LooseRounds.com
5.56 Timeline
Weaponsman.com

Reflex Mag Pouch

When I saw this video I thought about how I would have loved to have this product while I was in.  Reinserting mags and pulling a single mag  from the SDS double mag pouch was sometimes a pain.

As for how good this product, I don’t know, but it sure is a nifty idea.

They can be purchased and you can find more information here.

At what point do people step beyond the protection of the “Unified Front” clause of the RKBA Movement?

Posted with Permission from Rob Pincus

 

At what point does the cry of “unification” really just become an excuse to keep things smooth with friends or associates?

At what point do you need to start cutting people out of the club?

Better Question:  At what point do people self-select out of the club?

Last month, when Cheaper Than Dirt! responded to the tragic killings in Newtown, CT by suspending all online firearms sales in the interest of re-examining their marketing approach (presumably to emphasize “sporting” firearms) and followed that miss-step up with ridiculous price gouging of ammo and magazines (400+% markups), they got what they deserved: Swift Backlash from the firearms community and a loss of many thousands of customers. Since that time, reports of them canceling back-orders and selling the same items for the new higher prices have been rampant. Yet, I was still told by some people at SHOT Show last week that we should not ostracize or boycott them, because we need to be “united”.

For a couple of years now, I have been prodded by people in the Open Carry Movement, and occasionally questioned by those who don’t care a lick about open carry, for my criticism of those who wear guns openly to get attention, to cause confrontation and to agitate law enforcement and non-gun owners. I have taken the position that those people have done the Right to Keep & Bare Arms movement more harm than good… as I believe was demonstrated clearly in the legal changes in CA in regard to open carry of unloaded firearms (the first major negative state level firearms legislative action in over a decade up until the recent New York Restrictions) and the ‘clarification’ of Mississippi laws that prohibit OC, which had up ’til then been a gray area. I have been accused of not supporting the Second Amendment because I was not willing to give this cantankerous crowd support on the basis of presenting a “unified” front as gun owners.

A couple of weeks ago, I was even challenged for wanting to distance myself, and all responsible gun owners, from the conspiracy theory babbling of Alex Jones on a national television program. During his interview Mr. Jones was making some good points about gun violence and allowed himself to be distracted by the opportunity to insinuate the the US Gov’t was complicit in the attacks of 9/11. Again, the call was for me to embrace Mr. Jones as just another gun owner, because it somehow weakened our cause to not be “unified”. Personally, I think it weakens out cause to mix the RKBA Discussion in with our own, unrelated, niche passions in regard to lifestyle, politics or religion and only serves to cut our movement off from the vast majority of moderately minded responsible gun owners.

Most recently, I have read a statement from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade organization of the firearms industry, calling for “unification” in regard to the Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show. The organizers of that show, Reed Exhibition Company, have decided to ban all AR style rifles and accessories. ESOS is one of the largest hunting shows in the world open to consumers and it is now dealing with many industry leading companies, including Cabela’s and Trijicon, pulling out of the even entirely in response to their decision to ostracize the fastest growing & most popular section of our community. So, why would the NSSF put out a call for people to stay in the show?  Reed Exhibitions also runs the SHOT Show… the largest trade event in the firearms industry. How is it possible that we can stay in a show to present  a “united” front, when the part of the industry that needs our support the most has been kicked out ? I am a member of the NSSF and it makes no sense to me. I do applaud the NSSF’s official statement as a step in the right direction, but I hope that there is follow up that results in a change in Reed’s position on AR’s or a change in SHOT Show Management.

So, I ask the question, “At what point do one’s actions put them outside the group?”   When your actions make you a detriment to the bigger picture and/or to the greater good and the fundamental principles of our cause, I think you step out of the umbrella of “unification”.  When you cut off customers, entire classes of firearms, provide the other side with ammunition to paint us as extremists or to give the impression that we have something to hide, be ashamed of, or apologize for, I think you are beyond the scope of claiming protection under the “Unified Front” clause.

