We take a closer look at the Second Amendment, from its original intent to the issues of later interpretations.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is one of the most fiercely debated and passionately defended provisions in American law. Enshrined in the Bill of Rights, it declares: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
While only 27 words in length, its meaning, scope and application have been the subject of centuries of legal, political and cultural debate.
The Second Amendment's Origins And Founding Intent
The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, part of the original Bill of Rights demanded by Anti-Federalists who feared the potential tyranny of a centralized government. Not trusting that the newly formed government would abide by its limited, prescribed powers, they wanted explicit protections for individual liberties—including the right to self-defense.
At the time, English common law, as articulated by jurists like William Blackstone, already recognized a natural right to resist oppression and defend oneself. The Founders believed this right predated the Constitution and therefore should be preserved—not granted—by the Second Amendment.
The language of the amendment reflects this mindset. It doesn’t create a right; it recognizes one. That’s why it says, “the right of the people,” suggesting an existing, inalienable liberty. Importantly, the phrase “a well regulated militia” has often been misunderstood. In the 18th century, “well regulated” meant well trained, not tightly controlled by the government, and “militia” referred to able-bodied citizens, not a standing army.
Limited Reach—At First
Initially, the Second Amendment applied only to actions of the federal government. States were free to regulate firearms as they saw fit. Indiana, for example, included its own version in its state constitution: “The people shall have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State.” This dual protection remained largely uncontested for decades, in part because federal firearms regulation was virtually nonexistent.
That changed in the 20th century, beginning with the National Firearms Act of 1934, passed in the wake of gangland violence during Prohibition. It imposed taxes and registration requirements on certain weapons like machine guns and short-barreled rifles. This law led to the Supreme Court’s 1939 decision in United States v. Miller, which upheld the act in a confusing and often misinterpreted opinion. Many lower courts would later use Miller to argue that the Second Amendment protected only a “collective” right related to militia service.
The Modern Legal Revolution
The tide began to shift in 2001 with United States v. Emerson, when the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual right. This created a circuit split, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to intervene.
That happened in 2008, with the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller. In a 5-4 decision, the Court confirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms, particularly for self-defense within the home. It was a momentous ruling but limited in scope: The case involved Washington, D.C.—a federal enclave—not a state.
The Court addressed that gap two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), incorporating the Second Amendment against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. This meant that state and local governments were now bound by the same constitutional limits as the federal government regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
Expansion And Clarification in Bruen
Despite Heller and McDonald, many courts continued to uphold gun restrictions using “interest balancing”—weighing the government’s interest against individual rights. That changed dramatically in 2022 with New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Court rejected interest balancing entirely and clarified the standard that should apply in Second Amendment cases: gun laws must be consistent with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment. If there wasn’t an analogous restriction at the time of the founding, the law is likely unconstitutional.
The Bruen decision also distinguished between the right to “keep” arms (possession) and to “bear” arms (carry). It confirmed that the Second Amendment covers both, including carrying firearms in public for self-defense.
The Rahimi Decision: A Retreat?
Most recently, the Court addressed United States v. Rahimi (2024), involving a federal law that prohibits firearm possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. In an 8-1 decision, the Court upheld the law, finding it consistent with the nation’s historical tradition—despite the absence of a close founding-era analog that disarmed individuals without a criminal conviction.
Critics, like me, argue that Rahimi waters down the Bruen standard by using historical “analogs” that are only loosely similar, such as surety laws and laws against “affrays” (going armed in a way that terrified the public). Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, warned that mixing historical justifications from different laws to justify modern restrictions undermines the originalist framework the court adopted in Bruen.
What’s Next?
The future of Second Amendment jurisprudence is uncertain. Challenges are already underway against bans on so-called “assault weapons,” restrictions on magazine capacity, and controversial ATF regulations such as those governing pistol braces. The outcome of these cases will hinge on how faithfully courts apply the methodology clarified in Bruen—and whether they adhere to the constitutional principle that rights are not privileges granted by the state but liberties inherent to the people.
As it stands, the Second Amendment continues to be forged—sometimes strengthened, sometimes tested—by each new ruling. Its history is a reminder that freedom is not preserved passively; it is upheld by vigilance, debate and, at times, resistance.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the June 2025 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
Depending on the load, a .30-06 has a power factor of about 400, but 12-gauge slugs can reach the 700s with ease.
If you really want to put the hurt on something, like a big critter, a 12-gauge slug does that. And here I will be speaking only of the 12-gauge variety, because while the 20 can come close, the rest … meh. The 16-gauge is so rare that it might not even exist, and 28 and .410 slugs are pointless.
First, what’s a slug?
Simply put: a single projectile, not a payload of shot or buckshot. And the shotgun slug goes back a long way. In fact, until the advent of the Minie ball, you could say that everyone fought wars with shotguns and slugs.
Really.
Modern slug loads use plastic over-powder wads and cups, not pasteboard and fiber. But they do the same thing.
The near-ubiquitous Brown Bess—the British Army standard from its finalization in 1716 or so until it was replaced by a rifled musket in 1867—was what ruled the world. The Land Pattern musket fired a round ball of about 0.700 inch in diameter: The black powder charge pushed it to over 1,000 fps, so it was essentially a “low-recoil” 12-gauge shotgun.
Well, round balls aren’t what we use today, but shotgun slugs are still with us. What are the slugs’ designs, you ask? Well, it depends. It depends on whether you’re using a smoothbore or a rifled-bore shotgun. Yes, it’s possible to have a fully rifled bore and still be a shotgun. That’s one of those regulatory determinations that had to be made, as the technology advanced and shooters demanded more.
We’ll go into that in a bit.
The basic slug is called the “Foster” slug. Think of a lead shot glass with a round base.
Load the slug/shot glass base-down and fire it rounded-end forward. No, it doesn’t act like a Minie ball. The open edges, or the skirt, can’t expand to grip the (non-existent) rifling, because shotgun slugs of the Foster design are loaded with wads underneath them, ahead of the powder charge. There’s often an assembly or stack of wads, with an over-powder card, then a cushioning and a slug base card. The slug and the wad assembly are pushed down the bore, and the slug continues while the wads drop off.
But the wads can be problematic. If you’re hunting, no big deal. The cardboard, pasteboard or other wadding will simply decompose in the woods. And the wads don’t go far enough to be a problem. But, in defense they might. Inside of, say, 15 yards, wads can hit hard enough to cause an injury … especially now that they’re all plastic, not card and fiber. They can stray wide of your line of fire, so if you’re using Foster slugs for defense, you have that to keep in mind.
How do we solve that problem?
Brenneke had a simple solution. Instead of the lead cup, the idea is to make a lead cylinder. Then, use a screw to attach the wadding column to the base of the cylinder. Fire the whole assembly, and voila, no wadding straying off your line of fire.
A Brenneke slug, showing the wad base and the screw holding it to the slug.
Typically, the Foster slug tends to be made of a soft lead alloy, so it can squeeze down if you happen to fire it through a barrel with some choke constriction or a choke tube installed. The Brennekes have the lead cylinder on the small size of bore diameter and use the wadding to keep it centered in the bore. So, it can pass through some chokes without damage.
Here you can see the Brenneke slug from the side, and the wad secured to the slug.
But, after all, rifling was invented for a reason. Modern shotgun slugs are more accurate than the smoothbore muskets of yore for a couple of reasons.
The Fiocchi Exacta Aero-slug uses the Brenneke approach but uses a plastic wad instead of one screwed onto the base of the slug.
One, they’re machined to tighter tolerances than a Land Pattern musket. Two, the modern slug is a lot closer to bore diameter, so there’s less “wandering” as it goes down the bore. The British soldier who was furiously loading his musket might be dropping a 0.680-inch ball down a .700 bore. The idea was speed of loading and volume of fire.
The dimensions don’t vary nearly as much today. And then there’s physics.
The best description of the stability methodology of a shotgun slug (so far) is “a rock in a sock.” The Foster slug has its center of mass forward of its center of shape, and that keeps it more-or-less traveling in a straight line. The Brenneke has the attached wadding column to do the same thing, making the center of mass forward of the center of shape. And the air flow over the wadding adds to that. The ribs on the slug do nothing for accuracy or create spin. They are to reduce stress on your choke, if you forget.
You can see the round nose of the slug, and the ribs on it. Inside the slug, the base is hollow, so it stays nose-forward in flight.
When the dimensions all work out properly, the accuracy can be quite startling. I built a shotgun slug gun for use at the Second Chance combat shoot (now The Pin Shoot) way back when the elder Bush was president. That gun grouped Remington 7/8-ounce slugs into one ragged hole at 50 yards, all day long. (Of course, Remington stopped making that load.) But you can certainly get minute-of-whitetail out to 100 yards once you find the combo your shotgun likes.
The Sabot
Another approach, one not so common these days, is an aerodynamic sabot slug. Sabot, from the French word “sabot” for a wooden shoe (and the root of “sabotage”), throwing a wooden shoe into the gears of a machine as the origin. The sabot is a pair of molded plastic sections that fit around the slug, which rides in the center. The sabot was made sort of wasp-shaped and smaller than the 12-gauge bore. So, a .500-inch slug with plastic sleeves. The sleeves, or sabot, would fall away once it left the muzzle, and the aerodynamic slug would continue on. This has the same wadding problem as the Foster slug.
The modern iteration of that is to use a jacketed 0.50-inch bullet, with a spire point inside of a sabot in a rifled-bore shotgun. The accuracy of this arrangement can rival that of rifles. Why do this? Because some locations still require a shotgun, not a rifle, for hunting. And because the DNR would find keeping rifled-bore shotguns out of the hunting fields a herculean task, they approved them.
If you’re shooting slugs for competition, you want accuracy—but only as much power as you need. Otherwise, the cumulative recoil will hurt your performance.
The Lyman
Both of these are slug loads. The right one is a factory shell, with roll crimp. The left is a Lyman, with a folded crimp. Once loaded, you can’t tell the Lyman from a regular shotshell with pellets.
Now, in all these there’s one more slug to consider: the Lyman. I view it as the “12-gauge airgun pellet” slug … because that’s what it looks like. It’s cast (you must do the casting, no one I know of makes them, either for loading or as loaded ammunition) with a special mold that creates a hollow-base pellet, just like the airgun one but 12-gauge. It then gets loaded into a regular shotgun and into a shotgun hull. This leads me to the shotshell and its crimp.
The Shotshell
Slug loads use a roll crimp so you can see they are slugs, and to provide resistance for complete powder ignition.
A regular shotshell uses a folded crimp of six or eight petals, and it seals the shot or buckshot in the shell. In the old days, when shells were paper, it was an over-shot card, and the load data (shot size, weight, charge) was printed on the card.
Slugs were loaded with a roll crimp. This does two things. One, it makes the shot and slug loads instantly identifiable, even by touch. Two, the roll crimp resists unfolding more than a folded crimp, and this permits powder charges that create more velocity with slugs than birdshot. Where a fast load (in lead terms, steel shot is a lot zippier) of shot might be 1,350 fps, a slug can be made to produce 1,600 fps. And recoil to go with it.
The Lyman slug uses a regular folded crimp, with regular, if specific wads. So, in addition to needing to follow exactly the specific load data for the Lyman slug, you need to load it in hulls that you do not use for any other purpose. So, just as an example: If you use Winchester AA red hulls for your skeet and trap shooting, you cannot use them for the Lyman slug. Otherwise, someday you’ll mix them up, go to shoot a round of skeet and be hurling 12-gauge slugs off into the distance. No, load those slugs in something not red at the very least.
The Recoil
And that brings me to the last part: recoil. As in, shotgun slugs have it in spades.
Slugs recoil with enthusiasm, so be prepared. And if you load your own you can practice up to full power over time.
You might’ve noticed that I used quotation marks when describing some shotgun slugs as low recoil. Well, let’s take a common new one, the Federal Tru Ball, which is 438 grains of slug at 1,350 fps producing a power factor (PF) of 591. A .30-06 can tap in at “only” a 405-410 PF. Winchester matches that with their sabot and a 1-ounce slug at 1,350 but then ups the ante with a 1-ounce slug at 1,600 fps. That’s a 700 PF. Ouch. Dialing the recoil back to a “low-recoil” load, of 1 ounce at a mere 1,150 or 1,200 fps, is still a 504 or 526 PF.
So, keep in mind that, whatever thumping you’re doing on the other end, you’re going to be receiving a thumping of your own on this end. However, if you want something light and handy, fast to use, and that hits hard, a shotgun (pump or auto) loaded with slugs can be a winner. There’s a reason those who travel in bear country look favorably on a shotgun with slugs.
The difference between full-power and low recoil can be marked. The low recoil ones still kick, however.
I don’t do much of that traveling, and when I do, someone else is hauling the ordnance. But I do use shotgun slugs. In my case, it’s with the Lyman slugs, loaded to tolerable velocities, in The Pin Shoot. There, the task is to knock over hinged steel plates and complete the array faster than anyone else does.
Now, this is a specialized competition and perhaps not for everyone. But it does serve another purpose. If you were planning on going, say, fly-fishing in bear country and wanted to take a shotgun for defense, practicing with factory “ohmyrecoil” slugs would be both expensive and painful. However, if you pored over the Lyman shotgun loading manual and found a load for your Lyman slug that wasn’t painful to shoot, you could do a lot of practice without a lot of recoil.
