Roscoe revolver worth mentioning include the fixed serrated blade front sight, fixed rear sight and the inclusion of a transfer bar safety.
Heritage Manufacturing said this about the new revolvers:
Inspired by the hard-boiled detectives battling mob crime, the movie sleuths, and the real-world cops of yesteryears, the Heritage Roscoe pays homage to these legends with its classic design and rugged performance. Crafted with meticulous attention to detail, the Roscoe features a deep glossy polished black finish, reminiscent of the iconic firearms of the era.
Both the 2-inch and the 3-inch models of the Heritage Roscoe are available now and they share an MSRP of $363.99.
When it comes to guns, everything is a tradeoff. With defensive handguns, that means balancing accuracy, power and speed.
The USPSA (United States Practical Shooting Association) represents more than 37,000 members and more than 400 affiliated clubs. It’s the largest practical shooting association in the United States, and it’s the second largest region within IPSC (International Practical Shooting Confederation), which was founded in part by Jeff Copper.
Collectively, IPSC and USPSA have provided a test bed for equipment and techniques, some of which are now standard for police and military training. There are three letters displayed on the USPSA logo—DVC—and they represent the foundational guide for both organizations.
DVC are initials for the Latin words, Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas, which mean accuracy, power and speed. The acronym was popularized by former Marine, firearms trainer and gun writer, Jeff Cooper, who also founded the American Pistol Institute, now known as Gunsite Academy. Maybe to the annoyance of some, I routinely reference Cooper in this column. But, like Robbie Barrkman, who was the first gunsmith at Gunsite and founder of Robar, I believe we can link everything related to the defensive handgun today to the work and philosophy of Cooper. Yes, there have been advancements, but Cooper laid the foundation.
As established by Cooper, DVC is a triangular approach to the application of the defensive handgun. It’s a triangle that every shooter must balance so that they can deliver a sufficient level of power, accurately and as fast as possible. In an article written by Jeremy D. Clough, he compares DVC to a quote from Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest who famously said, “Get there the firstest with the mostest.”
This is a great analogy and good advice, but DVC, as it relates to the use of a defensive handgun, will be different for everyone. What’s often overlooked is that you must balance DVC to best suit you.
Diligentia = Accuracy
Your accuracy is a skill driven and largely dependent on how fast you shoot.
Of the three elements of DVC, the concept of accuracy is the least negotiable. As it relates to the defensive handgun, it varies from a hit in the lethal area of the target to a hit center mass of the available target. If you must shoot to save your life, bullets placed at the center of the lethal area will most often provide the fastest relief. Short of that, any hit is better than no hit, and a hit located center mass of the available target is the easiest to obtain.
Vis = Power
Power is a product of the cartridge you choose, and it will impact your speed and accuracy. (Left to right: .380 Auto, 9mm Luger, .357 Magnum, .40 Smith & Wesson, .45 Auto and .44 Magnum.)
Cooper felt appropriate defensive handgun power started with the .45 Auto. However, not all shooters are capable of wielding a pistol chambered in .45 Auto efficiently and effectively. For some, the handgun is too big; for others, it recoils too much—and with today’s miniature pistols that are so popular, many can find it impossible to control. This is why the 9mm Luger is so popular: Most shooters can manage it well, either in a duty or ultra-compact pistols.
The point of this element of the DVC triangle is that you need enough power to get the job done. To incorporate these cartridge/power differences, IPSC applies points to hits based on a power factor rating of the cartridge being fired. You are left with logic when it comes to the power decision.
Celeritas = Speed
This doesn’t apply to the speed of the bullet, but to the speed with which you can obtain your hits. It is highly dependent on shooter skill as well as the shooter’s ability to effectively control the power level of the handgun—for subsequent shots/hits—in the size handgun they have chosen to use.
Finding Your Balance
There’s no shortage of self-defense shooting drills for measuring your abilities and skill. I’ve championed several in these pages, such as the Forty-Five Drill and the Step Back Drill. These and others are a measure of accuracy (diligentia) and speed (celeritas). If you can shoot them to standard, you can assume a reasonable level of proficiency.
The unmeasured element here is power (vis). All these drills are easier to shot with a .22 rimfire pistol than they are with a .357 Magnum. You must balance your DVC triangle with the most powerful handgun you can use to obtain good hits—quickly. Since we cannot sacrifice accuracy, it mostly becomes a balance of speed and power.
For example, I’ve found that I can shoot a 5-inch 1911 about 8 percent faster than I can shoot a 4-inch 1911, and about 19 percent faster than I can shoot a 3-inch 1911. Similarly, I can shoot a 4-inch 1911 in 9mm about 14 percent faster than I can shoot a 4-inch 1911 in .45 Auto, but the 9mm does not hit as hard.
The .357 Magnum has a great reputation as a stopper of bad men and gives an edge to the power side of the DVC triangle. But its increased recoil negatively impacts the speed side. For me, I’m about 8 percent slower with a .357 than I am with a .45 Auto. Is that extra power worth the reduction in speed with which I can fire accurate follow-up shots? In my opinion it’s not, and this illustrates the DVC decisions we must all make.
DVC vs. EDC
Balancing DVC is important, but no more than important than finding the right equilibrium between DVC and EDC.
Shooting drills are a great tool to help us make these comparisons and decisions, but DVC cannot measure concealability and carry comfort. No matter how well you shoot whatever gun you might have, if you cannot carry it concealed and comfortably, you probably won’t, and that’s when your insurance policy becomes more important than DVC.
The DVC versus EDC (everyday carry) is another balance that must be found. Like with balancing DVC, the DVC/EDC balance will vary for everyone. Seek guidance, conduct experiments and make your own choices based on your findings. After all, it’s your life that will hang in the balance you find.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the July 2024 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
Math is hard, and MOA can be confusing, so here we deep dive into the minute of angle concept to help refine your long-range accuracy.
MOA, or minute(s) of angle, is a standardized measurement of 1.047 inches at 100 yards that's used as a benchmark for measuring how precise a firearm (typically a rifle) is capable of shooting.
The idea is that one minute of angle, 1 MOA, is a benchmark standard of how tight a rifle can group shots. The smaller the groups, the more precise the weapon is. Rifles that can produce groups smaller than 1 minute of angle are referred to as sub-MOA.
While MOA is something most shooters are certainly aware of, it’s usually not something they’re terribly familiar with either unless they take long-range shooting seriously. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, as it’s not something that most casual shooters regularly need to use, but it’s time to change that if you have any interest in honing your accuracy at extended ranges.
So, let’s dive into exactly what minute of angle is both practically and mathematically, how to use it and what you need to know to avoid common mistakes when dialing in your scope.
A sub-MOA group produced by a Montana Rifle Company Junction in 6.5 CM.
What Is A Minute Of Angle?
First things first, the definition of a minute of angle is an angular measurement equal to 1/60th of a degree. In shooting MOA is handy, because it's used as a measurement of mechanical accuracy. In other words, it's a way of expressing how small a shot group a rifle or other firearm is capable of shooting in perfect conditions.
MOA became a popular way to measure accuracy in the U.S. since 100 yards was a common increment of distance on American rifle ranges. If a rifle could produce a 1-inch group of shots at that distance, aka a 1-MOA group, it was considered an accurate gun. MOA was also a natural fit for American shooters given our use of the imperial system and familiarity with measurements in inches, although it also means that we typically round the true measurement of 1.047 inches down to just 1 inch. More on that later.
MOA matters because it describes a potential shot group size relative to distance. 1 MOA at 100 yards is roughly 1 inch, but it's roughly 5 inches at 500 yards and 0.25 inches at 25 yards. In other words, MOA is really good for predicting shot dispersion at different ranges.
This graphic of a pistol and pie slice helps visualize how a constant MOA value gets larger the farther the muzzle is from the target. This is why a small misalignment at close range can result in major deviations at distance.
As an angular measurement, MOA is also a scalable measurement of windage and elevation adjustments, as you eventually must account for the wind pushing the bullet off target and the bullet naturally dropping over distance.
That makes it not only useful as a unit of measurement for how large your shot group will be but also for scope adjustments or holdover calculations that you may need to make to account for bullet drop and windage.
Okay, so MOA is clearly very useful for certain aspects of shooting, but why are we measuring angles in minutes at all?
MOA Vs. MRADs
That all said, minute of angle isn't the only system for measuring the length of an angle proportional to distance. The other is milliradians, also called mils, MRADs or milli-rads. These days MRAD scopes are nearly as (if not more) popular as MOA models.
One radian is an angle subtended from the center of a circle that intercepts an arc equal in length to the radius of the circle. A milliradian is 1/1000th of a radian, which is useful for measuring small angles at a distance.
The Illuminated ACSS Athena BPR MIL Reticle for the GLx 4-16×50 FFP riflescope.
Just like minutes of angle, an MRAD works out to the size of an arc, in this case the size of the shot group or area that you intend the bullet to land in, proportional to the distance. 1 MRAD is 1 centimeter at 100 meters or 1 meter at 1,000 meters.
Milliradians are technically also easier to deal with mathematically compared to arcminutes and arcseconds since they are base 10 rather than base 60, but that is generally not an issue that shooters will have to deal with. MRAD scopes are growing in popularity, but MOA is still arguably more intuitive to understand for American shooters. Whichever style you decide to use is up to you.
With all that out of the way, how do you put this all to use in the field?
Using MOA For Marksmanship
Understanding minutes of angle became very useful for marksmanship following the advent of scope reticles with MOA hash marks. Before then, scopes on the consumer market typically only featured simple crosshairs.
A Maven MOA reticle in an FFP scope, as seen at 2.5x and 15x. Note the size difference.
Of course, getting the full benefits of understanding MOA requires the shooter to put in work before hitting the field hunting or going to a long-range shooting match. We'll get to that in a moment.
We understand that MOA is an area in proportion to distance: roughly 1 inch at 100 yards, roughly 2 inches at 200 yards and so on. The stadia lines of a riflescope are in MOA intervals, such as 2 MOA or 4 MOA, and the manufacturer will provide these details in the owner's manual.
This comes in handy when you know the range of your target and the ballistics of your particular rifle and load. If you know how many inches your bullet will drop at that range, you can convert it to MOA and use the reticle’s stadia lines to hold in the right spot to compensate for the drop.
If you also know your holds for windage, you can use the hash marks on the horizontal reticle line, as well.
If your scope has exposed/adjustable turrets, you could also make click adjustments on the fly rather than holding over the target using the stadia lines.
Another benefit of reticles of this style is that you can use the lines for range estimation if you know the size of your target.
Even so, you’ll need to put in some work of your own before taking full advantage of these features and techniques.
That’s because in order to make the proper adjustments or calculate the correct holdover, you need to know how your gun and your load correspond to the reticle in your scope. It is very, very rarely that they will perfectly coincide unless you have a scope that is calibrated for a specific load at a specific velocity
For instance, a Trijicon ACOG's reticle is calibrated for 62-grain 5.56mm at the velocities you get from a 20-inch barrel. Put an ACOG on a carbine, and the reticle isn't going to match the point of impact because you've changed the velocity and therefore the trajectory.
