HK has a reputation for producing legendary sub-machine guns. The MP5 is the most iconic sub-machine of all time; however I’ve always felt that the UMP, especially the UMP45 was an awesome gun that deserved a little bit more love than it got. Recently, I had the chance to spend a lot of range time with a UMP45. This is my first time reviewing a sub-machine gun, so needless to say I was pretty excited.
You just bought an AR15, and because you’re a smart person, you bought a quality AR from a quality manufacturer like Colt or Smith & Wesson. Unfortunately, that means you’re out about $1,000 (unless you bought an M&P15 Sport), and you’ve only got $500 left to spend on an optic, because let’s face it your AR needs an optic. Luckily, we are in living in a pretty awesome world right now where decent glass is more affordable than ever. Here are 5 AR optics, each of which I or someone on staff has personal experience with for under $500 that I recommend. These are not presented in any particular order.
(editor’s note: I swear, someone at Ruger must be reading the blog. Just a month and a half ago I wrote a post bemoaning the lack of good .327 Federal revolvers, and today Ruger drops a six shot, 4 inch SP101 on us. TAKE MY MONEY)
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE-RGR) is pleased to introduce the SP101® in .327 Federal Magnum. The Ruger® SP101 in .327 Federal Magnum is a six-round, small frame, double-action revolver with a 4.2 inch barrel and adjustable sights. Built from stainless steel, this new model features a light-gathering front sight, windage and elevation adjustable rear sight, and a rubber grip with checkered hardwood inserts.
Rant time is going to be a semi-regular series of articles where I, or other writers on the site, rant about things. These may or may not have anything to do with guns.
The older I get, the weirder I think the Pledge of Allegiance is. Even if you toss out the historical weirdness associated with it, like the Bellamy Salute (pictured) or the fact that the guy who originally wrote it was an absolute whackadoodle, the whole thing just feels weird when you really think about it. Of course, you can’t actually disregard its origins, but I’ll get to that in a minute.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. It seems rather innocuous, but then I start to think about it, and my brain says “wait, what did you just say?” I think it’s because it’s because of what I’m pledging allegiance to, the flag. That’s…just a symbol. A flag itself has no meaning without the ideals or principles of the nation it represents. Yes, I get that the next line is “and to the Republic for which it stands” but for some reason that feels tacked on and meaningless.
It also bothers me that there’s no action required to pledge allegiance other than “I pledge allegiance.” Whoopeedoo! It’s the most shallow form of patriotism possible because it requires nothing. Let’s compare the Pledge to two other pledges, or in this case, oaths. First, the Oath of Allegiance taken by naturalized US citizens:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
I like that much better, because it requires action on the part of the oath taker. It clearly communicates that with citizenship comes duty and responsibility that is not to be shirked or taken lightly. Similarly, the US Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment:
“I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Obviously, there is a higher level of duty than just citizenship communicated in the Oath of Enlistment, because you have the lines about obeying orders in there. But the meat, the meat is the same: “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
That is the important distinction between the Pledge and something more meaningful. I have no problem with the Pledge in theory, it’s nice little meaningless bit of shallow patriotism. But that’s all it is, because at the end of the day, you’re just saying that “I totally like this symbol of America and I’m not really committing to anything here other than liking it.” The oaths of citizenship and enlistment on the other hand, have you swearing to defend the document, the real, actual document that is the foundation of America itself. Because make no mistake: there is no United States of America without the Constitution.
This concludes rant-time, please direct your hate mail to [email protected]
One of my favorite movies of all time is the 1985 Lawrence Kasdan western drama Silverado. If the name Lawrence Kasdan rings a bell, it’s because if you’re like me, he also wrote a couple of movies that may have been important to your childhood. Perhaps you’ve heard of a small film called Raiders of the Lost Ark or a different movie called The Empire Strikes Back? That’s right, he wrote the best installments in both the Indiana Jones franchise and the Star Wars franchise. But what does that have to do with this rifle? In Silverado, Danny Glover’s character (Malachi Johnson) carries a Henry rifle, and delivers a fantastic line: “Mister, you ever see what a Henry rifle can do in the hands of someone who knows how to use it?”
Every now and then I have a plan for what I’m going to write that gets sidetracked because every attempt to write turns into a rant about something else…this is going to be one of those days.