And that’s always good.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the May 2025 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
We hit the range to test out the EOTech Vudu 3-9×32 MPVO, a versatile little scope with an integrated red dot.
Every few years we see a technological leap in optics, even though these feats aren’t always immediately obvious to the non-nerds among us.
Sometimes these take place in the form of advanced coatings or novel approaches to increasing contrast or reducing optic aberrations, but occasionally it’s much more conspicuous … or maybe not so much. In fact, if you don’t know what you’re looking at here you might mistake it for a large dot optic or perhaps a prismatic. But no, there’s a whole 3 to 9 power variable optic under that hood. Let’s talk about this new Vudu.
The range and ratio aren’t going to bust down doors; 3×9 might be the most classic variable scope range ever. It’s not the 1:3 magnification ratio either. Hell, EOTech themselves manufactures a scope with a 1:10 scale, and we’ve seen glass go even higher than that. The big news here is the smallest thing. Namely, the whole hog is only 6.8 inches long. For comparison’s sake, an equivalent optic could easily approach twice that length. Hell, it’s a similar size to a 4x Trijicon ACOG with a kill flash.
EOTech has squeezed advanced capability into small packages in the past, like with their 5-25x Super Short and the latest batch of stubby magnifiers, but not anything like this — they are the first to pull off this level of optical magic.
We’ve previously discussed the need for a new kind of optic, the MPVO (Medium Powered Variable Optic). The MPVO wasn’t going to be anything groundbreaking in terms of magnification range, but instead in form factor.
There’s space under for irons, though they’re not much good unless you’re using a quick-release mount.
It would need to be smaller, more like an LPVO (or less) instead of a large objective bell and the rail-eating body of traditional optics, and importantly, also be designed to accommodate dots-on-top from the beginning instead of pretending that looking at a simulated 1x image through a tube was the same thing.
Essentially, we define an MPVO as a midrange variable stuffed into an LPVO shell, while addressing the downsides of each. There’s more nuance, but that’s the broad shape of it. While this isn’t exactly what we envisioned, EOTech managed to exceed our imagination regarding size; it’s clearly where the river is flowing.
Details & Controls
The build quality is exactly what you’ve come to expect from EOTech, with the body formed from a single piece of deeply anodized aluminum. No cheap Chinesium feel here.
In terms of controls, it’s fairly straightforward. The windage and elevation turrets have 1/4 MOA adjustments and are protected by caps; this is a set-it-and-forget-it optic, not one you’ll be dialing-in on the fly. The adjustments are chunky, and you can feel them even with winter gloves on.
There are 10 illumination settings with offs between each, so you can set it to your environment and turn it off with a short click in either direction. A single CR2032 battery will run the Vudu MPVO for about 300 hours. For one reason or another, the years-long battery life of dot sights hasn’t made it to other optics, but it’s also less of a problem because this’ll run without a battery regardless.
In addition to the shorter length, the front objective lens is only 32mm, which only adds to the magic trick. With traditional 3×9 designs and in addition to the much longer overall length, you’d expect to see 40mm or even 50mm glass and perhaps a sunshade to boot. This Vudu 3-9×32 does have a tube somewhere under there, but you’re not going to use it for scope rings because it’s compatible with mini ACOG mounts.
What little actual tube there is accommodates an optional EFLX dot sight, and you’ll save yourself a few bucks if you bundle them together.
The eye relief stays very consistent between the highest and lowest magnification levels, slicing off just 0.2 inches when maxed out. The color rendition of the Japanese glass is excellent, and the only real aberrations occur at the edges of the glass.
Reticle
This new Vudu is a second focal plane (SFP) optic, meaning that the reticle remains static regardless of the magnification level. Though broadly speaking this is a less complex optical arrangement than a first focal plane (FFP) reticle that scales as you zoom, it also allows for easier “daylight bright” illumination.
No, the HC1 reticle isn’t reminiscent of EOTech’s circle-dot like their SR5. Spend a little time with a ballistic calculator to maximize it.
On this first model EOTech features their HC1 reticle, which is shaped like a cross with a center dot complete with MOA stadia lines. Only a smaller inner portion is illuminated in red, and we have to admit it looks a bit like a Greek Orthodox cross at first blush. Even though the reticle doesn’t scale, EOTech went through the trouble of including a diagram displaying what each measurement means at both 3x and 9x. It’s nice of them to include the 3x scale, but max magnification is what we concern ourselves with.
Our recommendation is to bust out a ballistic calculator and figure out the major lines for your chosen rifle, zero, and caliber. For instance, with one of our 5.56mm rifles with 77-grain ammunition, the first major stadia line represents the drop at 312 yards, and the bottom 410 (needless to say, functionally it’s just 300 and 400 yards).
Loose Rounds
Even though you can immediately put a dot on top for close encounters, you can also shoot the Vudu with both eyes open à la Bindon Aiming Concept (BAC) just like with a Trijicon ACOG. It isn’t a problem or, rather, is no more a problem than regular BAC shooting. You might even find it easier with the Vudu because of the longer eye relief.
The Vudu 3×9 (top) is roughly the same size as a Trijicon ACOG with a killflash (bottom).
Speaking of military optics, perhaps due to the combination of the shape and reticle design, running around the range with the Vudu MPVO we couldn’t help but be reminded of the old 4x Colt carry handle scopes.
Are there some warts? Eh, not really — more like preferential differences, some that are likely to be addressed by future models. It would be great to see a higher top-end magnification somewhere down the line, but the present levels are just fine — especially in a world full of longer 1-8x LPVOs, fixed prismatics, and dot sights married to magnifiers. Similarly, SFP isn’t my preference but the small size makes up for a lot.
As to what it’s for — while the obvious answer to that question is anything you’d want a 3×9 on, the form factor really opens up a whole new world. Had this been in-hand in our last issue, it would have gone on our M16A5 build because it has versatile combat optic written all over it. As it stands, this one almost immediately found a home on an FN SCAR-H.
EOTech — keep it up! Other optic manufacturers — catch up!
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the May 2025 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
We take a look at some British and European rifle cartridges that were years ahead of their time but still failed to catch on.
It should not be news to any reader that the British and European gun trades were highly active in cartridge conceptualization and design from the advent of the 20th century to the outbreak of World War II. Cartridge designs rode a near-permanent wave during this period, but not all progressed beyond the experimental or proposition stage. This article is about a few of those obscure bolt-action cartridge concepts of which we are aware. There are many more that are not covered here and even more that have disappeared in the fog of time, about which we will probably never know anything. An entire book could be written about them.
If I were a man of means, I would, just for the hell of it, have built a collection of British-style rifles chambered for some of these “never” cartridges on modern Granite Mountain Arms (GMA) or Prechtl custom Mauser 98 actions.
The disappearance or destruction of many European cartridge records during WWII and the recent closure of the historic Birmingham Proof House in the United Kingdom, followed by the sale of its records to an undisclosed collector, makes original research near impossible. I therefore relied on whatever sources of existing research I could find, sometimes almost verbatim. Sources will be acknowledged as best as possible, and where I omitted recognition, it is accidental, not intentional.
.250 Cogswell & Harrington Super High Velocity
The .250 C&H cartridge was conceived around 1920. Two drawings exist: one from Eley dated October 8, 1920, and another from Kynoch (BJ17-71) of July 18, 1922. They differ materially. The cartridge color sketch image follows the Kynoch dimensions as it is the most recent, and even the 1920 sketch already notes modifications and refers to earlier drawings. Although I have never seen a .250 C&H cartridge, Fleming speculates that it may have seen limited production by Kynoch as the primer was revised in 1928.
The Eley drawing stipulates the case at 2.400 inches (60.96mm), while the Kynoch drawing lists it as 2.500 inches (63.5mm). The Eley drawing shows a maximum commercial cartridge length of 3.26 inches (82.80mm) and the Kynoch 3.30 inches (83.82mm). The bullet diameter is given as 0.258 inch (6.55mm) and not the present-day 0.257 inch (6.53mm). For all practical purposes, we can use the same barrel specifications as the .250-3000 Savage: a groove diameter of 0.257 inch (6.53mm) and a caliber of 0.250 inch (6.35mm).
The .250 Cogswell & Harrison design is typically British period-related, but the final version’s body taper was an excessive 2.991 degrees. The original drawing with the lesser body taper was the better of the two versions in my book, even with its odd belt diameter. Its neck measures 0.300 inch (7.62mm), constituting 120 percent of the caliber. The shoulder angle is a shallow, Cordite-charging-compatible 17 degrees. The case capacity is in the region of 62 to 65 grains of water.
Tracing 745 circa 1920, most likely the conceptual drawing of the .250 Cogswell & Harrington cartridge. It was superseded in 1923.
I could not find a definitive pressure specification for the .250 Cogswell & Harrison. QuickLoad lists it as 50,763 psi, but obviously without substantiation, and I have no idea where that specification was sourced. The .240 H&H Apex, which hails from the same year, has a maximum average pressure limit of 60,191 psi. The .250-3000 Savage of 1914, a lever-action cartridge, has a Sporting Arms & Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) maximum average pressure limit of 45,000 CUP (Copper Units Pressure), while the Commission internationale permanente pour l’épreuve des armes à feu portatives (CIP) limits it to 52,939 psi. Given that it is a post-WWI bolt-action cartridge design, I can see no reason the .250 Cogswell & Harrison cannot be loaded to .240 Apex levels. Thus, it compares to contemporary 0.257-inch rounds as detailed in the .250 C&H Performance Comparison Table.
In practical terms, the .250 Cogswell & Harrington would have performed somewhere between the rimless .25-’06 Remington and the .257 Weatherby Magnum. It was hailed as an excellent option for “Hill-Shooting in India, or for Deer-Stalking in Scotland.”
.250 Cogswell & Harrington Drawing Differences
Identification Date
Rim Ø (R1) Diameter (in.)
Belt Ø (R3) Diameter (in.)
Base Ø (P1) Diameter (in.)
Shoulder (P2) Diameter (in.)
Case (L3) Length (in.)
COAL (L6) (in.)
1920
.500
.500
.480
.432
2.400
3.250
1923 (Kynoch)
.564
.532
.513
.420
2.500
3.300
The cartridge is quite interesting because it is belted but semi-rimmed with a rim diameter of .564 inch (14.33mm).
In the 1924 Cogswell & Harrison brochure, the cartridge was offered in a Mauser 98 action, and the Cordite ballistics listed it as 3,000 fps with a 110-grain bullet, which would have been achieved at pressures around 45,000 psi.
This Kynoch drawing seems to be a late rendition of the 1921 revision of the .250 Cogswell & Harrison cartridge since the notes and remarks date 1922 and 1928, respectively.
Drawings of two other belted Cogswell & Harrington cartridges also exist but have not been included here due to space restrictions; that of the .370 (Kynoch BJ17—71.4 dated May 5, 1921) and of a .380 (Eley 137.24 dated June 13, 1920) neither of which made it.
.26 BSA Rimless Belted Express
BSA (Birmingham Small Arms Company, Ltd.) was established around 1861. It played a significant role in British small arms manufacture until about 1973, when it closed. It offered airguns, rifles and cartridges of its own design, amongst which were the .26 and .40 BSA Rimless Belted Express. The earliest blueprint of the .26 BSA I have is Kynoch’s drawing numbered BJ17-55A, dated February 18, 1920. It was superseded by Kynoch drawing BK46-23, which I am still trying to find. At the time of the .26 BSA’s introduction, the company built its rifles on modified Enfield Pattern-14 bolt-action systems, not Mauser or Mannlicher actions common to other British gunmakers.
The .26 BSA Cartridge Comparison Table shows its closest ballistic rivals. The .264 Winchester Magnum could also have been included, but it is more powerful than the cartridges in the comparison. The .26 BSA’s rivals are the 6.5 Remington Magnum and the recent 6.5 PRC. That is quite a revelation, given that this cartridge is over a century old.
Theoretically, the .26 BSA equals or marginally outperforms the highly touted 6.5 PRC cartridge if loaded to the same pressure levels. In practice, the 6.5 PRC is technically a much more sophisticated cartridge with better cartridge-to-chamber interface and combustion characteristics. (Not that the .260 BSA cartridge is the potentially better one; it already equaled the PRC’s ballistic potential a century ago.)
A 1920 drawing of the .26 BSA Rimless Belted Express. A note on the drawing indicates that it had been superseded three years later by a Kynoch drawing BK46-23.
The .260 BSA has a 2.400-inch (60,96mm) long case with a 107.69 percent long neck, which conforms to contemporary criteria. The shallow shoulder angle of 21 degrees is high for a British cartridge. British rounds were loaded with Cordite strings as the propellant, which were inserted into the cases before the shoulder and neck were swaged into final shape during production. A shallow shoulder angle was consequently preferred as the most process-compatible. On the Kynoch drawing, the rim and belt diameters are the same as those of the .375 H&H Magnum and typical American belted cartridges.