Ergo, you have to work up the data on your gun, your load, and how it relates to the reticle in your scope to really be able to put this all together.
Other Factors To Consider When Refining Accuracy
There's the size of the group measured in MOA, but then there's how you produce a group of that size which is another matter entirely.
Mechanical accuracy, meaning the precision that your gun is capable of when all potential complications (the shooter causes most) are removed, is the result of balancing an equation of multiple factors.
How your gun is made, the ammunition you're shooting, the ambient conditions and so on all play a role.
A bolt-action rifle may not be glass- and pillar-bedded, the twist rate might be wrong for the bullet weight you're using (77-grain 5.56 in a 1:12 twist rifle, for instance) and maybe you just can't properly press that terrible trigger correctly.
An increase in humidity or a decrease in temperature can have an effect as well. The rule of thumb is a 0.5- to 1-MOA increase in drop for every 20 degrees Fahrenheit of temperature difference from zeroing. In other words, if you zero at 70 degrees and your bullet drops 4 MOA at 400 yards, expect a 4.5- to 5-MOA drop if you're shooting when it's 50 degrees.
Ammunition can vary from lot to lot, especially if a manufacturer changes powder or primers. That isn't an if that's a when. Propellant formulas change all the time, and you won't know when it's happened until you see results on paper.
This 1.4-MOA group shows that there's still potentially room for improvement. Either with the shooter's skills, the rifle or the ammo.
The point is that the accuracy your rifle is capable of in MOA is one thing on paper, but what it's capable of doing once you're on the range or in the field are two entirely different things.
That's not even touching on mistakes shooters make. Those are just some of the things that can hinder precision without any interference from the person behind the gun.
So, while a proper understanding of how minute of angle plays into measuring accuracy is an important skill, it’s not the most important factor. You are. Once you develop the foundational skills needed to shoot for small groups at long ranges and have the utmost familiarity with your specific shooting setup, that’s the time to start capitalizing on MOA, holdovers and dialing in your scope. Once armed with the knowledge of exactly how your bullet and reticle interact, you can really start shrinking your groups and stretching your rifle’s legs.
More On Long-Range Shooting
Mils vs. MOA: Which Is The Best Long-Range Language?
We take a quick look at .44 Auto Mag, a cartridge with a short and stormy career.
Introduced late in 1971, the .44 Auto Mag cartridge was developed for the Auto Mag pistol designed by the late Harry Sanford of Pasadena, California. The gun was also made and marketed for a few years by High Standard. The cartridge is made by cutting off .30-06 or .308 Winchester cases to a length of 1.30 inches, inside reaming the case neck to accept 0.429-inch bullets and trimming to a length of 1.298 inches. The newly formed case is then loaded with 0.429-inch jacketed bullets of 200 to 240 grains.
For a time, .44 Auto Mag cases were made in Mexico, by Cartuchos Deportivos Mexico and headstamped CDM. Loaded ammunition was later offered by Norma of Sweden. A few custom ammo makers furnished loaded rounds. Dies are made by RCBS. The .44 Auto Mag cartridge was used only in the Auto Mag semi-auto pistol, which is no longer in production.
General Comments
The Auto Mag semi-auto pistol operates on the short recoil principle, with a six-lug, front-locking rotary bolt. Made almost entirely of stainless-steel, it has a 6.5-inch barrel, an overall length of 11.5 inches, and weighs about 3.5 pounds. It was the most powerful commercial semi-auto pistol manufactured at that time. When loaded to maximum, a 200-grain bullet can be pushed at over 1,500 fps, and the 240-grain to 1,400 fps.
.44 Auto Mag Loading Data
Bullet Grains/Type
Powder
Grains
Velocity
Energy
Source
180 JHP
2400
25.0
1,600
1,024
Sierra
200 JHP
W296
26.5
1,500
999
Hornady
240 JHP
W296
24.0
1,350
972
Sierra, Hornady
240 JHP
H110
23.0
1,400
1,045
Hornady
Unfortunately, the Auto Mag pistol had a rather short and stormy career marked by more than its share of manufacturing, marketing and mechanical troubles. The .44 Auto Mag pistol was developed primarily as a sporting gun. It has been used to take all kinds of big game, including deer, elk, moose and Kodiak bear. It’s in the same class as the .44 Magnum.
We discuss whether this garage invasion incident was justified self-defense or an example of excessive force.
In a video circulating on social media, a startling scene unfolds as a homeowner faces off against intruders in his own garage. The footage captures the tension of a life-threatening encounter, raising crucial questions about the boundaries of self-defense. The video is available for you to watch at ForgeOfFreedom.com, but I’ll describe it and analyze it here as well because there’s a lot to be learned.
The Situation
The video begins with a man pulling his car into his garage, only to find himself under threat as the garage door begins to close: A hand appears under the garage door just before it closes, halting the door’s descent, and soon three individuals enter the garage. The “leader,” armed with a gun, walks right up to the driver-side door and opens it. The driver of the car, presumably whose house this is, starts shooting—and shoots the guy who just opened the car door (with a gun in his hand).
As soon as the driver starts shooting, as you might expect, the other two guys flee—the two accomplices turn around and are quickly gone. The main perpetrator who opened the door departs after a brief pause: He seems to have been shot three or four times by the number of muzzle flashes seen.
Then, the driver jumps out of his car and chases the fleeing perpetrators as they run out of the garage. The driver continues to shoot as he runs to the edge of his garage, while the perpetrators flee.
So Many Questions
The pivotal question arises: Was the homeowner justified in his use of deadly force for self-defense? The answer is yes … and no.
Examining the sequence of events through the lens of the law provides some clarity amid the chaos.
The initial confrontation, wherein the armed intruder attempts to enter the homeowner’s vehicle, falls squarely within the realm of justifiable self-defense. Clearly, the three men entered the garage with the intent of at least carjacking the driver. We don’t know what else they might have wanted to do.
Maybe it was going to be a home invasion, too. We don’t know.
Indiana law, like many states, permits the use of deadly force to prevent a forcible felony, such as the carjacking of an occupied motor vehicle. By firing upon the armed assailant, the homeowner exercised his right to protect himself.
However, the subsequent shots fired as the fleeing felons exit the garage require closer scrutiny. Some might believe that Castle Doctrine applies here. While the Castle Doctrine affords individuals the right to defend themselves in their dwelling with deadly force without an obligation to retreat, its application to a garage is unclear. You can use reasonable force, including deadly force, if it’s necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry into your dwelling. Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that your garage is part of your dwelling. There’s a good chance that courts would say so, especially if it’s an attached garage.
The key word here is “necessary.” Is the use of force necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry when the perpetrators are fleeing? If they’ve turned and ran, is any force necessary to terminate the unlawful entry? No. The attempted carjacking or home invasion is over. They’re running away. You’re not preventing the carjacking if you’re shooting at someone running away, especially once they’ve exited the garage.
So Many Factors
Now, am I saying that all of these guys would get prosecuted? No, not necessarily. A prosecutor might decide they’re simply not going to bring charges. But technically, the shooting while the perpetrators are running away is not justified. Irrespective of the potential application of Castle Doctrine, once the intruders retreat from the premises, the necessity of further force ends. Pursuing and shooting at individuals in flight exceeds the bounds of lawful self-defense.
Each shot fired carries the burden of justification. While rapid succession may be warranted in the heat of the moment, the cessation of the threat mandates an end to lethal force. As the intruders exit the garage and flee, the imminent danger ends, rendering continued gunfire legally questionable. While the initial response aligns with legal principles of self-defense, the subsequent pursuit was not clearly justifiable.
Some may have no qualms with the response, but going too far in the eyes of the law places your future freedom in jeopardy. While the homeowner may avoid charges based on extenuating circumstances, the legality of his actions merits examination. Understanding the nuances of self-defense law empowers individuals to navigate threatening situations with clarity and restraint.
This video serves as a sobering reminder of the complexities inherent in self-defense encounters. By dissecting the legal framework surrounding the incident, we gain insight into the rights and responsibilities of individuals in defending themselves and their property. As discussions surrounding self-defense continue, informed dialogue rooted in legal understanding remains essential.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the July 2024 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
A closer look at .300 H&H Magnum, a cartridge that’s anything but old and in the way.
We tracked the herd of eland in nearly a full circle, working the wind to make sure our presence wouldn’t be detected. My guide—Professional Hunter Maré van der Merwe—spread the sticks in the fading light, offering me a quartering shot at the bull with impossibly long horns. I broke the trigger of the Colt Coltsman, and the resulting whine of a bullet told us both I’d missed.
“That bullet hit a branch, but that bull will come out to the right, just there.” Maré hadn’t finished the last word when the bull stood quartering at 340 yards, pausing just long enough to look back in our direction. The second bullet did not miss. It was the culmination of a great Namibian safari, and that bull’s horns taped over 38 inches.
That rifle’s barrel was marked simply: .300 MAGNUM. Produced in 1959, there was no commercially loaded .300 Magnum (the .300 Winchester Magnum wouldn’t hit scene for 4 more years) other than the .300 Holland & Holland Belted Magnum, known in other circles as the Super .30, but best known as here as the .300 H&H Magnum.
The author’s current .300 Holland, a late ’80s push-feed post-64 Winchester Model 70 that loves the longer projectiles.Photo: Massaro Media Group.
CIP (the Commission internationale permanente pour l’épreuve des armes à feu portatives) does recognize a slight dimensional variation between the .300 H&H Magnum and the Super 30, but I highly doubt you’ll be finding any Super 30 ammunition these days, so I wouldn’t be overly concerned about it.
The Family Tree
The .300 H&H was the fourth cartridge officially released by the London firm of Holland & Holland to feature a belt of brass just ahead of the extractor groove, following the .400/.375 (Velopex), the .375 H&H Magnum, and the .275 H&H Magnum, though all were preceded by the 41 Roper cartridge of the late 19th century. Where the .375 and .275 saw daylight in 1912, Holland’s Super 30 was released in 1925, “between the Wars” as they say.
Assuredly designed to take advantage of the huge success of the .30-06 Springfield—the military cartridge had, by then, long proved itself in the game fields—the .300 H&H Magnum would best the velocities generated by the American warhorse by 150 to 200 fps.
Like the .375 H&H that came before it, the .300 H&H came in two variants: belted and rimmed (though the United Kingdom will refer to this design as “flanged”), with the former being designed for the bolt-action repeating rifles, and the latter optimized for the single-shot and double rifles. The belted variety is, far and away, the most popular. While we’ll touch on the flanged cartridge in a bit, I’ll focus on the belted version.
Mrs. Suzanne Massaro developed a penchant for the .300 H&H Magnum, using it to take this wildebeest bull in Namibia. Photo: Massaro Media Group.