The most popular TV show on the planet is a car show produced by the BBC called Top Gear…or rather it was. One of the key players in making the show a global success is presenter Jeremy Clarkson, a tall man known for being witty and occasionally borderline offensive. Recently he was involved in what was described as a “fracas” with one of the producers on Top Gear and somehow or another he struck the producer stoutly enough to give him a bloody lip. As a result, production of Top Gear for this season was suspended and Clarkson was essentially fired from the BBC.
This isn’t an unexpected result, frankly. Most people could expect termination if they hit a coworker. Many feel, however, that Clarkson’s firing was unjust since the entire event has been described as a brotherly row that has been blown out of proportion by the outside world. Clarkson reported his actions to the BBC himself, and the producer who was hit has made several public statements about the whole thing being overblown and wishing no ill towards Clarkson…who, by all reports, seems to have been quite apologetic about his behavior.
Gun folks should have a special place in their hearts for Mr. Clarkson due to his relationship with Piers Morgan. You’ll remember that Piers Morgan showed up on CNN to replace Larry King and spent a bunch of time pushing to enact more gun control here in the states. Morgan, in case you didn’t know, rose to prominence working for a tabloid where his publication did all manner of nasty and objectionable things in pursuit of headlines to the point where he basically had to flee to the US where his status as pond scum was less well known. His show was short lived and is remembered primarily for ticking off gun owners. In closing his show for the last time Morgan said:
Clarkson holds a special place in the hearts of gun folks because he punched Piers Morgan in the face.
That punch was due to the nasty things Morgan was writing about Clarkson’s wife and family in his tabloid. In the old days someone could demand that you show up on the field of honor for that sort of thing. Punching Piers Morgan in the face was understandable…and some would say commendable. The punch that ended Top Gear certainly isn’t.
The thing that bothers me, though, is now there is talk of Clarkson facing criminal charges for essentially giving another guy a bloody lip.
To understand why I find this troublesome I have to take you to another location in the United Kingdom. A place called Rotherham. For almost twenty years in Rotherham police and government officials knew there was a gang of British-Pakistani men waging a campaign of terror against vulnerable girls in the area. These men were abducting teenage girls, raping them, and even trafficking them in forced prostitution. An investigation estimates that this was done to over 1,400 girls…all while the government officials in the area turned a blind eye.
Actually, that’s not entirely accurate. The officials did not simply turn a blind eye. It’s more accurate to state that they enabled the rape and forced sexual slavery of teenage girls by these scumbags. In fact, on some occasions the police even intervened to protect the rapists from families of girls who tried to get them back:
I want you to stop for a minute and process this. You are a father. Your daughter has been snatched off the street by a gang of thugs you know to be active in abducting and raping teenage girls. You know the police absolutely refuse to do anything about it. Left with no alternative, you take matters into your own hands and try to reclaim your daughter from the hands of this rape gang…only to have the rapists call the cops on you, and you are the one who gets dragged off in handcuffs.
I want to emphasize here that I’m not pitching a Michael Caine movie plot. This information comes from an official investigation into the matter led by a dispassionate and respected academic…who was utterly appalled at what she discovered. This all really happened…and unfortunately it didn’t just happen in Rotherham. Evidence is coming to light that this same pattern of behavior took place in other areas of the United Kingdom, and for largely the same reasons.
So what does that have to do with Clarkson, you wonder? Simply this: If Jeremy Clarkson faces criminal charges for punching a Top Gear producer during an argument, then Her Majesty’s Government will have officially doled out more concrete personal and professional sanctions against Mr. Clarkson than they have against the government officials who made the Rotherham rape scandal possible.
Even the BBC’s firing of Clarkson is tainted by the fact that for decades the BBC covered up the sexual abuse of children by Jimmy Savile. In Rotherham some government officials at least had to resign…but to my knowledge nobody in the BBC has been fired over turning a blind eye to a man who Scotland Yard claims must have spent every waking moment of every day plotting to molest children.
I’m not arguing that Clarkson should be held blameless, here. I’m simply trying to point out how utterly absurd this whole situation is. Clarkson behaved like a jackass, certainly…but the entire system is more up in arms over Clarkson giving somebody a bloody lip than it is over any number of true horrors that are taking place. This is the natural result of absurdity becoming public policy…navel-gazing political correctness given power to the point where the entire society strains out a gnat and swallows a camel. Or, to put it more bluntly, strains out a punch and swallows widespread sexual abuse of children because government officials fear being called a racist.