The .26 BSA belt and the unnecessarily sharp tapered body (1.786 degrees) are not as efficient and enduring as the shorter body, sharper shoulder and lesser body taper of the contemporary 6.5 PRC and similar high-precision designs. Unless you are a handloader, those benefits do not necessarily manifest in ballistic or precision superiority. It also shows that Britain was at least 39 years ahead of the USA in terms of the 0.260-inch caliber cartridge design because the U.S. only introduced the belted .264 Winchester Magnum in 1959 and the 6.5mm Remington Magnum in 1966. The rimless 6.5 PRC wouldn’t see the light of day until 2018—98 years later!
.280 Jeffery (.33/.280 Jeffery)
The .280 Jeffery originated with Kynoch drawing AY12-41 of November 19, 2013. It is a .333 Jeffery necked down to 0.287 inch (7.29mm), not the 0.284 inch (7.21mm) that later became the 7mm standard. W.J. Jeffery offered it in his Mauser 98 rifles. Most sources claim that it only went into production in 1915, but 1914 is more likely. As with the 7mm WSM and Remington’s UltraMag cartridges, its parent case was the .404 Jeffery, except the British took this approach 88 years before the Americans did. Loaded with 57 grains of Cordite, it launched a 140-grain bullet at 3,000 fps., Remember that the velocities listed for British cartridges were derived from 28-inch (711mm) proof barrels.
The .280 Jeffery is a forerunner of the modern 7mm Blaser Magnum, circa 2009. The Blaser, designed by my friend Christer Larsson, former head of ballistics at Norma Precision, has a marginally shorter case body (L1) and case length (L3) but less body taper and a sharper shoulder. These two cartridges have the same case water capacity and ballistics at identical pressure levels for all practical purposes.
This is a poor-quality drawing of the .280 Jeffery. Although the original drawing dates back to 1913, this version lists modifications up to 1959.
Apart from bullet diameter, the minor dimensional differences are detailed in the accompanying .280 Jeffery Cartridge Comparison Table. Although the .280 was loaded hot in its day, modern propellants enable it to exceed original ballistics in 24-inch (610mm) barrels.
Loaded with modern propellants to contemporary pressure levels, the .280 Jeffery trades punches with the .280 Remington, 7x64mm Brenneke, 7mm WSM, 7mm Remington Magnum and the 7mm Blaser without ever taking to the canvas.
This worn box of .280 Jeffery ammunition in the collection of Paul Strydom invokes a sense of nostalgia to accompany a discussion of these forgotten old cartridges. Photo: Paul Strydom
From a design perspective, its neck is a surprise for a British cartridge preceding WWI: It is short—around 98.2 percent of caliber. Even the .276 Enfield with which the British military experimented had a longer neck. The 22°57’30” shoulder was also rather sharp for a pre-WWI British round. The body taper is era-typical at a rather pronounced 1.687 degrees. It’s interesting that a cartridge would fall by the wayside, only to essentially be revived 96 years later as a solution to real or perceived needs. But that is the world of cartridges for you.
.322 Rigby Nitro
In the 1914 history section of the famous John Rigby & Co. website, there is a sentence that reads: “John Rigby had further plans for his .416 cartridge case. When World War I began in June 1914, he was working with Kynoch to develop the Rigby .322 Nitro cartridge. They intended to use a .330 diameter bullet weighing 250 grains. The velocity should have been about 3,000 feet per second, which would have produced more than 5,000 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle. Completion of the project was delayed until after the war, but with John Rigby’s death in 1916 all development ceased.”
The .322 Rigby died with its conceiver and was never commercially produced. A few cartridges must have been made for experimental purposes because there are a few specimens in collectors’ hands. The 250-grain 0.330-inch bullet made the .318 Westley Richards (circa 1910) famous. Many years ago, I wrote: “The .322 Rigby was not conceived as a .350 Rigby Magnum necked down, but an original design. The various sources list slightly differing dimensions for the cartridge, but performance levels hovered around 2,500 fps with 275-grain bullets from 24-inch (610mm) barrels.”
However, John Rigby used the .404 Jeffery case as the basis for the .322, not his .416 case. That is abundantly clear from the March 17, 1914, letter posted on the Rigby website and the Kynoch drawing AY12-47 dated March 24, 1914. It is understandable because, as I explained in African Dangerous Game Cartridges (p. 277), he indirectly contributed to the creation of the .404 Jeffery.
Drawing AY12-47 shows the cartridge as having the same cartridge overall length of 3.75 inches (95.25mm) as the .416 Rigby (Mauser magnum-length action) rather than the 3.53 inches (89.66mm) of the .404 Jeffery. The latter can be fitted into a standard-length Mauser action with a stretched magazine box, as is commonly done to accommodate the .375 H&H Magnum (COAL 3.6 inches). Interestingly, this drawing does not specify the case body length (L1), but Ken Howell determined it by using CAD software to “reverse engineer” the dimension as 2.345 inches (59.56mm). Body taper has thus been calculated as 1.566 degrees.
The available drawing of the .322 Rigby Nitro cartridge dated March 24, 1914.
The case water capacity of the .322 Rigby Nitro is in the region of 102 to 103 grains. Rigby specified the muzzle velocity at 3,000 fps with a 250-grain bullet using Cordite. I can only presume that this performance was to be derived from the typical 28-inch (711mm) test barrels standard in the British trade. Using QuickLoad and a British-style Woodleigh 250-grain 0.330-inch bullet, I derived an approximate pressure level of 62,500 psi, which is way above what would have been acceptable in 1914. I submit that Rigby’s velocity expectation for the 250-grain bullet was optimistic.
If, however, I use a 275-grain bullet with a length of 1.34 inches (34mm), I can simulate 2,500 fps from a 24-inch (610mm) barrel at a mere 47,137 psi—identical to the pressure specification of the .416 Rigby.
The accompanying comparison table details the contemporary cartridges most comparable to the .322 Rigby Nitro. Since the .322’s modern adversaries are all loaded to maximum average pressures (MAP) exceeding 60,000 psi, I settled on the pressure level for the .322 Rigby for comparison in QuickLoad using a 24-inch (610mm) barrel. The average of five top-performing loads at 90 percent of maximum average pressure was used.
QuickLoad is not gospel, but it provides a solid comparative base for calculation. The ‘wonder kid’ .338 Lapua and Norma Magnums were essentially conceived 99 years ago! Reinventing the wheel seems to be the current pastime.
.354 Eley Rimless
The .354 Eley Rimless is a particularly obscure concept that never progressed beyond the drawing board. The drawing number, dY12-60, is especially odd. Even stranger is that it is a Kynoch drawing of an Eley cartridge marked “Working Drawing for Shop Use Only.” Its date is May 24, 1919, just more than six months after the end of WWI. I could not find any other reference to it except in Harding, but the timeframe Harding records raises more questions than answers.
Kynoch drawing AY12-60, dated 1919, shows the planned .354 Eley Rimless cartridge. It was based on the influential .280 Ross cartridge Eley also designed.
He may be referring to yet another cartridge when he writes: “In 1906 Eley were to start the manufacture of cartridges for rifles designed by Sir Charles Ross, a Scotsman who had emigrated to Canada.” At least three variants were made by Eley, including two distinctly different versions of the .280-inch rimless, together with the rimless 0.354 inch. Alternatively, an Eley drawing, which I have not been privy to, dating back to 1906, may exist.
The 0.354-inch Eley essentially is a .280 Rimless Nitro Express Ross necked up. Both cartridges share the .404 Jeffery parent case with the rim (R1) and base (P1) measuring 0.535 inch (13.59mm) and a common shoulder (P2) of 0.422 inch (10.72mm). The shoulder angle of the .354 Eley is much shallower than that of the Ross, a meager 9 degrees rather than 26°33’63”, and it also reduces the body length (L1) by 0.141 inch (3.58mm) to a length of 2.040 inches (51.82mm). The water capacity of the .354 Eley case is in the region of 88 to 90 grains.
The .354 Eley’s bullet diameter would have been 0.350 inch (8.89mm) rather than the 0.358 inch (9.09mm) that eventually became popular. Body taper would have been excessive, as on the .280 Ross, around 3.405 degrees. Such a sharp body taper will make it prone to case-head separation when reloading the case repeatedly and inhibits case water capacity. With less body taper, the .354 Eley would easily have outperformed the .358 Norma Magnum and the 9.3x64mm Brenneke cartridges.
Assuming it was intended for the same straight-pull design as the .280 Ross, ballistic calculations were based on the identical maximum average pressure specification of 47,137 psi. For its projected ballistics, refer to the .354 Eley Cartridge Comparison Table. The bullet specified for the .354 Eley weighed 262 grains.
.383 Vickers
Who does not remember the images of the water-cooled Vickers machine gun hammering away at the German lines during WWI? Vickers Limited, which produced that machine gun, also created several cartridges. An exciting one that never saw the light of day was the .383 Vickers. Harding covers it as follows: “This is yet another experimental calibre produced by Kynoch Ltd, in 1927, presumably for Manton & Co. of Calcutta who must have rejected it, given their name is crossed out. To date I have yet to find a specimen of this calibre.”
If Bill Harding has not seen a specimen, none probably exist because he was the historian and archivist to the Birmingham Proof House (among many other related positions), and he has most probably seen it all.
According to the cartridge drawing BJ17-11A of July 3, 1929, the .383 Vickers would have been based on a slightly shortened (2.75 inches, 69.85mm) .404 Jeffery case given a 14-degree shallow angle and a short-for-the-era 91.38 percent of caliber neck. Bullets (270 and 300 grains) and groove diameters were to have been 0.390 inch (9.91mm), and the bore/caliber to measure 0.383 inch (9.73mm). The body taper was 1.35 degrees. The case water volume would have been around 103.5 grains.
The drawing on which the .383 Vickers hunting cartridge was to be based. No information indicating that it progressed beyond this drawing seems to exist.
This oddball caliber was most likely designed to compete with the .375 H&H Magnum, any bolt-action .40 prospects, and the venerable .450/400 in double rifles. The .400 H&H Rimless only came about 80 years later, but its groove diameter is 0.410 inch. I own both the .375 and .400 H&H cartridges, so I have a reasonable understanding of cartridges in the caliber bracket. To make a reasonable comparison, I used the SAAMI maximum average pressure specification of the .375 H&H Magnum of 62,000 psi (427 Mpa) as a baseline in the accompanying .383 Vickers Comparison Table from 24-inch (610mm) barrels.
.383 Vickers Comparison Table (300 grains)
Cartridge
Bullet (gr.)
90% MAP (psi)
Velocity (fps)
.375 H&H Magnum
300
54,000
2,610
.383 Vickers
300
54,000
2,650
.400 H&H Magnum
300
54,000
2,775
The unusual bullet diameter could have been why Manton & Co. rejected the cartridge. It would have been a more capable design if Vickers had maintained the .404 Jeffery case length of 2.875 inches (73.02mm) and extended the cartridge length to equal that of the .375 H&H Magnum at 3.6 inches (91.44mm) and mated it to a .400–.410-inch bullet. Bear in mind that both the .404 Jeffery (1904) and the .416 Rigby (1911) had already established their reputations for the better part of 20 and 18 years, respectively. The .383 cartridge would not have brought anything new to the table.
.40 BSA
Although the .41 Roper (designed by Sylvester Howard Roper, the American inventor of the motorcycle), was the first belted cartridge, Holland & Holland in the UK cemented the concept with its .400/375 H&H in 1905, which the great .375 H&H Magnum later superseded. [Editor’s note: In all my years of research, I had always understood the .400/375 H&H, or Velopex, to be the first belted cartridge. This shows that you never stop learning.]
In the world of double and top-break rifles, cartridges in the .400–.411-inch bracket have been very popular since about 1884. The .450/400 Nitro Express 3”, introduced by Jeffery in 1902, is still highly regarded in Africa. This popularity has never migrated to bolt-action rifles and cartridges, but it is not for lack of trying. In America, Charles Newton, Kleinguenther, Townsend Whelen and Art Alphin tried it and failed. British Sporting Arms (BSA) and Holland & Holland also tried and failed in the UK. It is just not a caliber that grips the imagination of the hunting public in the face of competition from the .375 H&H Magnum and the .416 Rigby.
This cartridge, the .40 BSA, is highly sought after among collectors, and a premium specimen can easily cost $1,500!
BSA made one such UK attempt. Kynoch drawing BJ17-59, dated February 16, 1921, depicts the .40 BSA cartridge for which a light, copper-point .250-grain bullet of 0.408-inch (10.36mm) diameter was inexplicably specified. Bullets in the 400-grain class are preferred for cartridges in this performance bracket. The load was 69 grains of Cordite. It was a belted, stretched-length (2.8 inches, 71.12mm) straight-tapered wall cartridge geometrically comparable to the .458 Lott. BSA offered Enfield P14 rifles chambered for it.
.40 BSA Performance Table (24-inch barrel)
Cartridge
Bullet (gr.)
90% MAP (psi)
Capacity (gr.)
Velocity (fps)
.40 BSA
260
57,435
104
2,925
.40 BSA
400
57,435
104
2,375
Had the .40 BSA survived, its closest modern rivals would have been the .400 H&H Belted Magnum of 2002 and the .400 Pondoro. The BSA and H&H’s case capacities are virtually identical, while the Pondoro has about 2 percent more capacity. Capacity differences are negligible.