Buckle Up
Sharing the same 0.532-inch case head diameter and 0.534-inch belt diameter as its more popular older brother, the .300 H&H maintains both the same case length (2.850 inches) and cartridge overall length (3.600 inches) as the .375 H&H. The slight 8½-degree shoulder gives a smooth and easy feel to both feeding and extraction, as headspace duties are neatly handled by the belt. That belt was, and remains, an excellent means of giving the definitive headspacing qualities of the rimmed cartridge designs, without any of the problems associated with stacking a rimmed cartridge in a box magazine or getting a rimmed cartridge to properly feed from that magazine style.
Most modern derivatives of the H&H case—such as the .300 Winchester Magnum, 7mm Remington Magnum, .338 Winchester Magnum and .300 Weatherby Magnum—still use the belt for headspacing, but a good many reloaders use the more prominent shoulder of these cartridges once they’ve been fired and resized. For the straight-walled cartridges like the .458 Winchester Magnum, .458 Lott and .470 Capstick, as well as those with a slight shoulder like the .300 H&H and .375 H&H, the belt is an aid (however, the .404 Jeffery and a handful of other cartridges make do with a shoulder of 8-10 degrees).
And in comparison to the .300 Winchester Magnum, which has been criticized for having a very short neck (0.264 inch), the .300 H&H Magnum offers plenty of neck tension, with its neck measuring 0.371 inch, well in excess of the desired one-caliber in length.
The length of the .300 H&H case is probably a derivative of the long, spaghetti-like structure of Cordite—the propellant so popular in Great Britain in the early 20th century—and how well that fit in the .375 H&H design. By 1925, if H&H weren’t already using stick powder, the transition wasn’t far off, but the case design stuck around.
An old and heavy-horned hartebeest bull taken at over 300 yards in the then-drought-stricken Namibia, with a single shot from the .300 H&H Magnum. Photo: Massaro Media Group.
The .300 H&H requires a magnum-length action, which has always been more expensive to produce and was historically offered in smaller numbers. Considering the speed race in the cartridge world was just building a head of steam—Winchester had released the radical .270 Winchester in the same year, in their Model 54 rifle—the .300 H&H’s velocity offered a respectable jump above the .300 Savage, .30-30 Winchester, 3-40 Krag and even the .30’06 Springfield.
And, of course, then as it is now, there is the exotic factor: In comparison to the majority of the American cartridges, the .300 H&H just looked plain ol’ cool.
In the Wild and at the Range
The .300 H&H quickly garnered a great reputation among those headed to Africa and India. John “Pondoro” Taylor wrote in his excellent African Rifles and Cartridges, “Everything the .30-06 will do is done better by the .300 Magnum—as is only to be expected.” Pondoro would go on to opine that India offered the longest shooting in the (then) British Empire, indicating an appreciation for the .300’s flat trajectory on a number of the Himalayan species, but equally approving of the 220- and 225-grain loads offered by Peters and Remington, respectively.
The author took this 38-inch eland bull in Namibia with Jamy Traut Safaris; a single Federal Trophy Bonded Tip bullet at 340 yards put this bull in the salt. Photo: Massaro Media Group.
And therein lies the rub: One of the biggest factors in the successes of the .375 and .300 H&H Magnum cartridges was not necessarily the British rifles and ammunition, but the fact that the American rifle and ammunition manufacturers embraced them both. The pair was among the initial offerings in Winchester’s excellent Model 70—released in 1936—and ammunition for both was readily available.
This fact also explains why the .375 H&H became the go-to cartridge for traveling sportsmen headed to the Dark Continent: Not only is it effective in its own right, but American rifles and ammunition were made long after the British stuff began drying up.
Simply put, a great British cartridge was put into American mass production.
But it wasn’t only the Eastern Hemisphere where the .300 H&H showed its potential; here in North America, Ben C. Comfort used the cartridge to win the Wimbledon Cup in 1935, with a Griffin & Howe rifle based on a Remington 30S action. The .300 H&H also played a big role in the development of the premium bullet market, as John Nosler carried one on the fateful Canadian moose hunt where his projectiles failed to penetrate on a mud-caked bull. And it was the case upon which Roy Weatherby would base his lineup of speedy cartridges, cementing his place in firearms history. American author Robert Ruark would also go on to use the .300 H&H as the rifle choice for his fictional Professional Hunter Brain McDermott in his gripping Uhuru.
The author’s Winchester Model 70 absolutely loves the Nosler Custom 200-grain AccuBond load, printing ¾-MOA groups.Photo: Massaro Media Group.
I believe that despite many sparks in the early 20th century, the .300 H&H Magnum is the point where the speed game actually caught fire. Unlike Savage’s .250-3000, the .300 H&H Magnum has the bullet weight to be a true all-around big-game cartridge, and is versatile enough to be taken around the globe. It’ll push a 180-grain bullet to a muzzle velocity of 2,875 fps in factory loads, making it “enough gun” for the vast majority of big game pursued, including the great bears of the north and all but the largest and most dangerous game of Africa.
I’ve owned two rifles chambered for this excellent cartridge: the aforementioned Colt Coltsman that accompanied me to Namibia (and is now in the possession of a dear friend), and currently a post-64 Winchester Model 70 from the early ’80s, with one of the prettiest factory walnut stocks I’ve ever seen.
The M70 shows a preference for longer projectiles, with more bearing surface; this is contradictory to my experiences handloading for more than a few .300 H&H rifles. Generally speaking, the .300 Holland is one of the few .300 Magnums that doesn’t mind the light-for-caliber projectiles, but my own gives the best accuracy with the 180- and 200-grain projectiles, and I’m OK with that. The Federal 180-Trophy Bonded Tip load and Nosler’s 200-grain AccuBond load were among the top performers in this rifle; either of those bullets would handle just about anything I’d ask a .300 Magnum to do. With a 200-yard zero, you’ll see these bullets strike about 7 inches low at 300 yards and roughly 22 inches low at 400 yards.
In comparison to other .30-calibers, I feel the .300 H&H Magnum does better the performance than that of the 30-06 Springfield, though perhaps not enough that the average hunter would truly take notice. It is a bit slower than the .300 Winchester Magnum and .300 Winchester Short Magnum, and certainly slower than the .300 Weatherby Magnum and .300 PRC. But the .300 H&H is probably the easiest on the shoulder of all the .300 Magnums. And in the hands of good reloader, it can be brought down to .30-06 or even .308 Winchester velocities without too much trouble, making it a great choice for deer on the back forty, or it can be revved up to nip at the heels of the .300 Winchester Magnum, which is a good place to be as well.
Is it efficient? In comparison to the .300 WSM and .300 Winchester Magnum—which can deliver slightly better ballistics in a short-action and long-action rifle, respectively—probably not. But shooting a .300 H&H Magnum isn’t about the ultimate in efficiency; it has its own pedigree, and well, a cool factor to it. It’s an inexorable tie to a time long gone now, invoking the sentiments of safari in wild places, or long treks into the wilds of Canada, Alaska or those remote parts of the American West. I feel pretty confident saying that the belted cases—while they are not going away anytime soon—have seen their day, and we probably won’t see any new cartridges featuring the H&H belt anytime soon. However, the .300 H&H Magnum remains cooler than the other side of the pillow, at least to my eyes.
Ammunition Availability
Yes, there’s an elephant in the room: The glaring fact of the matter is that the .300 H&H has been pushed off the stage by newer, more efficient and better marketed .30-caliber cartridges. Each year, rifles and ammunition become increasingly scarce, and it will be just a matter of time before handloading is the only means of keeping the old girl alive. In fact, as of the time of this writing, the only factory loaded ammunition even cataloged is listed as “unavailable,” with no production information available. So if you want the .300 Holland experience, you either find older stashes of ammunition or handload your own.
The author’s Winchester M70 shows a definite preference for the longer bullets, with increased bearing surface, like the 200-grain Federal Terminal Ascent and Nosler AccuBond. Handloading will be the best way to keep your .300 H&H active in the field and at the range. Photo: Massaro Media Group.
Get a good set of dies—Redding dies are my favorite—and a good supply of brass, and you’ll be in business for life. I like Norma brass, and I like Nosler brass as well, though the situation with the .300 H&H is quickly becoming “any port in a storm.” But given my druthers, it’s Norma and Nosler for me, and I’ll happily take Federal or Hornady.
The powder charges of the .300 H&H Magnum warrant the use of a large rifle magnum primer; my favorite is the Federal Gold Medal Match GM215M. Powders in the range of IMR 4350 and 4831, Reloder 19 and 22, Hodgdon’s H4350, H380 and H4831SC are all good choices; the .300 Holland likes powders in the slow-but-not-too-slow department. My experiences show that charges that nearly fill the case give the most uniform results.
Good ol’ round and heavy bullets, like the Hornady 220-grain round-nose Interlock, are just as good as they were a century ago, especially at closer ranges; don’t overlook them for larger species in a woods or bushveld situation.
Hornady .300 H&H ammo in their custom line, featuring the now-discontinued InterBond bullet. Photo: Massaro Media Group.
I’ve championed a number of relatively obscure cartridges over the years, with some being on the verge of extinction. The .318 Westley Richards, .404 Jeffery and .33 Winchester each were at one point in time a sound choice with a decent following. Will we be seeing any new developments for the .300 Holland & Holland anytime soon? Sadly, I doubt it—though there are enough rifles out there chambered for it that perhaps Hornady or Federal will make another run of quality factory ammunition.
If you enjoy hunting with a cartridge that’s a bit left of center, and something that will cock an eyebrow or two in hunting camp, you could do worse than choosing the .300 H&H Magnum. In the meantime, I’ll invest my time at the reloading bench to keep my Winchester properly fed.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the July 2024 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
We take a look at how to tweak your rifle to maximize its potential for accuracy.
Ten-thousand miles.
That’s how far my rifles must travel before the safari begins. Along the way, they’ll be herded by soulless conveyor belts, bounced off concrete floors and fingered by dubiously qualified “inspectors.” Bag-checking rifles for international travel feels like releasing a kid on a bike without training wheels. Though I expect to re-zero the scopes in Africa, I want to ensure the optics on my rifles are set up correctly before I leave. More importantly, I want to be confident I have the skills to return them to a reliable standard if they arrive with problems.
Both rifles performed in Africa despite being dropped and dragged along the way.
Courage, Tools and Torque
I teamed up with Caylen Wojcik, founder of Modern Day Rifleman, to coach my optics setup on two rifles I’d take to Africa. A former Marine Scout Sniper, Caylen teaches precision shooting for military, LEO and civilian shooters. He also teaches a precision shooting course for hunters.
Wojcik frequently sees similar optics problems when students dust off their hunting rifles after a long off-season. Luckily, most problems are avoidable or easily correctable with a step-by-step approach and a few simple tools.
“Shooters should not be intimidated by assembling and disassembling their hunting rifles down to their core components,” Wojcik says. “We’re just talking about turning screwdrivers, using a level and being thoughtful about torque adjustments. The key is to understand the goal of each step and be methodical.”