Do not believe this is just a problem in the United Kingdom. It’s a common ailment across all of western civilization including here at home. It’s not quite as severe in the function of our society just yet, but the creeping evil has a foothold here as well. Consider that Army psychiatrists listened to Nidal Hasan rant about the glories of jihad and praise the terrorists we were actively engaged in a war to fight and didn’t question Hasan…but rather questioned themselves for being uncomfortable with it:
I’d say history proves that Mr. Hasan’s “zeal” was quite unlike others with strong religious views. Note the absurdity: Even after Nidal Hasan killed thirteen people and wounded thirty more in an act of terrorism, people who interacted with him feel compelled to try and claim that his “religious views” weren’t unusual. This is a man who gave a powerpoint presentation on the justness of jihad against American forces in what was supposed to be an academic assignment on issues related to psychiatry…and this isn’t “unusual”?
For this kind of absurdity to reign supreme, people have to decline to challenge it. This might be a clue as to why some are so eager to invent speech codes and various other restrictions on the expressions of unapproved ideas…because it’s the only true antidote to having absurdity as the governing principle of society. Being actively pro-gun is awesome and we should all continue to do it…but if we ignore these other manifestations of idiocy our gun rights are going to be a moot point. A robust recognition of the right to self defense and self determination cannot exist when absurdity is the governing principle of society.
We’re not quite there yet even though, at times, it feels like we are. The best way to fight it is to refuse to buy the attempts at “narrative” that get foisted upon you by various media concerns and look for what’s real. Narrative is how they push Mike Brown as a harmless victim of institutional racism and impugn the entire University of Virginia over what turns out to be a completely fabricated claim of gang rape. (Not like that’s ever happened before…oh, wait…) Think critically and, most importantly, speak up. Don’t be afraid to call things as you see them. The only way to keep absurdity from becoming default public policy is to smother absurdity with common sense.
…because if you don’t do it, who will?
You know what is awesome? First person shooter video games. Especially the Battlefield lineup, and of those Battlefield Hardline is pretty fantastic. It is immediately evident when playing the single player campaign that someone on staff is a huge gun nerd. The guns are modeled incredibly realistically, right down to in-game ACOG featuring the correct “donut of death” reticle. But when playing the game, this presents a dilemma for gun nuts like myself: because I can set up a gun in game almost exactly how I’d set up my real life equivalent, do I do that? Or do I entertain a ballistic flight of fancy?
Smyrna, Ga. (March 24, 2015) – There are many words that spring to mind when discussing the popular “Glock” line of pistols, but “beautiful” and “artistic” are not often among them. Yet that’s exactly what the craftsmen at GASTON J. GLOCK style LP, in conjunction with famed blacksmith Balbach, have produced by hammering three barrels from world champion shooter Dave Sevigny’s Glocks into stunning Damascus-style knives.
These aren’t just any barrels, either. Two of the three barrels were used to win USPSA national championships by Sevigny, and the third is the barrel from his primary practice and training gun during his championship run. The same barrels that were key to his pistol’s reliability and accuracy are now some of the finest knives money can buy. And there are only three.
Barrel #1, serial number GWA788
Glock 35, .40 caliber
Date range used: 2005 – 2011
This pistol was used to win the 2005 USPSA Limited-10 Nationals and 2006 USPSA Limited Nationals, which represented Sevigny’s 4th and 6th USPSA National Championship wins. Both of these Nationals were hosted at the PASA Park in Quincy, Ill. and were composed of 18 stages with over 350 competitors participating across all divisions. The Limited-10 division differentiates itself from the regular limited division by limiting shooters to ten rounds per magazine. Sevigny also won several other regional and state level championships using this same barrel.
Once a barrel, now transformed into a stunning knife, the first knife in the collection features a contrasting blue and green mammoth molar handle, shot through with streaks of white, creating a beautiful compliment to the 320 layer Damascus Steel Blade.
Barrel #2, serial number HMX864
Glock 35, .40 caliber
Date range used: 2005 – 2011
Blade composition includes the pistol barrel Dave Sevigny used to win the 2008 USPSA Limited-10 Nationals at the US Shooting Academy in Tulsa, Oklahoma and later the 2009 USPSA Limited-10 Nationals at the Boulder Rifle and Pistol Club in Boulder City, NV. The wins marked Dave’s 8th and 9th USPSA National championships. On top of the National Championships, Dave used this barrel for practice, training and to win several other regional and state level championships.