.430 Gibbs Nitro
Although the .430 Gibbs Nitro, based on Kynoch drawing AY12-24 dated January 4, 1913, never went into production, a few specimens were specially created by my friend Otto Planyavski and are floating around collections. Planyavski even recreated the typical Gibbs .430 Nitro headstamp with the Kynoch K at the six o’clock position.
The .430 Gibbs Nitro was based on the full-length .416 Rigby case with a marginally shallower 37-degree shoulder and about 128 to 129 grains of water capacity. Its neck length is 129.4 percent of caliber, and its body taper is 1.2 degrees. The cartridge’s overall length (L6) was 3.750 inches (95.25mm). Therefore, the .430 Gibbs would have required a Mauser magnum-length action.
The Kynoch drawing specifies a 0.435-inch (11.05mm) bullet weighing 410 grains. Its bullet diameter is identical to that of the .425 Westley Richards. The .425 Westley Richards, introduced in 1909, uses a 347-grain 0.435-inch (11.05mm) bullet and is based on the .404 Jeffery case shortened and modified to a rebated rim configuration. Its case’s water capacity generally hovers in the region of 107 grains. The .430 Gibbs concept had obviously been intended to compete with the .416 Rigby, the .404 Jeffery, and the 11.2x72mm Schüler rather than the more compact and sedate .425 Westley Richards.
An early sketch of the .430 Gibbs Nitro cartridge dated 1913, most likely by Kynoch.
The case water capacity of the .430 Gibbs Nitro is almost identical to the brand-dependent average of the .416. Gibbs had specified a maximum average pressure of just 39,160 psi for its even bigger .505 Magnum Gibbs introduced in 1911. Given a difference of only two years between the introduction of the .416 Rigby and the .430 Gibbs and sharing the same case, it is reasonable to assume that the .430 Gibbs would have had a similar maximum average pressure specification to the .416 Rigby, namely 47,138 psi.
Using the .425 Westley Richards barrel specifications, the .430 Gibbs can be recreated in QuickLoad to approximate its ballistic potential. Due to the low pressures of the group of cartridges, 95 percent of the specified maximum average pressure was used for the QuickLoad calculations.
The .430 Gibbs Nitro would have been a formidable cartridge. However, the outbreak of WWI in 1914 and the likelihood that Rigby would not have considered parting with irreplaceable Magnum Mauser actions in hand during hostilities most likely scuttled the concept. Its only bullet diameter competitor would have been the less powerful .425 Westley Richards and the oddball Schüler, which never made it to the big time.
.480 Gibbs
A Kynoch drawing of the .480 Gibbs cartridge dated March 8, 1913, designated AY12-29.
The .480 Gibbs was conceived shortly after the .430 Gibbs because the only drawing (Kynoch AY12-35) is dated July 29, 1913. Unlike the .430, it was based on Gibbs’ massive proprietary case, the .505 Magnum Gibbs. Both cartridges require a magnum-length Mauser action and magazine box. The .505 Magnum Gibbs cartridge succeeded and is even more popular in Africa than in its heyday. However, the .480 Gibbs never made it out of the starting blocks.
Although the .480 Gibbs may be considered a .505 Magnum Gibbs necked down to fire a 520-grain bullet of 0.491-inch (12.47mm) diameter, the .480’s case body length (L1) is 0.0498 inch (1.265mm) shorter. It shares the same 45-degree shoulder and case head configuration, but its body taper is .764 degrees, whereas the .505’s is between .988 and 1.002 degrees, depending on whether CIP or Birmingham Proof House dimensions are used. Its neck length is 144 percent of caliber.
.480 Gibbs Nitro Comparison Table
Cartridge
Bullet (in.)
87.5% MAP (psi)
Capacity (gr.)
Velocity (fps)
.480 Gibbs Nitro
520
34,265
168.2
2,340
.505 Magnum Gibbs
525
34,265
178.4
2,300
.500 Jeffery/12.7×70 Schüler
535
41,879
154.2
2,450
The water capacity of the .480 Gibbs case would have been around 168.2 grains. For practical purposes, and in the absence of data, the maximum average pressure of the .480 should be identical to that of the .505 Gibbs: 39,160 psi.
Another Kynoch drawing of the .480 Gibbs. This time dated July 29, 1913, and designated AY12-35.
We will never know why Gibbs considered a cartridge so close to his existing .505 Magnum Gibbs and used an odd bullet diameter. He probably realized it was a bad idea from a commercial perspective and abandoned the design. The closest rivals to the .480 Gibbs Nitro would have been the more compact .500 Jeffery and the in-house .505 Magnum Gibbs. The .480 Gibbs Nitro Comparison Table shows how these three would have stacked up against each other.
Summary
Countless other fascinating British and European cartridge designs never made it beyond the conceptual, experimental or limited-production phases. Books could be written about them. The golden thread that runs through them all is that almost everything lately introduced as innovative or pioneering is nothing but a rehash of these abandoned old cartridges.
The most significant advance in cartridges, in my view, is not the changes in dimensions that turn obsolete designs into the modern counterparts lately hailed as the be-all and end-all. It’s the American awakening to rim and base diameter dimensions for rounds above and beyond the .223 Remington, .30-’06 Springfield, and .300 Winchester Magnum that hampered American cartridges for a century. Now that the Americans have accepted the .404 Jeffery and .416 Rigby as parent cases and introduced the rimless .375 Ruger base and head geometry, a new world has opened up for cartridge design. Weatherby also recently contributed by stretching the .284 Winchester case. The only outstanding awakening still required for America is the 8x68mmS case head, once pursued by Charles Newton.
Author's Note:I must thank and acknowledge the assistance of my friends Casey Lewis, Will Reuter, Paul Strydom and Nico Swart with material for this article.
Endnotes:
1. Fleming, Bill. British Sporting Rifle Cartridges. Armory Publications, 1993. Oceanside, USA
2. Fleming, Bill. British Sporting Rifle Cartridges. Armory Publications, 1993. Oceanside, USA
3. Ibid
4. Cogswell & Harrison catalog, 1924. Middlesex, UK
5. Barnes, Frank. Cartridges of the World 11th Ed. Gun Digest Books, 2006. Iola, USA
6. Hoyem, George. The History & Development of Small Arms Ammunition Vol III. Armory Publications, 2005. Missoula, USA
7. Van der Walt, Pierre. African Medium Game Cartridges. Pathfinder, 2018. Randburg, RSA.
8. Howell, Ken. Designing and Forming Custom Cartridges. The ICA, 1995. Stevensville, USA.
An interview with the late Dr. Phil Dater, a great mind that left a lasting impact on modern suppressor designs and the gun industry as a whole.
Editorial Forward: Dr. Phil Dater passed on January 20, 2025. He is fondly remembered, and I am honored to have known him. In this piece you'll get a glimpse of why he was so highly regarded, and we should all be so lucky to live such a full life. -Dave Merrill
If you own, use, or enjoy modern silencers, there’s one man you have to thank for the privilege: Dr. Phil Dater. Though suppressors have been around far longer than Dater, his designs and DNA is all over the industry. To this day, a great many silencers across the planet are simply clones or copies of older Dater designs (and they’re astonishingly easy to spot with an X-ray). Lug mounts and fast attach systems came from his brain, as well as modular silencers. There isn’t anyone who has had a greater influence in the industry, and a good part of this is because he famously didn’t go after those who violated his patents—he was too busy making the next thing.
But being the father of modern silencers wasn’t Dater’s life goal. Silencers weren’t even on his radar until he was well into his 40s. His love for tinkering and learning, and distaste for sitting around, put him on a journey to pave the way for practically every modern silencer company we all know.
Dater was born in New York City and spent most of his youth there. He moved to Kansas as a teenager and graduated high school in Wichita. Dater went on to study engineering at the University of Kansas. To put himself through school, he worked for the Coleman lantern company. Eventually, Dater had a change of heart and pursued medicine. He finished medical school in New Orleans. Then, he joined the Air Force in 1965 as a physician. In a hospital basement, Dater began his next—and to us his most important—career journey, shaping the way we enjoy and employ silencers in the 21st century.
We sat down with Dater at his home and then in his mad scientist workshop just outside of Boise. Though he’s getting up in age, Dater’s no slouch, as you’ll soon see.
Tell us about your time in the service.
PHD: Well, in 1965, I had finished medical school and was in the rotating internship at the time; halfway through one of the other interns got his draft notice. At the same time, I was notified to get the induction physical. I would have preferred not to have the full physical, as I could have done without the finger up my ass. I didn’t want to be drafted into the Army or Marine Corps, since I had no interest in going overseas. I reached out to both the Navy and the Air Force, and the Air Force called me back first.
So you went into the Air Force as a physician?
PHD: I did. I wanted to be stationed in southwest America, so they gave me Roswell, New Mexico, as a general medical officer assigned to pediatrics with the rank of captain. After two years in the Air Force, I took formal pediatric specialty training. I lost my son during that time and found that treating children became too difficult. Radiology then became my calling. I stayed in radiology for over 20 years, first with a large multi-specialty group in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and subsequently as a circuit doctor traveling to a few different rural New Mexico hospitals.
As the story goes, it was in the basement of a hospital that you began to dabble in silencers?
PHD: Correct. When I was on call, I had to be physically at the hospital so instead of sitting around doing nothing, I worked in the hospital’s small machine shop in the basement. I had learned how to operate lathes and mills at the Coleman Company during college summers. I could repair lanterns and stoves in my sleep. I had always had an interest in firearms and silencers, so that is where I started playing with them on the mechanical level.
What made you start to design silencers?
PHD: I didn’t begin with designs of my own. I had purchased a Ruger MKI pistol modified by Military Armament Corporation with an integral suppressor. After about 500 rounds, it was no longer quiet, and MAC told me it couldn’t be rebuilt. Their suppressor consisted of a lot of barrel holes with screen discs and a wipe assembly. I figured out how to disassemble the suppressor and replaced the screen washers with Chore Boy copper scouring pads and a non-wipe front endcap. I wanted to make it better, and knew that I would be able to. After that, making firearms quieter became a source of challenge and fun for me.
Dater’s first steps into the silencer industry was replacing the guts of a suppressed MKI like this one.
At what point did you begin making your own complete silencers?
PHD: In the late ’70s, I played with integral designs for pistols like Rugers and Hi-Standards, but they were not for large-scale production; few silencers were back then. Initially, I would make small batches with a friend with a license who would then sell them. From these rimfire designs came larger calibers like submachine gun silencers and rifle cans.
What has been your favorite weapon to suppress?
PHD: Without a doubt, the Ruger 77/22 is my favorite firearm; I have always preferred bolt actions for their accuracy. I currently own four or five. Some have integral suppressors, but not all. I very much appreciate the .17 HMR cartridge for varmints and plinking. It is my favorite round and an absolute joy to shoot.
A bearded Dater in his younger years.
What was your first firearm purchase?
PHD: I bought a 9mm Luger from a hardware store in Exeter, New Hampshire. I was 13 years old and paid $25 for it.
Do you still have it? Do you shoot it anymore?
PHD: Of course, but I haven’t shot it in at least 40 years.
Why did you decide to settle in Boise, Idaho?
PHD: In the early ’90s, Medicare had made me dislike practicing medicine, so I left and moved to Boise. I figured we would retire at that point. I took out an ad in Machine Gun News to be a third-party sound measurement tester.
Dater at home with Jane, his wife of 35 years.
How did that work out for you?
PHD: I was quickly contacted by a fellow named Jim Ryan of JR Customs in Washington. He and another gentleman by the name of Mark Weiss were developing a co-axial designed 9mm submachine gun suppressor similar to my MK-9K and wanted sound testing performed. It was the start of a very good partnership. We began collaborating on silencer designs and formed Gemtech in 1993. Contrary to some press out nowadays, Jim Ryan was the true designer of the Gemtech Aurora.
That’s still a popular silencer. What are your thoughts on wipes as a silencer part?
PHD: It doesn’t matter what I think about the ATF ruling on them, but as a piece of a silencer, they can be very effective when employed properly.
Who in the current silencer industry is doing things right?
PHD: Griffin Armament does a great job at production. They make some excellent silencers from the samples I have had the chance to test. I would say a close second is Dead Air; they are true silencer people with a skill in marketing. Lastly, I have always been impressed with Elite Iron. You don’t hear much about them, but I think their cans are some of the most rugged built today, particularly their 50-caliber silencer.
I recall that you have a Serbu 50 in your collection.
PHD: Mark Serbu and I are good friends from way back. I had the pleasure of going on a prairie dog hunt with him in Wyoming many years ago. We had a long drive together, and there I learned a great deal about weapon systems and material strengths. He knew an immense amount about weapon mechanics. We killed so many critters on that hunt. We shot a lot from the rental car. I doubt we got our deposit back, because we couldn’t vacuum all the empty brass out of the defroster vents.
Who else in the industry has had an influence on you over the years?
PHD: Dan Shea, of Small Arms Review and Small Arms Defense Journal, is one of my closest friends. We have traveled the world together many times. We have been able to go to the pattern room in the United Kingdom to study and photograph classic weapons like the SOE Welrod. We were even caught in the middle of a coup d’état in Thailand together. We met at a trade show somewhere at least 25 years ago. Doug Olson was also a hero of mine in the industry. He really helped me understand that silencer design was almost always trial and error. And Richard Feynman for his ability to make complex theory sound simple.