These rifles and their intended application present few unique variables. Both of my rifles are bolt actions and chambered in calibers for African plains game, so nothing “dangerous” or larger than a North American elk. One of my rifles, the Franchi Momentum All Terrain Elite (.308 Win.), is a test rifle, so I can’t make permanent modifications. It’s also new, unassembled and unfired. We’ll focus most of our attention on it.
The other rifle is a scoped and sporterized version of a 117-year-old Swedish Mauser (6.5×55 Swede). I own it, and it was set up and zeroed a few years ago. Though it’s been trapped in my gun safe ever since, the Mauser’s getting the same inspection. For most African hunting scenarios, the shots are from a standing position, supported by shooting sticks, at ranges inside 300 yards. So, we are taking care to get the basics correct, but our process isn’t intended for extreme long-range shooting.
Indeed, we used simple tools. Though bit shapes and sizes varied between components and manufacturers, the ultimate tasks weren’t more complicated than aligning one part with another and tightening the connecting screws to a prescribed tension. Torque-adjustable screwdrivers or torque-limiting ratchets are outside the basic toolboxes of many shooters, but they shouldn’t be. For a moderate outlay, you can have the same basic gunsmithing tools. “Torque” is an important concept to understand from the start. Torque is force applied in a rotational motion—for our purposes, it’s how hard you tighten a screw into a threaded hole. In standard (not metric) terms, it’s expressed as “inch-pounds.”
Worth its weight in your checked baggage, the Fix It Sticks “The Works” kit contains bit and torque tools to confirm or return your rifle to the proper specifications.
Why should you care? Because “hand tight” varies from person to person. Rifle and optics screws that are too loose can result in inconsistent accuracy. Overtightened screws can break off in their threads, rendering your rifle unusable and requiring a trip to a gunsmith. Tightening to the factory-prescribed torque values removes the guesswork from optic setup while avoiding costly mistakes.
Tight Action
With any process, you must choose a rational starting point; for bolt-action rifles, it’s the action screws. Action screws, also known as guard screws, hold the barreled action to the stock. There are generally two—one in front and one behind the trigger guard. This junction is the foundation for performance consistency for the rifled action and all the components mounted above it.
The action screws on this Mauser were loose enough to move with my fingers. A tightening to a uniform 65 inch-pounds resulted in a 0.3 MOA shot group improvement.
Wojcik says more of his marksmanship students arrive with loose action screws than not. “It’s not uncommon for shooters to over-analyze scopes and rings, but they’re shocked when their action screws aren’t even hand-tight,” he says.
Both my rifles had loose action screws … or at least inconsistent torque adjustments. The Mauser’s action screws were so loose I could turn them with a press and turn of my finger into the flathead slots.
We torqued the action screws on both rifles to 65 inch-pounds. Again, using factory torque specs, where possible, is critical. However, they aren’t always available. In the case of a 117-year-old Mauser, the new custom stock was glass-bedded walnut, and I felt it could take the pressure. Was it too much? Time will tell, but I now know exactly how much pressure is on the screws if I want to readjust. After the tightening, the rifle shot groups inside 0.65 MOA, which was a 0.3 MOA improvement over previous groups, so this small adjustment provided an immediate benefit.
A few commonsense principles apply to action screw torque settings in the absence of a factory number. First, metal-on-metal contact points can take more pressure than wood or polymer synthetics. Second, heavier caliber rifles producing greater recoil generally require more torque, so be mindful of the difference between rimfires versus magnums. Finally, when in doubt, call a trained gunsmith and ask for advice.
Ride the Rail
On some rifles, scope bases are metal blocks mounted directly to threaded holes in the receiver or clamped onto a dovetail notch. Such was the case for the Mauser and its Trijicon scope and rings. The Franchi rifle comes with a Picatinny rail common on many new rifles.
“Most Pic rails on new rifles come with oil between the rail and the receiver,” says Wojcik. “I suspect it’s part of the manufacturing process. But fluids are dense under pressure, and I want the parts as flush as possible, so I routinely remove the rail from the rifle and clean the contact surfaces.”
When we removed the Franchi’s rail, it had a line of oil underneath its entire length. So, we cleaned the bottom of the rail and top of the receiver with alcohol and replaced the rail, re-torquing the screws to 25 inch-pounds. For the Mauser, I confirmed the same torque on all its scope base screws.
Pic rails should be torqued to spec, starting from the center screws and working outward to minimize any minor bends or warps.
Care should be taken when removing Pic rails, especially the long ones like the 10-incher on the Franchi. The screws may be of different lengths or diameters depending on whether they mount to the receiver or the barrel. I usually throw screws and small parts into a magnetic tray, but in this case, I’d recommend you place them thoughtfully so there’s no doubt about how they’re replaced.
There are a few helpful techniques to consider when replacing a Pic rail. First, a bonding agent on the screw threads is a good idea. We used blue Permatex 24010 gel. Second, tighten the screws from the middle to the outside. This will correct for slight warps in the rail. If the rail is noticeably warped or damaged, replace it.
Level to the World
The next step is leveling the rifle and installing the scope rings.
Personal preference varies on the best method to secure a rifle for leveling and scope installation. I’ve found a high-quality bench vise with leather padded jaws is faster and more rigid than purpose-built cradles made from soft plastic. No matter your choice, the following steps are the same.
“You have to get the rifle level to the world, which means leveling the bore horizontally and ensuring the centerline is square, vertically,” advises Wojcik. “Take your time to get it right, and then lock it in.”
For this task, I chose a Wheeler Professional Reticle Level System that uses a reference and barrel clamp level. The reference level is placed on a flat surface in or around the receiver to level the rifle in the vice. Once the rifle is leveled in the vice, the barrel clamp level is attached and adjusted so that its bubble is centered and matches the reference level. The rifle can now be removed from the vice but quickly replaced and returned to level without starting over. Other, more expensive kits and methods exist, but for our purposes, this system works.
Next, we attached the ring bases to the Pic rail.
Torque these screws to the factory specifications. Placement for the rear base should be as far back as possible on a Pic rail mount, and the front base should land on the main tube roughly between the center turret and the objective bell.
Tip: If the bases have flush screws, it makes sense to orient the bases so the screw heads are on the same side as the bolt handle—that way, you don’t have to reach over or move the rifle to make adjustments. For bases with protruding nuts, installing the bases so that the nuts sit on the non-bolt handle side will ensure they don’t come in contact with knuckles when cycling the bolt. It’s a bit more trouble, but your hands will thank you.
With a Pic rail scope base, the mounts should always be pressed forward (toward the muzzle) and flush with the vertical surface of the Pic rail notch. This ensures the rifle’s recoil won’t creep the base forward and change the scope’s orientation with the receiver. If you choose a one-piece mount that combines the bottom scope ring and base, be aware that many are manufactured with a cant (horizontal angle) to give the scope more adjustment range.
Conveniently, the clamshell Vortex rings I’ve chosen for my Steiner scope have the torque specs printed on the parts. A word to the wise on scope ring screws—screw metal quality can vary widely across manufacturers … and even between models. Sadly, this junction, critical to establishing and maintaining accuracy, is often achieved with the cheapest materials bought in mass quantities from the lowest bidder. It’s very common for cheap screws to shear off or warp, even at factory specs.
Consider investing in a variety pack of backup firearm optic screws. For a small investment, you can always use fresh screws when you change mounted optics, and you’ve got backups if one strips, shears or falls through the floorboards. I followed this advice a few years back, and having a variety of spares around saved my bacon at least a dozen times.
Lock in the Glass
Scope ring height and placement are subjective decisions. Rifle design factors such as bolt handle clearance, receiver shape and the stock’s length and comb height combine with human factors like head size and visual acuity to create a complex challenge. Ultimately, shooters should orient the scope according to their physical and visual needs, but here are a few guidelines:
Base Placement: Place the rear base as close to the rear of the rail as possible, especially if you have backup iron sights. The front base should land on the uniform section of the tube midway (roughly) between the adjustment turret and where the tube flares into the objective bell.
Scope Prep: Wojcik recommends turning the windage and elevation adjustments to their limits in both directions several times before mounting the scope. Especially for new scopes, there is often a spot of grease that may not be uniformly spread over the internal parts. This quick step will spread the lubricant and confirm that no spots bind, limiting the scope’s adjustment range. If your scope adjustments do not turn with light to moderate pressure, don’t mount it—repair or replace it.
Scope Placement: Orient the scope so the magnification adjustment ring is over the trigger. Yes, the distance between adjustment rings and the ocular lens varies between scopes, but this is a reliable starting point. Adjust accordingly to your eyes, face and stock length.
Eye Relief: Eye relief is the distance between your eye and the ocular lens. To adjust it, tighten the screws on the rear ring just enough to hold the scope loosely in place. At its maximum magnification, move the scope forward and backward until you achieve a comfortable shooting and head position where you can see a full field of view through the optic, free of shadows. Different styles of shooting call for different head orientations on the stock, so I adjusted my eye relief with an upright hunting posture in mind.
Leveling the Scope: With your eye relief established, it’s time to take a breath and get patient. This step may take a few tries.
If possible, remove the elevation cap and use the erector screw to level the scope. Why? Though the elevation adjustment cap may seem level and square to the line of the scope, some are not machined to seat squarely. If the elevation turret caps are rounded, leveling becomes a guessing game. The erector screw is a better option if you have it.
Level the scope by sequentially tightening the ring screws in an “X” pattern ending with all screws torqued to spec and a level reticle. Screw tension will move the level’s bubble, but tightening the opposite side of the ring will move it in the opposite direction. This final step requires a methodical give-and-take of tension and adjustment. Be patient, as you might have to start over. Just remember to continue to visually reference the levels on the barrel and scope to guide your adjustments.
Tighten scope ring screws in an “X” pattern. This step is a bit of a dance to tighten each side to a factory spec and still end up with a level reticle. Be patient, tighten each screw a bit at a time and be prepared to start over.
It took us two tries to get the Franchi assembled and leveled.
The Mauser’s bases and rings received uniform torquing. Thankfully, the adjustments didn’t require re-leveling the scope.
Set Up for Success
Factory torque settings, a clear scope picture and a level reticle will not increase the likelihood of encountering a trophy kudu bull. But, establishing a properly configured rifle and optic, and learning how to correct basic problems, gives you added confidence and a consistent basis to establish your rifle’s best possible zero and, by extension, your most accurate shots on game.
One final note of advice: Take your time with each step. Don’t wait until the night before opening day—get your rifle set up early, zero your optic and spend the extra time confidently practicing, knowing your equipment won’t hold you back.
Both my rifles made it to Africa (and back) without damage. Once in-country, I confirmed the torque on the screws, visually confirmed level reticles and adjusted the zeros to the location’s higher temperature and lower altitude.
I’m not without superstition: I believe Murphy’s Law is stronger in Africa than it is in the States. But because I was ready for him, he took his mischief elsewhere.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the July 2024 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
More On Long-Range Accuracy:
Mils vs. MOA: Which Is The Best Long-Range Language?
A dissertation on reloading technique and practices.