This all-purpose hunting knife is as functional as it is beautiful. The finger grooves in the hardened ivory handle make this blade as easy in the hand as it is on the eyes; the full-tang Damascus blade provides near perfect stability.
Barrel #3, serial number MZU771
Glock 35, .40 caliber
Date range used: 2009 – 2011
Blade composition includes the pistol barrel Dave Sevigny used to practice and train for his competitions.
Perhaps the simplest of the gun barrels has produced the most striking of the three knives. The same 320 layer Damascus steel blade is the soul of this knife, with the same form and function as knives one and two. Where this knife shines is the dark stained handle, made from Mammoth Molar Rind, the rich dark brown flashing in contrast to the beautifully patterned blade.
All three knives are unique, with individual serial numbers; and come complete with a traditionally crafted saddle leather scabbard. Only GASTON J. GLOCK style LP carries these exclusive knives, and these are the only three on the planet. This never before seen combination of function and craftsmanship has created three knives that you’ll pass on from generation to generation as works of art, but at the same time have preserved the legacy of function earned by the hard-used championship firearm barrels they are made from.
Exactly one week ago, I wrote a post revisiting the frequently hotly debated topic of weaver vs. isosceles. If you don’t want to read it, here’s the tl;dr version: with the exception of a very, very, very, very small portion of the shooting populace, it doesn’t matter which stance/grip/thing you use.
Of course, “nuance” is difficult for the internet, so my comment section flooded with people talking about how “lol weaver suxx” or “Iso is for gamers” and a bunch of other nonsense. However, one argument stuck out at me in particular, to the point where I feel the need to actually defend the Weaver stance and its users. That’s how stupid this argument is, it has me actually defending the position with which I nominally disagree.
This argument was repeated multiple times on the blog, and I even addressed it a bit on my FB page. It goes like this:
You shouldn’t shoot Weaver because it’s been proven in gunfights that you’ll automatically go into an isosceles stance so lol weaver is dumb and gay”
That argument is stupid. It’s stupid because if you replace “Weaver” with “sighted fire” and “isosceles” with “point shooting” it’s the exact same argument made by point shooting smacktards about how you’ll never see your sights in a gunfight so you shouldn’t practice with them. Those arguments are stupid because they encourage a culture of mediocrity instead of a culture of excellence.
The entire point of training to use a gun for self-defense is to overcome our reptile hind-brain’s reaction to fear and danger. Think about how stupid this argument is when you apply it to other areas of your life: “You shouldn’t go to defensive driving school because under stress you’ll just panic brake” or “you shouldn’t study for the test because under stress you’ll just forget everything you studied and fail.” It’s utter nonsense, but it’s the kind of utter nonsense that people want to embrace, because it saves them from being challenged to do something difficult. Getting better at stuff is work. Getting better at shooting is work. Just talking about Weaver for a moment, ask anyone who has ever been to a Gunsite 250 if there were parts that weren’t challenging. Of course there are. That’s because the act of training yourself to overcome the fear response is difficult.
We have millions of years of evolution that tell us to crouch, cower, and run away from danger. It’s the smart thing to do. It’s what we did until we figured out how to make tools, weapons, and fire. Then we trained ourselves to stand in the face of the bear/mammoth/thing and say “naw, I’m going to kill you with this spear.” If your entire argument against a technique is “don’t use it because of your fear/stress response” then you fundamentally misunderstand the entire point of defensive firearms training. It’s not to embrace our fear, it’s to conquer it. Lewis Hamilton isn’t afraid to throw his F1 car into a corner at 100 miles per hour because he’s trained to overcome that part of his brain that’s screaming at him “TOO FAST YOU’LL DIE FOR SURE.”
In the early to mid-2000s, everyone was screaming for lighter carry guns. For a number of reasons, Smith & Wesson decided it would be awesome to offer some of their very popular L-frame and N-frame models with scandium frames and titanium cylinders, resulting in wrist destroying magnums like the 329PD, chambered in .44 Magnum. Of course, the Smith N-frame lineup also includes the legendary 625, the .45 ACP moonclip revolver. It was only natural to make a scandium framed, titanium cylindered version of that, resulting in the gun you see today, the Smith & Wesson 325PD.