Much like Hiram P. Maxim, you also enjoy HAM radio, correct?
PHD: I was obsessed with HAM radio while I was in New Mexico. Almost every moment I wasn’t working I would be found on a mountaintop setting up a repeater or helping organize the local HAM community. It became a problem after a while. Like kids these days with their cell phones, I couldn’t get enough of the radios. I had to step back when it really started to interfere with my home life. I still have radios, but am not nearly as involved. I don’t even like to use my cell phone, so I keep it in the car where it belongs. And don’t even get me started on these new smartphones.
What are some of your other hobbies besides silencers and firearms?
PHD: I have always had a passion for the ballet — believe it or not. I took on some walk-on (non-dancing) parts in a few performances, like being the grandfather in The Nutcracker. I found that the movements in ballet were very closely related to another passion of mine, skiing. I skied for many years until bad knees made me stop a few years ago.
Philip's EDC: Ruger LC9, Benchmade Mini-Reflex, notepad and pen, thumb drive, reading glasses, wallet and, no phone!
You also enjoy trains and the rail system?
PHD: Driving in southern Colorado in 1971, I came across a live steam engine that was running. It was right outside of Antonito, Colorado, and it was a narrow-gauge engine, 3-foot gauge. It had been owned by the Denver Rio Grande and acquired by the historical societies of the states of Colorado and New Mexico for preservation. They offered rides, so I took a ride and rode over to Chama, New Mexico, and back. It was about 64 miles, each way, and this made me very interested in the railroad because the people who were working there were all volunteers. So I ended up becoming a volunteer. Denver and Rio Grande had run that as a revenue lineup until 1968. The narrow gauge was used in the mountains for how easy it was and cheaper for the tight corners of the mountain passes. The standard gauge was simply too large. Many of the tracks in southern Colorado at the time were three-rail, allowing mixed-gauge trains. In 1968, they abandoned the line and the two states, New Mexico and Colorado, joined together and bought the line because it was such a scenic area. They ran it the first 8 or 10 years with volunteers. I would go up on weekends and volunteer on the train as a historian, or we would work painting or restoring equipment in the yard. We also got to go out on little speeder cars and paint mileposts. It was really a lot of fun for me. I became interested in model trains about the same time. Of course, with a narrow-gauge focus. Jane and I still go to model train conventions. I am thinking of repurposing my shop for model trains.
You did some work with the California crime lab at one point. What did that entail?
PHD: In 2009, the California Criminalistics Institute contacted me to teach a class on silencers. The new examiners would be put through training on various weapon systems, and the program wanted this to also include silencers. I put together a three-day class that included silencer designs both professional and crude, historical silencers and inventors, and, of course, a day of testing silencers at the range. The Crime Lab would bring out confiscated homemade silencers. We would test them to see how they did. It was here that we made and tested several “field expedient” silencers such as potatoes, baby bottle nipples, pillows, tennis balls, and, of course, plastic bottles. Each of them serialized then promptly destroyed. I have the videos of all these somewhere. It was interesting to see how well some of them worked and how some of them actually made the various guns louder.
You have also worked with tons of companies in the industry over the years. Any of them stand out?
PHD: We worked with FN when the P90 was initially being imported. They wanted a silencer that didn’t change how the weapon functioned at all. They clearly didn’t know much about silencers. They believed what they had was perfect and any modification would degrade the product. We created a silencer called the SP-90 that eventually was sold to the Secret Service.
Dater with the Maxim Defense team.
What do you do with your time now?
PHD: Right now, I am involved with Maxim Defense. They just released the PDX, and I helped with high-speed video to check bullet stability, flash, and weapon functioning. I enjoy getting out of the house and working with those guys; it really is a great group of people. I also do some consulting and sound testing for silencer companies and occasionally write articles for Small Arms Review.
Philip H. Dater Born: 1937 in Manhattan, NY Family: Married, three daughters Education: University of Kansas, University of Wichita, McNeese State College in Louisiana Medical School: Tulane University, New Orleans, LA Military Service: U.S. Air Force, 1965-1967 Role models: Doug Olson, Wyatt Earp Favorite film: Second Hand Lions Daily driver: Audi A4 Favorite silencer: The Gemtech Outback-IID Favorite gun: Ruger 77/17
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the 2025 suppressor special issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
More On Suppressors:
The Suppressor: How They're Made, How They Work, And How To Buy One
Looking for a new iron or piece of kit to enhance the one you already own? Check out these 7 new bits of guns and gear to grow your firearms wish list.
Stoeger Industries expands its pump-action lineup with the new P3000 Tactical shotgun, designed for home defense and security. Chambered in 12-gauge, the P3000 Tactical handles both 2¾- and 3-inch shells, with a four-round magazine and an enlarged, beveled loading port for quick reloads. It features new hybrid polymer furniture blending a fixed stock and pistol grip, plus QD swivel studs and M-Lok slots for sling and accessory use. Optics-ready, the receiver sports a Picatinny rail and is cut for RMR and RMSc red-dot plates. Finished in OD Green Cerakote, the P3000 Tactical balances practicality, durability and affordability. MSRP: $449
C&H ERD-2 Red-Dot Optic
C&H Precision unveils the ERD-2, a rugged, enclosed-emitter 22mm red-dot sight built for shotguns, rifles and PCCs. Featuring a 3-MOA red dot, 50,000-hour battery life, and a front-facing sensor with auto-dimming technology, the ERD-2 adapts instantly to changing light conditions. Shooters can also manually select from 10 brightness levels, including two night-vision compatible settings. Its 7075 aluminum housing ensures durability, while waterproof construction allows submersion in up to 1 meter of water. The optic comes with a Picatinny-compatible pedestal mount and offers 45-MOA windage and elevation adjustments. Compact and dependable, the ERD-2 balances reliability and cutting-edge performance for any shooting environment. MSRP: $280
New Federal 7mm Backcountry Loads
Featuring Peak Alloy cases that can withstand pressures up to 80,000 psi and send projectiles at a screaming 3,000 fps, Federal’s new 7mm Backcountry certainly has potential. Big-game hunters should be pleased to hear the company has announced two new loads for it: Fusion Tipped 175-grain and LRX 168-grain. The Fusion Tipped load features a streamlined polymer tip that should be devastating on game, and the bullet has a G1 BC of .575 and a muzzle velocity of 2,975 fps from a 20-inch barrel. The LRX load features an all-copper Barnes projectile with a G1 BC of .513. With a 20-inch barrel, this round achieves 3,000 fps at the muzzle. MSRP: Fusion Tipped $63 ; LRX $82
Mec-Gar Glock Magazines
Mec-Gar may be the world’s number-one magazine manufacturer, and the company has finally added Glock mags to its catalog. The first two offerings are for the Glock 17 and the Glock 19, but both hold 18 rounds. By eliminating the plastic shell of factory Glock mags, Mec-Gar managed to squeeze an extra round in over the standard. The G17 mag is flush-fit while the G19 mag extends past the frame but has a baseplate to match the grip’s diameter. Best of all, despite having steel bodies, you don’t have to swap your factory polymer magazine catch to use them with your Glock 17 or 19 pistols. MSRP: $29 each
Fiocchi Covert X Ammunition
Fiocchi USA introduces its new Covert X line, defensive ammunition engineered specifically for today’s micro and ultra-compact carry guns. Designed for peak reliability and performance, Covert X ammo features optimized propellants and jacketed hollow-point bullets to ensure consistent expansion and reduced muzzle flash—even from short barrels. Available in 9mm, .380 ACP, .45 ACP, .38 Spl.+P and .357 Mag., the line covers popular models like the Sig Sauer P365, Glock G43 and Springfield Hellcat. Each load is packaged in 20-round boxes or 200-round cases. With minimized flash signature and controlled expansion, Covert X is tailored for concealed carriers demanding top-tier defensive performance. MSRP: Starting at $20, box of 20
Springfield Armory Saint Victor 9mm Pistol
Springfield Armory expands its Saint Victor line with the new Saint Victor 9mm Pistol. This compact AR-pattern pistol features dedicated forged 7075 T6 aluminum upper and lower receivers, a 5.5-inch Melonite-coated barrel and a reliable direct blowback system. It feeds from a Colt-pattern 32-round magazine and includes premium components like a B5 Systems P-Grip, ambidextrous safety and SB Tactical SBA3 pistol brace. The free-floated handguard sports M-Lok slots, an included handstop and SA Muzzle Drum recessed under the rail. Designed for performance and durability, the Saint Victor 9mm pistol offers shooters a lightweight, capable addition to their firearm lineup. MSRP: $1,099
Smith & Wesson M&P FPC in 10mm Auto
Smith & Wesson has just added a 10mm Auto variant to its M&P FPC line of pistol-caliber carbines. Like the 9mm M&P FPC, this new version features a blowback action, an integrated recoil buffer system and a horizontal folding mechanism that brings its overall length from 30 to 16 inches. It feeds from 15-round M&P 2.0 magazines and has space to store an additional two mags in its stock. Other features of the 10mm M&P FPC include a Picatinny rail on top for optics, an M-Lok hand-guard for accessories and a 9/16-24 threaded muzzle for suppressors. It all ships with three magazines and a carrying case. MSRP: $699
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the May 2025 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
When it comes to modern, feature-rich 10mm pistols, the FN 510 Tactical is hard to beat.
Sometimes, you need a lot of firepower. When it comes to full-size handguns today, that usually means 17+1 rounds of 9mm Luger. That’s pretty good, but it’s not enough for every situation. When the job calls for 10mm, and a lot of it, the FN 510 Tactical with its 22+1-round capacity is hard to beat.
FN 510 Tactical Specs:
Caliber: 10mm Auto
Capacity: 22+1 or 15+1
Sights: Tritium 3-dot night sights ; optics-ready slide
Barrel Length: 4.71 Inches
Overall Length: 8.3 Inches
Weight: 32 Ounces
MSRP: $1,139
FN 510 Tactical Features
Capacity and power are not the only aspects of the FN 510 Tactical that make it great for personal defense. If you don’t hit what you’re aiming at, all you’ve done is waste ammo. Thanks to the 510’s Low-profile Optics Mounting System, that won’t be a problem as long as you do your part.
The system allows for easy, quick installation of a wide variety of pistol red dots, as each gun ships with the necessary hardware to mount most common footprint patterns. And if you don’t want to use an optic, a slide cover plate with iron sight protector wings is included as well.
Fans of co-witnessing needn’t worry either, as not only does the rear sight stay put when an optic is installed, but they’re tall enough to co-witness with even some of the tallest red dots on the market. For any optics that aren’t tall enough to co-witness, FN also includes some polymer spacers in the box to remedy that. The cherry on top? The irons are tritium night sights.
As mentioned, installation is incredibly easy. Instead of traditional optics plates, the 510 Tactical uses MRD plate inserts that allow for direct mounting to the slide. That means fewer screws and fewer failure points. Plus, the whole system is self-locking, meaning that no thread locker is required.
Hitting your mark is also made easy thanks to the pistol’s excellent ergonomics. Every aspect of the 510 Tactical’s grip angle, texture and interchangeable backstraps (two included) have been designed around taming 10mm’s recoil. Combined with the target-grade trigger, there may not be a more shootable 10mm handgun out there. Lefties can also rejoice, as both the magazine release and slide stop are fully ambidextrous. When it comes to making good hits, the cold hammer-forged, target-crowned barrel doesn’t hurt either.
If you want to dampen 10mm’s kick even further, you should turn your attention to the 510’s muzzle. Each pistol comes standard with a threaded barrel (.578”x28) so you can easily install a compensator or a suppressor.
Of course, no gun would be truly tactical without a Picatinny rail, and the 510’s is big enough to mount any full-size light or laser.
Their reasons may vary, but a lot of shooters love the power of 10mm. Some live or hunt in bear country, some just think it’s cool and others have seen too many videos of 9mm failing to stop a threat to trust their life to it. Whether your attackers are furry, two-legged or made of cardboard and imagination, 10mm will put big holes in all of them without discriminating. If you want to poke those holes accurately, and maybe even quietly, the FN 510 Tactical is the right tool for the job.
While the pistol comes with a flush-fit 15-round magazine along with the 22-round mag, unless you’re a very big boy, you wouldn’t dream of carrying this pistol concealed. Open-carry, however, is a different story, and for backwoods defense, this polymer-framed pistol holds a lot of peace of mind in a relatively light package. It’s still heavy, of course, but even with a fully loaded extended magazine the package weighs a bit less than most .44 Magnum 6-shooters.
When it comes to home defense, thankfully size doesn’t matter in the nightstand, and a 510 Tactical fully decked out with an extended mag, red dot, suppressor and light would be an excellent retort to any bump in the night. It offers capacity, power, accuracy and the ability to be easily outfitted with smart home-defense accessories. What more could you want?
Why The FN 510 Tactical?
There’s an old saying about boots and money that boils down to “it’s worth spending more for quality that lasts.” With an MSRP of $1,139, the FN 510 Tactical is not cheap, but if you’re looking to buy the only home or woods defense pistol that you’ll ever need, that’s quite the deal.
A lot of shooters only look at budget options when shopping for a new type of gun before ultimately spending even more down the line to replace it with something better. Further, when it comes to guns, minute aspects of features like the optics mounting system can make or break a setup when trying to accessorize it.