“What are you doing? I would never run dirty brass though my resizing die!”
Talk to 10 dedicated reloaders, and I’ll wager you get 10 different techniques and opinions, even if the differences are subtle. Is there one proper technique for the process of reloading centerfire rifle and pistol ammunition? There are, after all, myriad tools available to the reloader.
While some are deemed frivolous, others are must-haves. Flip through the front section of almost any worthy reloading manual and you'll find some sort of step-by-step instructions pertaining to the procedure of reloading metallic cartridge ammo.
While those generic instructions are not wrong, somewhere along the line we all develop certain habits and adopt techniques that might work for some … while seeming completely foreign to others. Referring to my opening quote, some folks will run any old dirty piece of brass into a resizing die, while others insist the brass be not only already de-primed, but cleaned, tumbled and polished before it changes shape.
Which is the proper method?
Well, it’ll depend on your personal taste, and how much of a neat freak you are. You certainly shouldn’t put any case with actual dirt on it—say a pickup from the range—into your die, but if there’s some burnt powder residue, it won’t hurt your die, especially if you clean your dies regularly, which I definitely recommend. If the idea still offends you, perhaps the use of a universal de-capping die—one designed for the sole purpose of removing the spent primer—will allow you to clean the case inside and out before resizing it. This does minimize residue and debris in the die, and I do this sometimes, especially when reloading cases that were previously loaded with especially dirty-burning powder.
How do you prefer to install your primers, from the press or via hand primer? Photo: Massaro Media Group.
Primers can be another hotbed of discussion—whether they’re installed with a hand-priming unit or primed from the press. Some guys demand absolute uniformity in primer-seating depth, while others feel that so long as the primer is seated flush or slightly recessed, all is right in the universe.
Having spent a fair amount of time at the Norma Ammunition plant in Sweden, I've seen the effects of uniformly seated primers—they have special tools to measure the depth of primers before their ammo is sent to the public—and it does make an appreciable difference. Where the precision shooter will be very concerned with this feature, the high-volume loader who knows how to consistently work the handle of Dillon 550 will be perfectly happy with what that excellent machine provides.
Personally, I like to install my primers by hand, as I feel the press can generate too much force at times.
The method of loading powder and seating bullets—whether you charge all the cases in a block and then begin seating projectiles, or charge an individual case and then immediately seat the bullet—is debatable as well. You’ll see photos of large blocks of cases, sometimes a hundred at a time, being charged with powder, each awaiting a turn for its projectile. While I know this system works well for many folks, I've also seen it lead to near-disaster.
If, for example, you were loading for a .300 Weatherby Magnum, the sheer volume of the powder required will easily prevent a double charge; the case simply won’t hold it. But switch to a .357 Magnum, .38 Special or .45 ACP, and it’s a much different story. Not only can all of these cases easily be double charged, but the charge weight may also be so small that a double charge might not be immediately visible.
In this author’s opinion, safety takes precedence over time saved, and my own technique is to charge a case with powder and then immediately seat the projectile. This way I can visually verify that there is no powder (or anything else) in the case before dumping the powder charge, and once installed there is no risk of double charging. Habits are going to form—good or bad—and I always err on the side of caution.
Want to start an argument among reloaders? Ask whether you should weigh every powder charge. Oh, will the sparks fly! “Benchrest shooters load by volume.” “I’ve used a powder thrower since I was a boy.” “Only certain powders will meter properly in those volumetric powder throwers.” “You’re wasting your time weighing every charge; it just isn’t that important.” Some of these statements may be true and applicable, but after spending more than 3 decades handloading the vast majority of my ammunition, in rifle calibers ranging from the .17s up to the .500s, I've found that uniformity leads to consistency, and therefore accuracy.
Just as I wouldn’t want to purchase a box of projectiles only to find the weight varies drastically, I want my powder charges to be as uniform as possible. Weighing each individual charge has given me the best results, and should you have an alternative method that works (and maintains safety), so be it. The modern electronic powder dispensers operate quickly and easily enough to accommodate my reloading style, and I sleep better at night knowing each charge was weighed.
The progressive presses, like the Dillon 550 shown here, are certainly efficient, but you must give up some of the hands-on methods of reloading. Photo: Massaro Media Group.
I also get many questions about the use of progressive presses, especially regarding the consistency, uniformity and safety. Certainly, the Dillon progressives are at the top of the heap, and the RCBS stuff of late is much better than it ever was, but the fact remains that there are so many operations happening simultaneously that it’s nearly impossible to monitor all at once. Call me a control freak, but I want to have my hands on these operations, so that I can ensure that something hasn’t come out of adjustment—such as the volumetric powder dispenser—and that all the primers are not only present, but seated properly.
Don’t get me wrong: I’ve shot some wonderful ammunition made on a Dillon 550 or 650, but my own personal tastes and preference lean so heavily toward single-stage loading that the Redding T7 turret press is about as far as I feel comfortable going. If you like the idea of a progressive press, and there are many reasons to do so, realize that rigorous inspection of the final product is a fantastic idea; it may save a firearm … or a life.
“You can’t do that.” Sometimes it rings true, and other times we reloaders need to realize there’s more than one way to skin a cat.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the July 2024 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
Want a lever-action rifle chambered for something a bit more modern? Here we take a peek at Taylor’s & Company’s TC73.
Lever-actions have been the hottest thing in the gun world lately, but Taylor’s & Company’s new TC73 rifle has taken a different approach than most other companies that have taken a crack at the trend. Rather than make a modern, tactical lever-action or just another traditionalist take on the classic design, Taylor’s & Company decided to give the TC73 a 9mm chambering instead.
Completely made in America, the TC73 is essentially a revamped 1873 chambered for 9mm. It boasts a 10-round magazine, classic looks and a few tasteful modernizations and improvements. Namely, the muzzle is threaded 5/8×24 for mounting suppressors and it has a Taylor Tuned Performance Action that provides a lighter trigger and a smoother lever throw. It also features a white bead front sight, a sporting semi-buckhorn rear sight and a rubber butt pad. As for the rifle’s aesthetics, the steel frame has a beautiful case-colored finish and the stock and forend are American Walnut.
Compared to the cartridges that lever-actions are traditionally chambered for, the 9mm TC73 brings a lot of versatility to the table. The ammo is incredibly common, comparatively affordable and is available in a wide variety of different loadings spanning range use to serious defensive bullets. The ability to add a suppressor is just the cherry on top.
If you’re in the market for a classic, stylish lever-action rifle with all the practicality and versatility of 9mm, the Taylor’s & Company TC73 is well worth checking out. MSRP is $2,099.
Everyone wants an MP5, but nobody wants to pay HK prices. Here, we go over the top 5 MP5 clones that won’t break the bank.
Real MP5s from Heckler & Koch are full-auto, and very few of us are lucky enough to be able to afford a genuine transferable example. While much less expensive, even the semi-auto versions made by H&K are unfortunately out of most shooters’ price range. If on a budget, you may not be able to get the H&K logo on your receiver, but thankfully there are MP5 clones available now that will scratch the same itch for a fraction of the price.
The Undying MP5
The H&K MP5 is an iconic SMG, partially because it was more or less the SMG for most of the Western world in military and police service during the Cold War era. Oh, there were some Berettas and Walthers and Uzis out there too, and Colt made a 9mm AR, but the MP5 is the one people remember. The design is so well-loved, in fact, that of all those SMGs listed the MP5 is the only one that really continues to see widespread service. Not just with poorer nations either, but with plenty of first-world police and military units as well.
SAS members sieging the Iranian Embassy with MP5s in 1980.
The MP5 is the SMG version of H&K's roller-delayed blowback operating system, first used by the company in its G3/HK91 series of rifles before eventually being scaled down to 9mm in the mid-1960s.
Despite how adored the MP5 is by armed professionals around the world, it’s not as iconic as it is because of its service use. Hollywood is to thank for that. Die Hard, Predator, The Rock, the list of great action movies that prominently feature the MP5 is practically endless, and these days you’ll find one in just about every shooter video game too. It’s one of those guns that’s so famous that even non-firearms enthusiasts will often be able to recognize it, and they might even know its name.
Carl Weathers dual-wielding MP5s (technically modified HK94s, but close enough) in Predator (1987). Photo: IMFDB.
Point being, many of us have been watching action heroes use the MP5 for our entire lives. Like the S&W Model 29 in the Dirty Harry films, the Beretta 92 in Die Hard and Lethal Weapon, the Walther PPK in the James Bond series, the MP5 will be forever desirable simply due to its place in pop culture.
The Right Reason
Given the continued popularity of the MP5 among police units around the world, it’s still a viable weapon. Of course, they’re using genuine full-auto models, and that changes things.
For us civilians stuck with semi-autos, an MP5 could still be a viable choice for certain practical applications, but the reality is that there are better 9mm pistol-caliber carbines available now. So, if you’re in the market for an MP5 clone, you should recognize that you’re only getting it for the cool factor and because of how fun of a range toy they are. If you’re looking for a PCC for home defense or competition, you should probably consider a different platform entirely.
The HK slap will put a smile on your face the first few times, but the thrill is gone pretty quickly after a few reps of the reloading sequence. You can get any number of AR-9 or other PCCs that cost less, are more practical, and have stupidly available magazines and accessories. Keep in mind that the MP5 was designed in an era when flashlights were mounted with hose clamps and optics were attached with claw mounts. Sure, there are aftermarket accessory options available now for modernizing an MP5, but it will be more expensive, more difficult and less ergonomic than if you tried to do the same with something more modern.
This photo shows a fully accessorized Ruger PC Charger, the pistol version of the PC Carbine.
For example, a Ruger PC Carbine costs less than $800, accepts Glock magazines and is ready to mount a light and optic out of the box. That’s not something you can say about most MP5 clones.
So, just because Navy SEALs might have had MP5s at one point doesn't mean it's the best choice for a PCC today. Make sure you're getting into one for the right reason, and that reason is because they're cool.
Why An MP5 Clone?
H&K decided to reward us peasants with a civilian-legal, semi-auto version of the MP5 a few years back, the SP5 pistol.
However, the awesomeness doesn't come cheap, as they typically carry a price tag of $3,000 or more. HK throws in two magazines, whether you get the 30- or 10-round units, and they want you to pay $80 for any others that you might want to pick up.
The H&K SP5.
And that's just for starters.
Want a Picatinny rail to add a red dot? Upcharge. Want to add a fixed, folding or telescoping buttstock? That will not only be another upcharge, but you'll also have to pay Uncle Sam $200 for the privilege with an SBR stamp.
To set up an SP5 so it has the same basic features as a Ruger PC Carbine, it can easily cost you $4,000 before you've even bought your first box of ammo.
For a gun that was first manufactured in the 1960s and has a stamped metal receiver, that's absolutely bonkers. So, why not get a clone that does all the same stuff, takes the same parts and costs less? That’s the beauty of MP5 clones, you get the same cool factor for a fraction of the price.