With the 510 Tactical, those aren’t things you’ll have to worry about. From the get-go, you’ll have an extremely versatile handgun that packs a much bigger punch than what most people trust to defend themselves with. Don’t be intimidated by 10mm’s kick either, as the 510 softens its blow enough that most individuals who shoot one should find it extremely manageable. More than manageable, in fact, when running the right compensator or suppressor.
Now, all you need to do is choose whether you want your 510 Tactical in FDE or black.
How do you know if you can trust your handgun with your life? Here we discuss some methods for testing and evaluating defensive pistols.
I’m often asked how I evaluate new pistols sent to me for review. The short answer is that I have a standard protocol I use. It starts with a familiarization of the pistol and any new to me, or new to that model, features it might have. Then, I typically run about 50 to 100 rounds of FMJ ammo through the pistol to check for reliability and for additional familiarization.
If a pistol fails this segment due to reliability issues, I simply send it back.
If the pistol makes it through those first 50 or 100 rounds, I begin precision testing. I’ll select three to five factory range and carry loads, and then I’ll generally shoot three to five, five-shot groups from a rest at 10 yards, while also chronographing each shot fired. I have a standard here, too. If I cannot cover all those groups with a snuff can—2.5 inches in diameter—I’ll also send the pistol back.
The author with the precision test target he fired at Wilson Combat that passed the precision standard.
Also, during precision testing, I’m looking to see how reliable the pistol is with the varied munitions I’m testing in it.
The final segment of my testing protocol involves subjecting the pistol to various shooting drills for which I have lots of data obtained with other pistols I’ve reviewed. This allows me to compare the pistol’s—and my—performance with similar pistols I’ve tested. It also gives me a chance to work with the pistol from the holster and in a self-defense context.
Often, if possible, I’ll let others of varying experience levels shoot the pistol and consider their opinions. Generally, a complete pistol test involves about 500 to 600 rounds, unless I really enjoy shooting it, in which case I might shoot twice that much.
The Austin Effect
Recently, I spent a week at Wilson Combat, touring the manufacturing facility and interviewing and interacting with the engineers, gun builders and testing crew. Wilson Combat thoroughly tests every gun they build before it leaves the factory. Austin Crawford heads up the testing department and not only is he a good shot, but he and his team are also intimately familiar with all Wilson Combat firearms. This allows them to effectively diagnose any issues they might encounter. I spent the day with Austin learning their testing process, and I think you might find it interesting because they’ve developed a protocol that’s proven to ensure only pistols that work make it out the door.
Austin Crawford at Wilson Combat explains their test fire procedure to the author.
When a gun arrives in the testing department, a member of the test crew familiarizes themselves with it. Granted, Wilson Combat has a limited number of base models, but there are accessories and options like reflex sights.
Next, the test firer tapes the sides of the slide, top of the slide and the mouth of the magazine well to prevent any damage to the finish that could occur during testing. Then, the pistol is taken to the test range with all the magazines that ship with it, and they’re included in the test. As for ammunition, Wilson Combat has selected loads for function testing and for precision testing in each cartridge they chamber pistols for.
However, if you order a custom pistol, you can specify what loads you want it tested with.
The first test a pistol must pass is a magazine dump. Then, they further check the pistol for reliability by firing five magazines—using the magazines that ship with the pistol—loaded with only three rounds. Then, another five magazines are fully loaded, but only the top three rounds are fired from each. Finally, and only with 9mm pistols, they’ll fire a full magazine filled with light-recoiling PMC 115-grain FMJ ammunition, one-handed, with a semi-limp wrist.
Among other tests, Wilson Combat likes to confirm reliability with the first and last three rounds in the magazine. It’s where they’ve identified reliability issues to commonly occur.
Over his nearly 50 years of building quality custom handguns, Bill Wilson has learned that, if a malfunction is likely to occur, it’ll generally appear during this test. If one—just one—stoppage occurs, the pistol goes back for fixing.
Next, the test team targets the pistol. With every pistol Wilson Combat offers, depending on the model, they guarantee sub 1.0- or 1.5-inch precision at 25 yards. To establish this, they fire three shots from the pistol, from a sandbag rest, at 15 yards. The test shooter pulls the target and brings it back to his bench, where he has two aluminum discs proportionally sized for group measurement at 25 yards. If the disc will not fully cover the group, just like with a reliability issue, the pistol goes back to the builder. Of course, the shooter is allowed some leeway if they feel they pulled a shot.
The author conducting the Wilson Combat testing procedure on a pistol they built for him to review.
Also, they regulate the sights to the point of impact as part of this process.
Wilson Combat had just put a SFX9 pistol together for me to review, and while I was in the test bay, Austin ran it through the full protocol to include zeroing. After he finished, I ran the pistol through the protocol, too. It performed just fine for me, and my test target passed the precision test.
However, for me, the pistol hit about 3 inches low. We found my sight picture and hold was slightly different—lower—than Austin’s.
After the testing was complete, Austin and I cleaned the pistol and boxed it up with the test target, just as they do with every other firearm they sell. The only difference was that the pistol they will ship to me will also contain my test target. When I pick the pistol up at my dealer, I will—just as I do with every other pistol I test—begin my own testing protocol. Why? Not all tests are designed to evaluate the same things.
The reality of any handgun is that if you shoot it enough, with enough different loads, a malfunction will one day occur. But some testing with the loads you plan to use can provide some confidence.
The You Effect
The point of all this is to illustrate there are several ways to test a pistol. Based on your experience, you might do it differently, but two things are for certain. The first is that when you get a new pistol from Wilson Combat, you can rest assured it passed a reliability, zero, and precision test, before it left the factory. The other thing is that before you trust a Wilson Combat or any pistol for personal protection, you need to test and verify those things with your carry ammo. Never leave that up to a manufacturer or a gun writer.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the June 2025 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
Vortex has just added green dot options for its Defender series of pistol optics.
The Vortex Defender red dot series has been out for a couple of years now and currently features three different model sizes—the Defender-CCW, the Defender-ST and the Defender-XL. Now, Vortex is adding a green dot variant of each to its catalog.
There isn’t much more to be said about the new Defender optics that we didn’t cover when discussing the red dot versions, as they’re identical besides the color of their 3-MOA reticles. Like their predecessors, the Defender Micro Green Dot sights feature large viewing windows, SHOCKSHIELD polymer inserts for added protection and a 10-minute auto-shutoff to save battery life.
The Defender-CCW Micro Green Dot uses a Shield RMSc footprint and has an MSRP of $350, the Defender-ST Micro Green Dot uses a DeltaPoint Pro footprint and has an MSRP of $450 and the Defender-XL Micro Green Dot also uses a DeltaPoint Pro footprint but has an MSRP of $600.
Taurus has just brought back the Model 58, a lightweight .380 ACP pistol with a 15-round capacity.
.380 ACP has been experiencing a bit of a renaissance recently, and Taurus has responded by bringing back the once-discontinued Model 58. Featuring some minor modernizations and improvements, the compact .380 carry-sized pistol now boasts a larger magazine capacity, an aluminum frame and an ambidextrous safety/decocker that allows for cocked and locked carry.
The Taurus 58 features a 4-inch barrel, a DA/SA trigger and a 15-round magazine (two are included). Because the Model 58 is essentially a scaled-down version of the Taurus 92, the 58 will accept aftermarket Model 92 grips. This also means that despite being a relatively svelte and compact pistol, you still get a full-size grip to help shoot it. Other features include its drift adjustable rear sight (front sight is fixed) and choice between a black or stainless steel finish.
Taurus said this about the new pistol:
The Taurus 58 brings together smart design, modern materials, and high capacity to offer an ideal option for EDC (Everyday Carry) and range use alike. This new addition to the Taurus lineup reflects the company’s ongoing dedication to innovation, safety, and delivering firearms tailored to real-world needs.
MSRP for the Taurus 58 is $605 regardless of finish color and they’re available now.
When it comes to the guns you use to defend yourself, is it smart to modify them with competition triggers?
Before we get to making mockery of those who insist on “the best trigger possible” in a firearm to be used for defense, we need to lay out the parameters of just what it is we’re talking about.
In truth, most triggers are good enough. Most, even those that are deemed “beyond hope” by the cognoscenti will actually do the job when required. But “good enough” is a small comfort. And this is, after all, America … where we have choices.
You just want to be careful what you choose.
You will search for a long time to find someone more dismissive of the Glock trigger than myself. Not to pick on them in particular (oh heck, why not?), but a spongy, gritty, 6-pounds-plus trigger isn’t ideal for good marksmanship. And that’s the best, out-of-the-box trigger that they tout. Some places, like the NYPD, had even crappier triggers foisted upon them. (If you’ve never tested the trigger pull of an NYPD 1 or NYPD 2, consider yourself lucky.) The temptation to improve such a trigger pull can be great, and in a lot of instances it can be a good thing.
But, like so much in life, it’s easy to go too far.
Really? Five pounds? This is an utterly box-stock G22 that was my choice after going through the armorer’s course. It hasn’t even had all that much ammo through it, and it never came close to 5 pounds, ever.
Two examples come to mind: pro shooters on the USPSA/IPSC circuit and law enforcement. People will read about, or hear about, the top shooters using trigger pulls in the 2 pounds or less region.
“Oh, that’s what it takes to shoot fast? Then, sign me up for some of that.”
Actually, no. If you want to shoot fast, you can manage very quick shooting while using a regular trigger pull in the 3½-pound level, or even a 4-pound trigger. As long as it’s clean and crisp, you’ll be able to shoot as quickly as you need to in a defensive situation. So why do the Grandmasters use such light triggers? Because they’re trying to beat other Grandmasters, that’s why. (I know it sounds obvious, but there it is.)
The Real World Application
If you find yourself in need of shooting in a defensive situation, you have to use both good marksmanship and good tactical awareness. It’s entirely possible to shoot too quickly in a defensive situation. The tactical awareness needed in a match consists solely of, “Is the target the correct color? Have I engaged it already?”
For a defensive situation, you’re not going to need “splits” at the 0.15-second level, which is the working space of the GMs you read about. It’s more like a half-second, and you don’t need a 2-pound trigger for that.
So, what if you do have a trigger that light on your sidearm? Well, the chances of stress, cold weather, gloves, or just being jostled while handling your sidearm greatly increase the chances of an accidental or unintentional discharge. Simply holstering can be problematic, if something like a jacket hem or a drawstring gets in the path of the trigger as you are finishing the shove home.
The old adage that “every bullet has a lawyer attached” is one you have to keep in mind. On the range, an accidental discharge/unintended discharge (AD/UD) will get you DQ’d from a match. It might even be cause for your gun club membership to be looked into. Out in public, an AD/UD could be a lot more serious. You will have your CPL looked at. You might find civil action being brought, from the damage your bullet created or even the emotional harm experienced by bystanders.
Back in the old days, when it was mostly (or only) law enforcement officers who were packing, an AD/UD was cause for their embarrassment and not much else. The department might or might not have taken some disciplinary action, but that was it. These days, even LE gets put on notice for an accidental or unintended discharge.
And the rest of us? It could be bad.
The Other Side Of The Coin
But shouldn’t a bad trigger pull be improved if it can be? You bet. There are rational arguments to be made for a better trigger pull, such as improving accuracy and allowing for better decision-making.
I’m not saying that improving your trigger pull is always a bad thing. Just keep it reasonable. Taking a really ugly 6-plus-pound trigger pull and bringing it down to a clean four will seem like a huge improvement. And it is.
Now, if you want to make the legal side of this a better proposition for you, engage in a bit of planning. Peruse the manufacturer’s spec sheets for a pistol similar to yours. (So, you have a Glock, that means pretty much any maker of a striker-fired pistol then.) Find a competitor’s spec sheet that lists their pistol as having a 4-pound trigger pull. Now take your Glock and an aftermarket trigger to a pistolsmith and work the details out. You want it in writing that the task was to “match the other maker’s trigger pull.” (You could just trade guns over the counter at the gun store and get that 4-pound pull, but that would be too easy.)
Glocks aren’t the only pistols that can have a mismatch with rifles as far as trigger pull is concerned. There are pistols that do better, so search one out or have your Glock built to match.
If you then use that pistol in a defensive situation, and the question comes up as to the trigger pull, you’re now on record as simply matching the factory-spec trigger pull of the competitor’s model—nothing untoward about that. Of course, the pistolsmith will have to be onboard with this, no fair blindsiding them when the question comes up.
Law Enforcement Is Different
The law enforcement aspect mentioned isn’t so much an LE departmental thing as it is LE equipment. The problem here is one of trigger disparity. In Patrol Rifle classes, we’d run into officers who were issued Glocks with unaltered factory triggers (as required by, or issued by, the department), but the officers, when they were authorized to do so, had purchased an AR-15 for duty work. (And good on them for having done so.)
In factory trim, a mil-spec trigger in an AR-15 can be close enough to a factory Glock that you are all set. But if you should upgrade your AR-15 (this is just a small selection of triggers available), then you‘d better look to improve your Glock—or other pistol. The two should match or come close.
In many instances, that AR-15 came with a match trigger. They now had two firearm tools at their disposal, one with a 3-pound trigger and the other with a 6-pound trigger. Despite giving them a heads-up, there would be unintentional discharges from the trigger-pull disparity. Why?
Having spent years up to that point training with Glocks (a lot of departments were late in allowing/issuing AR-15s), the officers had fired many qualification courses with the long and heavy factory pistol trigger. Then, arriving for the Patrol Rifle class, they’d have a short-travel trigger with maybe as much as 3.5 pounds of pressure required. So, when firing their AR-15, just about the time they would have taken up most of the slack and trigger weight on their Glocks, their AR-15 would discharge.
Often, this was near the target, but not at the point they planned on striking. Sometimes it was on the range floor, into the dirt or gravel below the target frame. It wasn’t easy learning to switch from one to the other. Transition drills were almost a comedy of errors. Officers who had now become accustomed to the AR trigger when switching to their Glock, short-pressed the Glock trigger, subconsciously expecting it to go off at 3.5 pounds. (Nope, it’s never going to do that.)
Had they just opted for the mil-spec trigger pull on an AR-15, they would have been all set. The USGI specs for an M16/M4 are close enough to the actual specs on a Glock that the two are in sync when box-stock. It’s when they changed one of them that created the disparity.
The Value Of Uniformity
I’ll admit, the temptation to improve is great. And, in some instances, it’s never been easier. It used to be difficult to improve the AR-15: Now you have no lack of “packet” triggers you can just drop in, delivering whatever trigger pull you desire. The 1911 can now gain that with the Nighthawk drop-in trigger pack. But Nighthawk knows how to build a pistol for defense, and the trigger weight it provides? About 3¾ to 4 pounds. Sound familiar? An online search for improved Glock triggers will produce a tsunami of pages. So, keep your trigger pull weight search within proper limits.
And if you’re going to depend on an array of firearms for defense, it would be a good idea to have them all with trigger pulls in a reasonable closeness to each other in pull length and weight. Here, I can point to myself as either a bad example, or an exemplar, depending on how you want to approach it. For a long time, I carried a 1911 with a match-grade (well, match-grade back in the 1980s) trigger pull of just under 4 pounds. My backup? One or another double-action revolver. They represent a combo more disparate than the Glock/AR-15 example I just gave.
With a matched set—a pistol and rifle with closely matched triggers—transitioning from one to the other is not a potential headache.
However, I was shooting three, four, or five times a week in different types of competition, and used both 1911s and revolvers in those competitions. You’ve heard of the theory that it takes 10,000 hours of some kind of activity or practice in order to excel at it? I’m not going to say I’m some kind of genius or grandmaster shooter, but I passed the 10,000 of activity level back before Bill Clinton got in trouble with his intern.
But it took a lot of work, and that’s not something a whole lot of people have the time for or the willingness to invest in.
What To Do, Then?
Simple: If the trigger pull on the pistol you have selected for defense is truly atrocious, you have two choices—change to something with a better trigger or have your trigger pull improved. But don’t seek to make your trigger pull like that of the pro shooters, the sponsored shooters who you might read about in match results. They work hard to get accustomed to those light triggers and use them for match work.
And if you’re going to depend on a battery of firearms, then you’ve got some planning ahead of you. Figure out the one with the worst trigger. See how much it can be improved, and if it can be brought into the “reasonable” region. Then, have the rest of them tuned to match the one that was the worst, so ideally they all match. If they can’t be made to match, then keep those trigger pulls reasonably close, and life will be good. At least as far as managing triggers is concerned.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the June 2025 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
We hit the range to test out the Canik SFx Rival-S, a 9mm pistol that comes both competition- and carry-ready out of the box.
How would you like to get a competition-ready pistol that was good to go right out of the box? And while you’re at it, one that’s suitable for everyday carry as well? That describes the Canik SFx Rival-S to a T. Before we dive into the full details, the “S” is not the stainless but the shiny version of the two options. Yes, chrome, not stainless, and you can get the SFx Rival-S in all-black as well.
The Canik SFx Rival-S uses the same trigger design as found on the Walther line of pistols, and it’s a good one. That’s why it has been tearing up the competition circuit for some time now. Well, all of them have, but the SFx Rival-S is the culmination of years of input from Nils Jonasson. If you aren’t tuned into the USPSA/IPSC competition scene you might not recognize his name, but he’s won USPSA Nationals, IPSC Championships, the Steel Challenge and a lot more. Basically, Jonasson knows how to win shooting competitions, and he worked with Canik to put that knowledge into their pistols.
The SFx Rival-S comes with a lot of items that are extras for other pistols. The extra-wide mag funnel makes reloads faster. You can go bigger but try this one first.
The triggers on Canik pistols are always good and always have been. The SFx Rival-S takes that up a notch, and it also installs one of the trigger-pull upgrades that shooters of late have been swapping into their pistols: a flat-faced trigger. The SFx Rival-S uses a machined aluminum central safety bar as the trigger face, and the trigger releases the striker when the trigger face is 90 degrees to the axis of the bore. For the left-handed shooters, the SFx Rival-S has an ambi slide release and a reversible magazine button.
On top, the slide is aggressively grooved for cocking serrations. Fore and aft, top and sides, there are lots of places to gain a purchase. There are iron sights, with the front being a fiber optic holding blade, and the rear is part of the cover plate for an optics mount. The plate holds the rear sight, so when the plate comes off, so does the sight, but competition shooters who are using a red dot are not anticipating the need for iron sights. (Maybe they should, but that’s another detail not for here.)
The slide is also slotted to reduce weight a bit, to keep the slide weight for the 5-inch barrel from making a sluggishly cycling pistol. Nope, not the SFx Rival-S—nothing sluggish here. To keep it cycling quickly, the barrel is fluted so it can’t even build up gunk there to slow it down.
Disassembly is easy. It is described in the owner’s manual, and this is all you need to clean it properly.
The frame has an accessory rail under the dust cover, and the front is checkered. The sides and backstrap are given an aggressive pebbly texture, all with the aim of keeping the SFx Rival-S from slipping in your hand. The trigger guard is large enough that even with gloves on you can get your trigger finger in there without a problem, and it’s also a kinda-sorta 1980s retro detail as well. The trigger guard is squared off, with the front face of it checkered as well. If you shoot with the index finger of your support hand up on the trigger guard, the SFx Rival-S is going to give you every chance for that to work out as promised.
For a lot of pistols these days, the purchase of the pistol is just the beginning. Then, there are the extras you have to have for competition or daily carry. Not so with the SFx Rival-S. First, it comes in a lockable carry case that’s big enough to hold all the gear. There’s the SFx Rival-S in the case, obviously. Then, there are the pair of 18-round magazines. There are two extra aluminum base pads for the magazines, in case you want to swap for something bigger. And there’s a magazine loader, because loading 18 rounds gets to be work and making it easier makes shooting more fun. There’s a magwell funnel that you can bolt on, which in competition can shave a few tenths off of your time—always a good thing. If you plan on using the SFx Rival-S for daily carry, leave the funnel off and go with the low-profile magazine base pads for easier concealment.
If you feel the need for more, Taylor Freelance can add capacity to your Canik magazines.
If two magazines aren’t enough (for daily carry, that’s probably fine, but for competition …), you can hop on over to the Canik website and order more (State law permitting, of course). The SFx Rival-S uses the full-length Canik magazines, so don’t go looking longingly at the shorter ones for easier concealment. The frame length allows just the 18-round magazines. If you feel the need for more (or the competition rules permit it), you can get more than 18 rounds in a magazine. Just go to Taylor Freelance and figure out which magazine extension basepad you want to use and in which material or color. The array for the Canik line is extensive, and your credit card might just whimper a bit as you look.
For competition or carry, there is a holster included as well. This is right-handed; lefties will have to source a holster on their own. (Hey, there’s only so much even Canik can do, OK?)
The Rival-S comes with a holster, so you’re ready for daily carry or competition.
If you’re going to be shooting just with iron sights, there’s a spare fiber optic in the case, for when yours breaks (the fiber optic, not the sight). And if you want to change colors, the fiber-optic size is easy to find and replace, and you can order and install (it’s an easy thing to do) the color of your choice. For those who are going to mount a red-dot optic, the SFx Rival-S comes with a set of plates to envy. And not just one, but the Dark Side (the all-black version) comes with five optic plates, and the chrome comes with four of them. Installation is the same as it is with any other red-dot optic: Unbolt the cover plate, select the adapter for your particular brand or model of sight, degrease the surfaces and bolt the plate and sight on. Let it cure. Then, at the next range session, zero and have fun.
The storage case is a two-level affair once you open it up. On top is the pistol, the two magazines and the backstraps. And underneath is all the rest of the goodies. Oh, and the small plastic pistol that you’ll see in the upper level? That holds the small parts, the magazine button extensions, screws and a couple of the correct-sized Torx drivers. The top level also has an extra slot for that third magazine you’re going to buy for your SFx Rival-S. The two slots for spare magazines are even already punched out for magazine extensions being on the magazines. Clever, that.
There are two levels of the lockable case; this is the lower level with holster and tools.
The backstraps on the SFx Rival-S are removable, and the pistol comes with three backstraps. Swap them back and forth until you find the one that you like the best. Or you can take the one that fits the worst for you and then modify it by bonding on epoxy, JB Weld or whatever, and shaping it until it fits your hand like a glove (competition rules permitting, of course).
And that swappable magazine release? Well, there’s even more to that.
There are three magazine release extensions you can use to make the mag release even taller. If you have small hands or short thumbs, reaching the button can be a bit of work. Put in the extension that works for you and have fun. One thing I’d like to point out if you are going to use the Canik SFx Rival-S for competition is table starts. This is where the pistol is lying on the table and you have to pick it up to commence shooting. If you install the tallest magazine button extension, you’ll want to check to see that it doesn’t bear on the table when lying there. Otherwise (as so many competitors found out in the early days when we were figuring this stuff out), when you grab it to pick it up, you inadvertently release the magazine. One shot and clank as the mag falls out.
Then, there’s a lock, the owner’s manual, a tool and disassembly punch kit, and a cleaning kit. Basically, all you need to get started is ammo. Well, there’s one thing missing that it took me some time to notice: no spare mag pouch. However, that’s a minor oversight, and since you’re in a gun shop buying the SFx Rival-S anyway, you can easily add a mag pouch to the purchase, along with the ammo you plan to shoot.
On The Range With The Canik SFx Rival-S
Shooting the Canik SFx Rival-S was a joy. The clean trigger made breaking each shot easy; the weight kept it from being sharp in recoil, even with zippy ammo, and the hand-filling grip never slipped in my hands while shooting. Granted, it wasn’t warm enough to make me sweat (the weather was in the mid-40s that day at the club), but as aggressive as the frontstrap checkering is, I would not anticipate slipping … even in the middle of summer.
The recoil is soft, as you’d expect from an all-steel full-sized 9mm pistol.
You might ask why a competition pistol that will most likely be equipped with a red-dot optic has a 5-inch barrel. This is one of those esoteric details of competition that either fascinates or bores you. You see, you have to meet a certain power factor in competition, which is measured by the bullet weight by its velocity.
So, let’s take a 124-grain bullet at 1,050 fps. That gives us a 130.2 PF, enough to qualify as Minor in all the various competitions, with a bit of wiggle room to spare. However, the PF measured is not the PF you feel, because you experience the weight of the powder charger jetting out of the muzzle just like a rocket nozzle. Let’s take the lower figure of powder pressure and call it 4,000 fps. (Yes, the gases jet out that fast—more in some loads.)
Canik SFx Rival-S Chronograph and Accuracy Data
Ammo
Bullet Weight (grains)
Velocity (fps)
ES
SD
Accuracy (Average)
Accuracy (Best)
Black Hills Honey Badger
100
1,299
34
13.7
2.1”
1.7”
Hornady Critical Duty
135
1,062
19
7.3
2”
1.6”
CCI Gold Dot JHP
147
1,009
26
11.7
2”
1.7”
Sig Match Elite JHP
147
926
35
12.9
1.9”
1.6”
Michigan Ammo FMJ
147
927
57
21.4
2.2”
1.8”
Accuracy results were to be averages of three, five-shot groups at 25 yards off a Champion shooting rest. Velocities are averages of 10 shots measured on a Labradar chronograph set to read 15 feet from the muzzle.
A quick check of load data shows that a common powder in the correct range requires 4.2 grains of powder. So that adds 16.8 PF to your felt recoil. But if you use a 4-inch barrel instead of 5, you need more powder to make the 130.2 PF we had before. So, we need to bump up to 4.6 grains, and that’s another 18.4 PF. If you think that the top shooters don’t fuss over the 1.6PF on every shot, you are mistaken. That’s why 5 inches.
The height, weight and length of the SFx Rival-S make it kosher for all the practical shooting types (last I checked—these things can change), and at the MSRP listed, it is a smoking bargain—even if you don’t compete.
Pros:
Great shooter thanks to nice trigger and weight that mitigates recoil
Versatile, ready for competition or EDC
Comes with a lot of extra accessories
Cons:
A bit heavy and bulky for a carry gun
Canik SFx Rival-S Deals
Palmetto State Armory
$900
Battlehawk Armory
$900
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the June 2025 issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
Luth-AR has just announced two new complete retro AR-15 upper receivers with 20-inch barrels.