How We Made Our Picks
Frankly, the market isn't exactly awash with MP5 clones, but there are more than these five models out there especially when you include variants from the same manufacturer. We took a look at what's available, tallied up their pros, cons and prices and determined that these were the best options for most American shooters based on their features and affordability.
Doesn't come with provisions to mount optics or accessories
.22 LR is not the original chambering
Most people want an MP5 for fun, and H&K lets you have it for a shockingly reasonable amount considering that we're poor and they hate us. The HK MP5 .22 LR Pistol is authentic(ish), affordable, and probably the best one to buy in the grand scheme of things if you’re fine with the .22 LR chambering.
This .22 MP5 is a factory-authorized clone made by Umarex. It uses HK furniture, and, just like the real thing, requires an SBR stamp to add a stock. It has the original sights, the original unrailed receiver, charging handle, the works.
The average price is about $500, less than half of what the 9mm clones typically go for. It's made by one of the best airsoft/rimfire manufacturers licensed by HK, and you can shoot the heck out of it for pennies.
While more affordable than an SP5, still very expensive
Some furniture fitment issues
Doesn't come with provisions to mount optics or accessories
PTR famously uses HK tooling that they purchased overseas and imported to the USA, so it's HK’s machines and dies that they make their guns with. Their HK91 and MP5 clones have long been regarded as more or less the best you can buy besides the genuine article.
Parts compatibility has been a bit of a known issue, mostly with furniture. Small parts like triggers, springs and so on are almost all clone-correct, but things like the grip module, stocks, and handguards are hit and miss.
MSRP starts at $1,889, which is not cheap, but if you want a 9mm MP5 clone as a working gun, this is your go-to.
Some fixable reliability issues may be present out of the box
Doesn't come with provisions to mount optics or accessories
The Zenith ZF-5 is made using HK tooling just like PTR. Zenith originally started by importing a Turkish-made MP5 clone manufactured by MKE, but they later acquired the tooling to commence their own production. Just like PTR, their guns are now made wholly in the USA.
Also just like the PTR, there can be occasional fitment issues with furniture, but the internals are clone-correct and HK parts can be added. There is a slight history of feeding issues (there's enough documentation from owners out there), but the remedies are known as well.
The ZF-5 is available in multiple configurations and colors starting at $1,499 for basic models. Look for blemished models as well, which have cosmetic defects but cost less.
Some fixable reliability issues may be present out of the box
Century Arms started importing the MKE AP5 after Zenith stopped. MKE was a government supplier who got their tooling from HK, so the receiver and parts are as clone-correct as it gets.
Like other clones, be prepared for fitment issues with furniture but know that HK internal parts will almost certainly work. Some bugs may need to be worked out, most commonly feeding/extraction issues, but by now there's enough information on how to get them into working order.
MSRP is $1,359.95 for the standard model, but they can be found for closer to $1,000 with some hunting.
Legally a rifle so it includes a collapsible stock
Swappable charging handle
Plenty of rail space for optics and accessories
CONS:
Looks the least like a classic MP5
.22 LR is not the original chambering
Lower capacity than HK's .22 MP5 (22 vs. 25 rounds)
Faux suppressor barrel prevents attaching real suppressors or other muzzle devices
The GSG-16 from American Tactical Imports is much like the HK MP5 22, but even more practical.
The GSG-16 is an MP5-inspired rifle in .22 LR, with a faux suppressor shroud on the barrel. Since the barrel length is 16 inches, no SBR stamp is needed for the included stock. The charging handle can be swapped to the right side, unlike the real thing, and the receiver is fully railed, so you can mount an optic with no issues. The handguard also has rails at 3,6 and 9 o'clock for other accessories.
MSRP is $429.95 and they can be found for closer to $350 with some hunting. Impressively practical, affordable, and therefore a heck of a lot of cheap fun.
Model
Caliber
Barrel Length
Overall Length
Weight
MSRP
HK MP5 .22 LR Pistol
.22 LR
8.5 In.
18.2 In.
5.9 lbs.
$599
PTR 9CT-CL
9mm Luger
9 In.
17.6 In.
5 lbs.
$1,889
Zenith ZF-5
9mm Luger
8.9 In.
17.9 In.
5.5 lbs.
$1,499.99
Century Arms AP5
9mm Luger
8.9 In.
17.9 In.
5.5 lbs.
$1,359.95
American Tactical Imports GSG-16
.22 LR
16.25 In.
28.5 In.
~5.5 lbs.
$429.95
More On Classic Guns:
Why The Mauser C96 “Broomhandle” Still Looms Large
Silencer Central has just announced the BANISH Speed K Ti, a lighter version of the impressively small BANISH Speed K.
Last year Silencer Central announced the BANISH Speed K 5.56 NATO suppressor, and it was an instant hit due to its amazingly small size. At only 4 inches long and 2 inches wide, the can delivers impressive performance for how short and handy it is. That said, in the world of suppressors, people will always want lighter. That’s why Silencer Central has just announced the BANISH Speed K Ti, a titanium version that will majorly cut down the weight hanging off your muzzle compared to its Inconel older brother.
As you might expect, the new BANISH Speed K Ti has mostly the same specs as the original model besides its titanium construction. The most noticeable difference is the weight, with the Ti version weighing 8.6 ounces rather than 14.1 ounces. On the tip of a rifle, 5.5 ounces makes a big difference. The two variants otherwise share the same caliber range of .17 to 5.56, the same dimensions, the same internal design, the same black Cerakote finish and industry-standard HUB mounts. However, everything in gun design has tradeoffs, and the wonderfully light titanium construction comes with certain downsides too. Firstly, the Ti version is not full-auto rated. Also, despite using the same controlled flow technology and vented fourth baffle, the Ti model has a slightly worse advertised sound reduction (20.6 dB versus 20.9 dB). Finally, titanium is more expensive than Inconel, so the MSRP is $200 higher as well.
Brandon Maddox, CEO of Silencer Central, said this about the new suppressor:
Building upon the success of the original BANISH Speed K released in 2023, this all-titanium version takes performance to the next level … We saw an opportunity to take that design and create the perfect silencer for home defense, hunting and competition use. The BANISH Speed K Ti is our most compact, lightweight silencer for the .223 round to date.
For anyone looking to build a suppressed carbine while keeping the package as light and maneuverable as possible, the BANISH SPEED K Ti looks like it will be a top-tier option. MSRP is $1,399.
We go over a custom Smith & Wesson Model 28 revolver built for ICORE. She ain’t pretty, but she can still shoot.
For a guy who got to be known as a 1911 shooter, I spent a lot of time shooting revolvers. One wheelgun in particular was both a process and a tool. Back when the USPSA was being formed, my club was already shooting in many equipment divisions—one of which was “Revolver.” So, I had a 6-inch S&W M-25-2 in .45 ACP that I had to build … well, just to have one. (We can showcase that revolver at a later time.)
Soon after that, the International Confederation of Revolver Enthusiasts (ICORE) was formed. ICORE wasn’t interested in making Major, so I didn’t need a .45 revolver to compete there. I tried a number of different—not entirely suited to ICORE—revolvers, but I finally scored a police trade-in M-28. This is a .357 Magnum built on the N-frame, which is the .44 frame, with a matte finish for police duty. I think I picked it up for $125 back in the Reagan era.
If you didn’t catch the placement of the cylinder grooves, you’d never know this was a seven-shooter.
Soon after, I won a Baumann conversion cylinder at the old Second Chance Combat Shoot. This was a seven-shot cylinder that simply plugged into a .357 Magnum N-frame revolver. It used proprietary moon clips, and it was just the thing for ICORE.
The scoring system in ICORE is simple, and it’s the same as IDPA: Your shooting time, with added time for hits outside of the center ring and any penalties, is your score. The fastest time wins. And the power factor (PF) you had to meet back then was only 120. So, a plated 158-grain RN only had to be going 760 fps to make the scoring minimum.
A 120-PF load, out of a revolver that weighs 45 ounces, doesn’t recoil very much. So, I slicked up the action and had a grand time shooting ICORE with it.
Open the cylinder and look—a quick count tells the tale. And yes, it requires R-P brass to use the moon clips. If the groove isn’t the right size, the clips won’t clip in.
It turned out that this gun was also well-suited for bowling pins. There, you need a PF of 195 to reliably broom pins off the tables. So, using that 158-grain bullet, but changing it to a JHP or JSP, it needs to be going 1,234 fps to make a 195 PF. This is doable, but it isn’t the best choice.
So, for pins, I experimented.
Did you know you can get bullets of 180 grains for the .357 Magnum? Yep, and those only need to be going 1,084 fps for the same effect. Now we’re talking. But wait, other .357-caliber pin shooters had talked to custom bullet casters, and they came up with the ultimate .357 pin-shooting bullet: a hard-cast full wadcutter of 230 grains. This thing whacks pins like someone is standing down there and hitting them with a Louisville Slugger. And to make the 195 PF, they only need to be going 850 fps. Recoil is the same, but now there’s no whip-crack muzzle blast like you get with the 158s.
The full moon clips make reloading a breeze in ICORE. My process was simple: I kept my firing hand on the grip, opened the cylinder, ejected the empties and stuffed in a new moon clip, all with my left hand. Back then you could do a “New York Reload” in a pin shoot: You took a padded box or basket to the line and a spare revolver. On command, you loaded both and put the spare on the shooting rail. When your main gun was empty, and if there were pins left on the table, you simply dropped the empty revolver into the box, snatched the second one off the rail and kept shooting. For the next table, reload both and repeat.
The scoring in ICORE is easy: the time it takes to shoot, plus penalties. Faster is better, until you start getting sloppy hits. With the author’s ICORE gun, poor accuracy is a shooter problem, not a revolver problem.
But, there was one more evolution of my ICORE/Bowling Pin gun. I happened across a barrel for a 627, a take-off that a custom pistolsmith had pulled to replace with something else. So, I was able to score a 6-inch stainless full-underlug barrel for my ICORE gun, for a song. (Don’t hate me because I’m occasionally lucky.) This required a little bit of work to fit, time and create the proper cylinder gap, but by then I was an accomplished S&W gunsmith, having worked on many of them for a number of years.
So, the full-built ICORE gun got even heavier. The full underlug barrel added more weight, and with the Miculek grips I used, the full-up weight is now a full 3 pounds (yes, that’s 48 ounces).
The moon clips did have one peculiarity. Now, moon clips for a .45 ACP, 10mm or 9mm clip into the generous extractor groove of the case. On a revolver, that groove isn’t there. What the case makers do in making cases is, once the brass has been hydraulically formed and the headstamp and primer pocket bumped, the cases are fed into an automatic lathe. The lathe then turns the cases and cuts the rim to exact diameter and thickness. To make the front face of the rim correct, the lathe uses a square-ended cutter that plunges into the case from the side and cuts the rim face square. That also creates a small groove directly ahead of the rim.
With me so far?
OK, the thickness of that groove cut isn’t a SAAMI-specified dimension. The rim thickness is, but not the groove size.