Retro AR-15s are back in a big way, and Luth-AR is now offering complete carry handle uppers to help keep up with the demand. The company had previously offered some retro AR parts like furniture and standalone upper receivers, but now four different complete uppers are available for purchase. Luth-AR says that the new uppers blend the timeless look of vintage ARs with modern performance features, so they should shoot as good as they look.
The first of the modern retro complete 5.56 NATO uppers is the A1 Slick-Side. It features no forward assist or brass deflector, a Duckbill flash hider, an A1-style charging handle and triangle handguards that are available in either black or green. The other modern retro upper is the A1 C7, meaning that it has a forward assist, a brass deflector, an A2 flash hider and round A2-style handguards that are also offered in black and green.
Whichever model you choose, all feature a 20-inch pencil profile chrome-lined barrel with a 1:7 twist, a .625-inch non-F marked front sight base and a manganese phosphate exterior finish. Only the product page for the A1 C7 modern retro upper specifies that it comes with a complete BCG, but given the similar price to the A1 Slick-Side variants, it’s safe to assume that all versions will include a BCG.
Randy Luth of Luth-AR said this about the new retro upper receivers:
These uppers are built for shooters who want the old-school vibe without sacrificing the performance of a modern rifle … We stayed true to the A1 aesthetic but enhanced the core components to meet today’s reliability and accuracy standards.
The A1 C7 uppers have an MSRP of $580 and the A1 Slick-Side uppers have an MSRP of $630 or $640 depending on furniture color.
Barnes has just announced the Harvest Collection, featuring 9 different calibers loaded with Sierra Tipped GameKing bullets.
Combining Barne’s reputation for terminal performance and Sierra's reputation for exceptionally accurate bullets is the new Barnes Harvest Collection. Featuring 9 different caliber offerings all topped off with Sierra Tipped GameKing bullets, the Harvest Collection was designed to give hunters an incredibly precise and potent ammo option for whitetail and thin-skinned game. To top it off, Barnes has priced the collection to be competitive with similar loads on the market.
The full lineup of calibers in the Harvest Collection includes .223 Remington, .243 Winchester, 6.5 Creedmoor, .270 Winchester, .30-06 Springfield and .308 Winchester for a price of $39.99 per box, and 6.5 PRC, 7mm Remington Magnum and .300 Winchester Magnum for a price of $44.99 per box. Loaded with temperature-stable propellant and featuring doppler-verified ballistic coefficients, the Barnes Harvest collection is optimized to deliver match-grade accuracy with devastating terminal performance within 500 yards on thin-skinned game.
The Harvest Collection is a first for Barnes since it features another manufacturer’s projectile, but of all the hunting bullets out there the Sierra TGK is one of the best. The bullets feature an open pocket design with a green polymer tip that delivers instant expansion, an optimal jacket wall thickness for controlling weight retention and expansion and a boat tail design for improved stability and accuracy. If you’re looking to take game this season with any of the calibers it’s offered in, the Barnes Harvest Collection won’t have a problem helping you fill your freezer.
We take a look at how Silencer Central manages to deliver suppressors purchased online straight to your doorstep.
Silencer Central has spent the last several years making substantial waves in the suppressor community. We hate to use corporate catchphrases like disrupting the market or changing the game to describe anything.
But we’re hard pressed to find a better way to capture the impact of their business model. Perhaps the most frustrating part of purchasing a suppressor (besides having to receive BATFE “permission” in the first place) is the purgatory known as “NFA jail” — wherein your purchased suppressor sits in the safe at your local FFL/SOT, unable to be used, during the always-longer-than-advertised wait time, while the BATFE processes your tax stamp application.
If you have friends behind the counter at said FFL and/or they have an attached range, you may be able to photograph, test-mount, or shoot your suppressor during aptly nicknamed canjugal visits. Rinse and repeat until such day that your paperwork clears and your suppressor is free to go — at which point you must drive back to your FFL and pick it up. In many cases, you’ll probably wind up paying the dealer a storage fee as well.
Bad news up front: Silencer Central cannot make the BATFE move any faster on processing times. But what they can do, which is plenty special in its own right, is have your suppressor shipped directly to your doorstep when the process is complete. Let me say that again:
Shipped. In the mail.
Directly to your house.
We were wary of the truth behind this claim until we went through the process ourselves to receive a Banish 30 Gold suppressor from them. Even after, sure enough, we opened our front door to see a box on our welcome mat with can, paperwork, and accessories all inside, the question lingered: How is that legal?
We sat down with Brandon Maddox, owner of Silencer Central, to go down the rabbit hole on how this unique method of transfer is possible and not felonious. Turns out the answer is right there in black and white.
Literally, actually, in Federal statues that permit a non-over-the-counter (NOTC) transfer of FFL or NFA items to their owner, only if no background check is required at time of transfer to receive the item.
There was even, at one point, a separate Form 4473 for NOTC transfers. Since that form is long out of print, the BATFE has granted Silencer Central a business variance to complete NOTC transfers with the standard 4473.
How do you receive a firearm or suppressor without a face-to-face transfer and NICS check? We know of two situations that currently meet this requirement. First, there are currently 16 states which do not require their CCW permit holders to undergo a NICS check at time-of-transfer for firearms purchases. Since most people go to a gun store in person to purchase a firearm, a face-to-face transfer usually occurs anyway, albeit without a NICS check.
The second is NFA transfers. Since the BATFE is certifying, through grant of the tax stamp, that a background check has already been completed for the purchase of that item, there’s no NICS check required at time of transfer.
This unique and highly specific dynamic is the legal mechanism that allows Silencer Central to do what they do. But there’s another layer to this onion. Interstate transfers of firearms or NFA items must begin and end with an FFL.
In order to remain in compliance with this requirement, Silencer Central maintains a stand-alone brick-and-mortar FFL/SOT in every state where suppressors are legal. This isn’t a single FFL with multiple satellite locations, but a network of individual FFLs owned by one business entity: Silencer Central.
When you begin the purchase and Form 4 application process with them, your paperwork is initiated and housed by the Silencer Central FFL in your state of residence. When that application is approved, your suppressor is transferred from their headquarters in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, to their FFL in your state.
That checks the box for a proper interstate transfer. From there, the in-state FFL does not need to complete a NICS check, since BATFE already did one to process your Form 4 — meaning the dealer in your state boxes up your can, slaps on a shipping label, and away it goes direct to your doorstep.
With a selection of cans suitable for almost any rifle in your rack, we strongly recommend you check them out, and let them deliver some peace and quiet, and peace of mind, direct to your doorstep.
Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the 2025 suppressor special issue of Gun Digest the Magazine.
More On Suppressors:
The Suppressor: How They're Made, How They Work, And How To Buy One
Since its debut in 2017, Mossberg’s short-barreled, bird’s-head grip smoothbores have sparked plenty of debate. Are they range toys? True defensive tools? Does it even matter? Because a 14-inch scattergun with serious firepower is just plain cool.
Now, Mossberg is cranking the Shock series—what the ATF classifies as “Firearms”—up to 11 with the latest evolution: the 990 Aftershock. This time, it’s built on the company’s battle-hardened 940 semi-automatic platform making it faster, harder-hitting and a lot more fun.
Wrists, beware—the 990 Aftershock is here to test your mettle. But let’s be real: a little extra wear and tear might be worth the sheer firepower packed into this compact beast.
Mossberg nickel-boron coated the piston ring of the 990, ensuring it’s corrosion resistant as well as self-lubricating.
I got my hands on a 14.25-inch barreled Aftershock for testing ahead of its 2025 NRA Convention debut. But this wasn’t my first rodeo with the platform.
Back in 2022, a group of gun writers—myself included—were invited to Gunsite Academy in Arizona to test an early prototype. Those early Aftershocks felt like pre-production models—functional but unrefined. Mossberg took its time perfecting the design, ensuring that the final product wasn’t just another novelty but a legitimate defensive option.
The result? A more polished, user-friendly version of the original concept, albeit as “user-friendly” as a bird’s-head 12-gauge can be.
990 Action: The Game Changer
One of the best things about the 990 is the oversized port, beveled and sporting an elongated elevator. In short, it's easy to feed.
The real reason to get excited about the Aftershock? Its action. This isn’t just another semi-auto—it’s powered by Mossberg’s proven 940 gas system.
When Mossberg introduced the 940 series, it changed the game for the company’s semi-autos, which had previously struggled to gain traction. By extensively testing the 940 with high-volume shooters and refining its gas system, Mossberg created a shotgun that eats everything from light target loads to heavy magnums without a hiccup.
That same reliability is now packed into the 990 Aftershock, making it not only a blast to shoot but also surprisingly controllable. Unlike its pump-action predecessor—the 590 Shockwave, which is often fired from the hip—the 990 Aftershock is manageable enough to be fired at eye level with confidence.
Aftershock Grip: Taming the Beast
The Aftershock’s bird’s-head grip includes a rubberized saddle that improves your handle on the gun, while not proving over aggressive.
What sets the Shock series apart is its signature injection-molded bird’s-head grip. Unlike traditional pistol grips, which direct recoil straight back into your wrist (and possibly your face), the bird’s-head design angles recoil downward, making it far more manageable.
Mossberg wisely opted for a smooth grip surface with a rubber insert on the backstrap for extra friction, ensuring a secure hold without shredding your hands under recoil. Up front, the fore-end features a textured grip and a strap for added control—borrowed from Mossberg’s pump-action models.
While the strap aids in stabilizing the gun, I personally would have preferred a hand stop instead, as it would feel more natural and solid in a semi-auto platform.
Aftershock Controls: Built for Defense
Mossberg nailed the controls on the Aftershock, carrying over the battle-tested layout from the 940 Tactical. The oversized charging handle, bolt release and tang safety are all designed for quick and easy manipulation under stress. But the real standout feature is the loading system.
Mossberg widened the loading port, elongated the elevator, smoothed out the magazine follower, and removed any sharp edges on the port that might snag your thumb—making reloads lightning fast. Truth be told, I wish every shell-fed firearm had a loading gate this slick.
Upgraded Aiming System
Even if you go without an optic, the gun’s fiber-optic piping for the bead is plenty visible and all you need in close quarters.
Early Aftershock prototypes were equipped with a simple brass bead sight—not ideal for a defensive firearm. Thankfully, Mossberg upgraded the commercial version with a fiber-optic bead for improved visibility.
Even better, the receiver is drilled and tapped, allowing shooters to mount a rail and optic. While I appreciate the flexibility, I would have preferred a direct optic cut, like the 940 Tactical’s RMSc footprint, for a more secure mounting solution. Given the Aftershock’s high-recoil, bump-prone nature, a milled optic mount would be a sturdier option.
At the Range with the Aftershock
Given the gas-operated 990's reduced recoil, the non-NFA firearm can be shot at eye level with out worry of catching the grip in the face.
Between my time at Gunsite and my personal testing, I’ve put hundreds of rounds through the Aftershock, and it’s left a lasting impression—though not without some reservations.
First, let’s address the obvious: the Aftershock is undeniably badass. In a sea of cookie-cutter ARs and polymer handguns, this smoothbore stands out. And with its proven 940 gas system, it runs like a dream. I fed it everything from light target loads to 3-inch slugs, and it cycled flawlessly, save for two minor malfunctions within the first 20 rounds—a break-in issue that quickly resolved itself.
In terms of accuracy, the Aftershock delivers where it counts—close in.
At 10 yards, Hornady Critical Defense 00 buckshot put nine out of nine pellets on target, with eight landing in center mass. Move beyond this range and the pattern loosens and hits don’t land where you want them.
As a sidenote, shooting slugs at Gunsite the Aftershock could technically hit a target at 100 yards—but it was far from a tack driver. At this distance and payload, hits were counted as anything that landed on the 18-inch by 30-inch target—including outside the silhouette.
Still, it’s impressive for a 14.25-inch barrel with a cylinder bore choke. For home defense, this precision is more than sufficient.
The Learning Curve
Mossberg outfits the 990 with the same strap found on the 590 Shockwave, giving shooters a firm handle on the gun.
That said, shooting the Aftershock from an aimed position requires some practice. The compact beast requires a push-pull technique: push forward with your support hand while pulling back with your strong hand to maintain control.
I found the technique effective but takes getting used to. I would wager many shooters would find it infeasible or unappealing—it is hard on the wrists. Good news is Mossberg does offer the short stack with a Crimson Trace Lasersaddle, so aimed hip shots are possible with the gun.
My two-cents on the matter, if the Aftershock is your defensive iron of choice it’s well worth the $200 investment to Form 4 the gun and make it into a Short Barrel Shotgun by adding a stock.
Final Thoughts
The trigger on the 990 is solid and nearly impossible to outrun.
The Mossberg 990 Aftershock is a niche firearm, but that’s part of its appeal. It’s compact, powerful, and fun as hell to shoot.
Is it the best home-defense option out there? That depends.
If you’re willing to put in the time to master it, the Aftershock is a formidable gun. But if you want something more traditional and accurate, Mossberg’s full-sized 940 Tactical might be a better fit.
Either way, the 990 Aftershock is a testament to Mossberg’s innovation, proving that even in an age of ARs and striker-fired handguns, there’s still room for something different. And let’s be honest—sometimes, different is just plain awesome.
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.