The difference is small, but it’s enough. On the right is a Federal case, with a too-small groove. In the middle is an R-P case, just right. On the left is something else, and it’s actually too big. The round would be wobbly in the moon clip and hinder fast reloads.
Well, as it happened to be on Remington cases, the groove is large enough to accommodate a moon clip. Other cases are not. (Any made to the R-P pattern are, but many aren’t.) Some, like Federal, are too small, and the clip won’t fit. I’ve even found some too large, and the wobbly fit makes fast reloads an impossible task.
So, to use the Baumann-cylinder M-28 ICORE gun, I had to sort out the R-P headstamped .38 cases and do the same with .357s for Pin loads. And, so, my reloading brass is sorted accordingly. Bins are marked accordingly: for R-P and R-P only, and other bins for all the other headstamps in .38 and .357. Once done, it’s easy to keep separate, because picking up fired brass is easy—they’re in batches of seven, all connected.
After Baumann showed the way (I even sent my M-28 to S&W for them to study and see what Baumann had done), ICORE and the Revolver Division of USPSA/IPSC made a decision: Instead of revolvers being stuck with only six shots, shooters could opt for more shots. However, if it was chambered in a cartridge smaller than a .40/10mm, it couldn’t make Major.
The ICORE M-28 with its 627 barrel, Ed Brown cylinder latch and Miculek grips was a match-winning tool back in the day. It’s still fun to shoot.
So, S&W jumped right into making an eight-shot revolver, making several versions in the decade-plus since, in .38 Super and 9mm. However, this required a significant change. The cylinder had to be made larger in diameter to accommodate the .38 Super or 9mm, as well as the frame to fit it, and so an eight-shot cylinder will not fit into the same frame as a six-shot (or my seven-shot) cylinder would.
Oh, and the .38 Super and 9mm guns have another advantage—the short loaded lengths make the moonclips much easier to align and reload than the longer .38 Specials present.
As a result, my seven-shot Baumann ICORE gun got bypassed, and I can’t upgrade it. In a predictable change, the option for moving to eight shots and .38 Super or 9mm proved so popular that the number of competitors who shoot at the USPSA Revolver Nationals using a .45 is a literal handful. And in ICORE, my seven shots are a distinct disadvantage to the eight-shot revolvers, so now it languishes on the shelf.
Well, it also languishes because I don’t compete much anymore, being busy writing.
It’s still up to the task, however. I took it to the range to run some ICORE-level ammo through it; shooting from a sandbagged rest at 25 yards, it still posted seven-shot groups (why shoot five shots when it holds seven, right?) of 1.5 inch with mixed-era R-P brass reloads. Back when I was competing regularly—and this was the king of wheelguns—I used a single source of brass in matches. To do that, I had simply tracked down some R-P .38 Special ammo and bought three boxes of it from the same production lot. That way I had matched brass and enough of it for competition. And all the practice ammo was loaded on whatever R-P brass I sorted out of the .38 Special stream. After all, when you’re shooting using moon clips, there’s no such thing as a “lost brass” match. You get it all, and all yours, back.
Accurate, reliable and fun to shoot, this particular M-28 was also a learning experience but is now a historical curiosity.
Progress has a way of doing that to good guns.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the August 2022 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
We ask you to analyze whether you’re really prepared to use deadly force in a self-defense situation.
Are you prepared to use deadly force in self-defense? Most armed citizens would reply in the affirmative, but I wonder if the average citizen has really worked out in his or her mind how an act of killing another, whether justified or not, will change their life.
I came to grips with this issue in my early 20s when I first put a gun on my hip and started in the field of law enforcement. Thankfully, I was never forced to pull the trigger on a human being, although I did shoot up a ’76 Ford Pinto once (but that’s a story for another time).
What allowed me the luxury to have made that decision at an early age was the knowledge that if I did have to do the deed (assuming it was on-duty and justified) I’d have a law enforcement agency covering my six. And regarding the justified part: During my initial training in use of deadly force when I was a police recruit, I received what I felt was some pretty good training as how to make sure the use of force was justified.
We spend a considerable time in the academy understanding the concept of Ability-Opportunity-Jeopardy, and we also studied many of the USSC and appellate court decisions regarding both use of deadly force, but also lesser degrees of force. I’m happy to report that I can count on one hand the number of complaints that were filed against me during my police career, and those were all unfounded.
About 10 years into my police career, I decided to leave full-time and start teaching the private citizen how to use firearms for self-defense. At that time, I also made myself the promise I wouldn’t teach people how to kill, unless I also taught them when and when not they could legally use deadly force in self-defense. Twenty thousand people later, I’m proud to claim none of my students were ever prosecuted or sued after an act of self-defense. A couple years ago, I retired from teaching after developing a curriculum for my school and teaching those instructors how to do what I had been doing.
Fast-forward to present day and my current position as president of the Armed Citizen’s Legal Defense Network Inc. I’m also proud as heck to report that none of our members have been prosecuted for murder or manslaughter after using deadly force in self-defense, and only a couple have opted for a low-level misdemeanor plea bargain instead of taking the risk of a jury trial.
What’s the common denominator in all this? It’s documented training in the use of deadly force in self-defense. In the first two instances, the lectures I both received and gave were documented both with handout material and, of course, the instructor’s willingness to go to court and testify as to what was taught. In the latter, the Network provides over 10 hours of educational material (videos and a book) to each person who signs up. Of course, we’re willing to also help that member fight the legal fight, if needed.
Seek out online lectures and programs that teach use of deadly force in self-defense. When you’re viewing these lectures, document having seen them. If it’s not documented, it didn’t happen.
Lastly, there are in-person training courses in the use of deadly force. The good news is that the courses will likely be taught by an expert in the law and that expert will be available to come to court in your defense, if needed.
Now, getting back to the lead-in question: Are you prepared to use deadly force in self-defense?
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the February 2023 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
In this excerpt from Deadly Force, 2nd Edition, Massad Ayoob discusses the finer points of attorney selection following a self-defense incident.
Even the most righteous defensive use of a firearm can lead to a false allegation of wrongdoing. It might be an unmeritorious civil lawsuit motivated by greed or revenge or a criminal charge promulgated by a self-styled social justice warrior in a prosecutor’s office.
This article is an excerpt from Deadly Force, 2nd Edition, a complete guide to understanding your right to self-defense!
The poet Robert Frost once defined a jury as “12 people assembled to determine who has the best attorney.” There is much truth in this, and people who read this book—people who have accepted the responsibility to protect innocent people—need to take that to heart. Such people are alpha males and females accustomed to being in charge of important matters.
They have to understand that they are not the players when they are on trial anymore.
They are the stakes.
Their attorney is the player. Accordingly, they want the game’s best player to represent them at the table.
The ‘Game’
I don’t consider a trial to be a game. Neither should you. But many attorneys do, and it’s essential to understand that.
Many people think the best attorney for a shooting case is the most famous criminal lawyer in the region. That’s not necessarily true. That “Perry Mason of the community” often got his reputation by pulling rabbits out of hats and winning acquittals for obviously guilty criminals. That sort of legal wizardry employs tactics that are almost 180 degrees opposite of the best skillset for defending legitimate, lawful uses of lethal force.
Never forget that the defense of a genuinely justified use of lethal force is an affirmative defense! We are not claiming that we didn’t shoot our attacker; instead, we are stipulating that we did indeed shoot him, but we are maintaining that we were correct.
My work over the years has brought me into contact with many criminal defense lawyers. I can usually find time to ask them a few questions unrelated to the particular case at bar. One of those questions is, “Counselor, in all your years in defense bar, how many of your clients were innocent, wrongly accused men or women?”
The answer has always been a relatively tiny percentage who weren’t either guilty as charged or at least guilty of some lesser included offense. One with more than 30 years of practice answered, “Oh, it happens. A good 1 out of a 100 really is totally innocent.” Some others have told me they don’t think they’ve ever defended an innocent person.
If that is your professional experience, you will develop a formula of guilt mitigation and establishing some element of reasonable doubt because that’s all you, as a defense attorney with a guilty client, have to work with. It becomes your standard, automatic default. Let’s examine why that doesn’t work for the truly innocent defendant.
A guilty man’s lawyer never wants to put him on the witness stand: what can he possibly say that won’t be either an admission of guilt or a lie? The lie will open the client to the additional charge of felony perjury. If it appears that his attorney coached him to lie on the witness stand, the lawyer himself has to worry about the criminal charge of subornation of perjury and can hear his license to practice law grow wings and prepare to fly away. So, of course, his default practice becomes, “I never put my clients on the witness stand!”
In contrast, the defendant must take the stand in an affirmative defense. It’s not a “whodunnit” anymore: We’ve already established that it was the defendant who killed the deceased. It’s now a “why did he or she do it,” and who besides the defendant can truly answer that question?
The criminal defense lawyer whose experience is primarily defending the guilty routinely advises, “Never talk to the police!” The reason for that should be obvious: what can the guilty man say that won’t inculpate him and make his conviction all the more certain? He can lie, but he’ll almost certainly be caught in that lie, and lying to the police is another crime in and of itself. “Never talk to the police” probably is the best advice the lawyer can give to a potential future guilty client.
But the innocent person who fired in self-defense is poorly served by this advice.
A guilty man’s lawyer who gives an innocent client a guilty man’s defense will likely end up with a guilty man’s verdict.
If the client has established something like “This man attacked me” and pointed out evidence and witnesses from his first contact, he has made it much easier for his attorney to give him a solid affirmative defense. It is defense lawyers who have spent ninety-plus percent of their careers defending at least partially guilty clients who advise “Never talk to the police.” A defendant with the mental discipline to go through the “Five Point Checklist” I’ve described elsewhere in this book will have better paved the way for their attorney to drive them safely through trial to an acquittal.
Desirable Defense Attorney Attributes
All other things being equal, I would much prefer to have a law firm or at least a partnership defending me rather than a sole practitioner. Now, there are some exceptions to this. In the 1980s, I watched Gene Compton, a sole practitioner in Virginia, carry his wrongly accused client Mark Branham on a long, exhausting journey that lasted through three trials before winning the ultimate acquittal.
During that ordeal, focused exclusively on the Branham trial for weeks, Gene paid out of his pocket to keep the office open, knowing that the client couldn’t afford his usual fees. This was dedication “above and beyond the call of duty.” The attorney, after all, has a duty to their staff to generate enough income to write their paychecks and “keep the lights on.” Lawyers with that degree of dedication are not found in every office. A firm with multiple lawyers bringing in multiple fees can handle such things more easily.
During trial, good lawyers don’t get much sleep. The other side may be trying to surprise them at every turn, requiring them to burn the midnight oil between trial days. The emotional exhaustion of trial is exacerbated for any ethical attorney who knows they are defending an innocent person, which translates to physical exhaustion and running out of time when you have to do everything yourself without other lawyers taking the slack. Here’s an example from the 2021 trial of police officer Derek Chauvin in the death of George Floyd, which was the highest-profile case of its period and triggered riots nationwide.
On April 20, 2021, in my blog, in an entry titled “Thoughts On the Chauvin Verdict,” I wrote: “I don’t think the harsh criticism I’m seeing of defense attorney Eric Nelson is warranted. He was David against Goliath, the sole attorney of record that the police union could afford, against no less than three attorneys at the prosecutors’ table at any time and more behind the scenes backing them up. At the same time, Nelson’s only assistance in court came from a fledgling lawyer who had just passed her bar exam and was acting as an intern. I thought he did an excellent job cross-examining the State’s witnesses, and his necessarily long close was more professional than his prosecutorial counterpart’s.”
Chauvin was, of course, convicted. Many followed that case closely and think there was ample reasonable doubt as to whether Chauvin’s kneeling on Floyd for more than nine minutes caused his death—there was evidence that the deceased had enough fentanyl in his system to kill him and maybe enough to kill a couple of people—but I also had a sense of a defense team that was overwhelmed by a much larger prosecution team that also had media-driven public sentiment on its side.
An excellent lawyer, whom I won’t name here because it wasn’t his fault, lost a murder case in California. A sole practitioner, he learned before trial that his brother had been in a car crash and was not expected to survive. By trial time, he had been without sleep for days, living on black coffee and unfiltered Camel cigarettes. During the trial, I found him groggy, distracted, and “out of it.” In mid-trial, he collapsed and was rushed to the hospital by ambulance. There was no one to “pick up the ball” and run with it. His client was convicted and remains in prison.
In a murder trial in Florida, I saw something similar: The trial lawyer was a sole practitioner and a brittle diabetic whose illness was greatly aggravated by the long hours, insomnia and stress of the trial. He had no one to back him up when his disease hit him hard during trial, impairing his focus. The jury found the client guilty of the lesser included charge of manslaughter.
Many military combat survivors will tell you, “No one person can do it alone.” That is true to a significant degree in the combat of the courts. That’s why I worry about hiring a solo practitioner for the defense.
Don’t despair if financial considerations limit you to a public defender. Public defenders get a bad rap because they are notoriously underfunded and overburdened, but don’t fall for the stereotype that they’ll always give you a sub-par defense. The constant heat of their heavy caseloads has forged some excellent trial lawyers who began as public defenders; the great Roy Black in Miami comes to mind. Elsewhere in this book, Gila Hayes’ case study of the Larry Hickey trials demonstrates the splendid work public defenders such as Matt Messmer can do. A good public defender lives for the chance to exonerate a truly innocent client.
As noted earlier, you’re looking for the best attorney for an affirmative defense, not necessarily criminal defense in general. I, for one, wouldn’t want a flamboyant superstar known for courtroom shenanigans; they’ll often turn the judge against them, which never helps the client. The sort of lawyer who seems to have majored in Drama and minored in Law tends to aggravate a jury, and the jury tends to see lawyer and client as one, joined at the hip. If the attorney insults or angers them, the only way they can retaliate is to convict his client … you. I want my attorney to be calm, likable and dignified. I want a defense lawyer respected by the prosecutors and the judge alike: the sort of white-maned old lion (or lioness) of the courts that the Bar Association picks to give Ethics lectures at CLE (Continuing Legal Education) training seminars for other lawyers.
The lawyer must know the ins and outs of forensic evidence and proper investigation protocols in shooting cases. How do you find such an attorney near you?
One answer is: use the one the cops use.
It won’t be hard to find out what union or fraternal organization (such as FOP, the Fraternal Order of Police, or PBA, Patrolman’s Benevolent Association) represents your local police officers or county sheriff’s deputies. Reach out to that organization and ask them what criminal defense lawyer they retain for one of their members who is wrongfully indicted after a line of duty or off-duty shooting. That will be an attorney who knows the subtleties of handling a defensive shooting case. If that particular attorney only speaks for police, they will almost certainly be able to refer you to a lawyer who knows what they know and accepts private citizen clients.
Or you can reach out to your post-self-defense support group … if you belong to one!
Post-Self-Defense Support Groups
Over my decades as an expert witness, one thing that has always appalled me has been the enormous cost of legal defense, both criminal and civil, against unmeritorious allegations growing out of genuine self-defense cases. I’ve seen people go bankrupt. I’ve seen retirees have to go back to work full time. I’ve seen people who thought they would die peacefully in a home they owned free and clear to bequeath to their decedents, having to mortgage or reverse mortgage those homes to pay the legal fees. In my most recent murder trial of an armed citizen I helped get fully acquitted, I joined him for a celebratory beer the day after the verdict. He told me that his legal expenses had totaled $300,000 or a little more—and there was still a lawsuit in the wings, filed by the deceased’s family.
My colleague Marty Hayes has seen the same thing and did something about it. A highly successful expert witness in the same field as me since 1990 and a former LEO at ranks up to CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer), Marty has also been one of the nation’s top firearms and lethal force instructors for decades. He graduated from law school in 2007 and founded the first support group for this sort of situation, the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network (ACLDN, ArmedCitizensNetwork.org), the following year.
Hayes explains, “The idea of the Network came from discussing the aftermath of lawful self-defense with my students at the Firearms Academy of Seattle. Most students were very concerned about what to do after a shooting but did not have sufficient money to mount a legal defense. That was the beginning of the Network, and as I was at the time going through law school, I hit upon the idea that instead of becoming a practicing attorney, I would see if my students would pay a little money each year to have the possibility of assistance after an incident. They did, and the effort soon spread nationwide.”
The concept quickly caught on and was followed by many imitators, most with different business models. ACLDN is not insurance but instead is member-supported. Members receive several training videos featuring leading experts and attorneys in the field. ACLDN’s structure includes an advisory board consisting of Hayes and administrator Vincent Schuck, ace instructors Tom Givens and John Farnam, the same Dennis Tueller mentioned in this book, attorney and firearms expert Emmanuel Kapelsohn, pro-police and pro-gun attorney Marie D’Amico, and master instructor Karl Rehn, and this writer. The board members are available to assist members and their lawyers with trial strategy advice, expert witness appearances and additional support. ACLDN pays lawyers’ fees and related costs in criminal defense and civil lawsuits and pays bail if the member has been arrested. Coverage extends to all use of force incidents involving the defense of self or other innocent parties and is not limited to shooting incidents.
As a public service, ACLDN makes its monthly journal available even to non-members at the website listed above. A quick perusal of a few issues will give you an idea of where the organization, and its member lawyers, are coming from. Over the many years, ACLDN has resolved dozens of cases. None have had to go to trial. All have resulted in the most satisfactory outcomes possible. The organization will pay the attorney of the member’s choice or select and send in a suitable lawyer if the member doesn’t have a particular advocate in mind.
Issues In Selection of Post-Self-Defense Support Groups
While some of these groups offer insurance, many others are pre-paid legal services. The ACLDN is not insurance in any way, shape, or form, but rather a member support group providing a service analogous to a police union or fraternal organization promising to pay for legal defense for a wrongly-accused officer who belongs. Nevertheless, before signing up with any of them, I urge you to do what you would do with real insurance before signing up for a policy: READ THE FINE PRINT FIRST!
Consider the short-lived, ill-fated Carry Guard program once offered by the National Rifle Association. In this writer’s opinion, there were many things wrong with it, the cardinal one being their promise to pay every penny of your legal expenses … after you were acquitted.
Now, let that sink in. No attorney will take a criminal defense case on the promise that they will be paid only if—and after—they have won an acquittal. They require a substantial payment up front to draw from regarding legal fees and expenses as they go along. The expenses alone can be high. Volumes of paperwork (reports, depositions, statements, etc.) must be ordered beforehand, and I’ve seen the providers charge three dollars per page for these mountains of (sometimes triple-spaced) documents. Expert witnesses don’t work on later promises of payment either, nor do the court reporters transcribe depositions, etc. The attorney’s office staff have to be paid.
Reimbursement requirement is a big red flag. NRA Carry Guard is long gone, but there are organizations today that promise to pay all your legal fees and costs but require you to reimburse them if you lose the case in court. The most innocent man or woman’s case can be lost if they have an incompetent lawyer or for several other reasons.
Your support organization is supposed to be your staunch ally in your fight to keep your life as you know it. When it’s in the ally’s financial interest for you to lose the case, is that entity really your ally?
What I would call a no-violation clause could be another deal-breaker for me. This element of the agreement states that if you violate law, rules, or regulation in any way, even though the shooting itself was justifiable, the company does not have to pay for your defense. Let’s say you did not realize you were in a hotel that happens to be a “gun-free” zone, and you were carrying your gun in good faith when you had to shoot a rapist in the stairwell, an armed robber breaking into your room or a carjacker in the parking lot.
I have been in numerous establishments posted as “gun-free zones” but posted so poorly that the sign could not be seen until you left the premises, perhaps not even then. I’ve been in hotels where there weren’t any “no guns” signs in the lobbies or doors, but such a policy was stated on the hotel’s home page. We travelers rarely look at the fine print on hotel websites. But a “self-defense insurance company” will certainly look there after one of their clients has been involved in a justified shooting on such premises.
Is “no alcohol on board” a condition of coverage? If you had a pre-dinner cocktail before a two-hour dinner with friends, I would expect that small amount of alcohol to have metabolized entirely and be a non-issue when you paid for your meal, left the establishment, and had to defend yourself against an armed attacker in the parking lot. However, investigators knowing you left a place of business where alcohol is served, will doubtless check your bill, notice that you had a drink and include that in the report. Under these circumstances, a “no alcohol” policy might give the company a legal excuse to dump you and deny coverage.
Will the plan allow you to pick your own lawyer? This element is huge. If the support group insists on sending in an attorney of their choice, that might be the lowest-priced novice hungry for his first case. My Cousin Vinnie is a most enjoyable movie—I’ve met law professors who show it at law school—but the title character is the antithesis of what you want working for you when an affirmative defense is needed.
Do your due diligence and find a plan that works for you. Starry-eyed idealists still think, “A good shoot is a good shoot! None of those horror stories will ever happen to me!” That’s a mindset similar to, “I’ll never need a gun for self-defense; none of those horror stories will ever happen to me.”
But there’s another good reason to have post-self-defense support, which many people miss: deterrent effect against political prosecution or unmeritorious lawsuits. Whether in the criminal court arena or the civil, no attorney wants to bring a case he can’t win or browbeat the accused into accepting a plea bargain (criminal) or out-of-court settlement (civil). Part of their leverage in achieving that sort of thing, which I consider to be nothing less than legalized extortion when the defendant acted in legitimate self-defense, is the threat to bankrupt them with legal fees if they don’t plead or settle. When your attorney can smile at opposing counsel and say, “A third party is paying my client’s fees and expenses. Take us to court. We’ll beat you there,” the deterrent effect is obvious.
I strongly recommend that the armed citizen belongs to a post-self-defense support group for the same reason I recommend every law enforcement officer join their union, fraternal organization or bargaining entity. When wrongly accused in either criminal or civil court, it’s good to have a savvy, well-funded organization in your corner, paying for your defense.
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.