Over a decade ago, I wrote a statement for a project called the “Firearms Owners Unification Project“.  The fight at that time was to unify those hunters, sport shooters and even some industry leaders who would accept capacity limits and firearms bans because their interested weren’t being threatened with the rest of us who saw the bigger picture and were being directly affected by the bans and restrictions of that era. We’ve largely won that fight and we’ve seen incremental encroachment for what it is. A temporary ban becomes permanent. A 10 round limit becomes a 7. This process continues until we don’t have any firearms left. As individual gun owners, most of us get that now.

I’m all for the unification of our movement and our community… but, not if those I am being asked to join with are making our job harder or trying to play the old game of “hide the black guns”. We know that doesn’t work. The primary reason for the Second Amendment is defense of one’s self, one’s family and, ultimately… if need be… this country.  It is not hunting and it is not competition shooting. Those who have benefitted from the amazing growth in the defensive, tactical, “military style” sector of our industry, including Cheaper Than Dirt! and Reed Exhibitions, should think about what “Unification” really means.  And, it might be time for NSSF to shop around for a better ally to organize SHOT Show (OR to put some public pressure on Reed to rescind their decision) so that we can know that we are all truly unified.

-Rob Pincus

-I.C.E. Training Company

Rumors on the USMC M16A5

Quote from Gear Scout:

Sources inside the Marine Corps indicate that the Corps has bucked the other branches of the service and plans to continue and further the use of rifle length M16 family firearms. The M16A5 ACMR (Armorer Conversion Marksman Rifle) will be manufactured using components provided primarily by VLTOR Weapons System of Tuscon, Arizona, and this will be the largest contract ever taken on by the firm. VLTOR has previously been contracted to provide adjustable stock kits for the exist M16A4, and these kits have been well liked and highly sought after. The ACMR will feature a monolithic rifle length VIS upper receiver and a VLTOR M16A5 adjustable stock kit, which provides a buffer tube with seven, as opposed to the usual six, choices of length of pull and uses the existing rifle length buffer and springs. All VLTOR parts will be provided in a Flat Dark Earth finish, per USMC request. The M16A5 eschews the carry handle rear sight but retains a fixed sight in the form of a Lewis Machine and Tool sight that replicates the sight common the M16 family of firearms and has been used previously by forces within the Navy Department on the Mk 18 CQBR. As the name suggests, upgrading an M16A4 to M16A5 spec will be a task simple enough for an armorer in country, as the M16A5 retains the barrel, front sight, lower receiver, fire control group, bolt, bolt carrier group, gas tube, buffer and springs of the M16A4. As it lacks a heavy barrel, the ACMR cannot be considered a true precision rifle, but the newly free floated barrel coupled with either a Trijicon TA31 4×32 optic (first employed by the Marines on the new M27 IAR) or Schmidt and Bender 3-12×50 rifle scope increases accuracy by up to 35% on average in the hands of trained sharpshooter. Additionally, the monolithic upper substantially increases the accuracy and return-to-zero capability of night vision and laser aiming devices. The M16A5 kit, sans optics, costs the taxpayer $1200 per rifle. The Marine Corps goal is to upgrade 100% of the M16A4s assigned to special operations capable units by 2014 and 50% of all M16A4s in their inventory by late 2015.

Military Times/Gear Scout has pulled the article, so we don’t know if it was incorrect or a leak.

A couple notes and thoughts on the above statement:

  1. The VLTOR A5 stock uses a new buffer and a rifle spring, the opposite of what is said above.
  2. I am disappointed that the Corps chose to use the LMT rear sight.  Just like the carry handle that preceded it, it will have to be completely removed from the rifle when a magnified optic is used.  So the individual has to make sure not to lose it, and would have to remount it in the field should their optic break.
  3. It is nice to see the USMC adopt a free floating barrel.  I do hope that we will stop mounting slings to the sling loop on the front sight when this upgrade is adopted.
  4. The above incorrect statement says the TA31 ACOG was first used on the IAR.  The USMC fielded the TA31F and the TA31RCO models on the M4 and M16, and fielded TA11MGO models on the M249 and M27 IAR.
  5. I think the VLTOR A5 stock system will be a great choice for the rifle length AR, however with the total cost of $1200 per rifle, I think there are plenty of other rail systems that could have been used that would be cheaper and just as good.  Hell, for $1200 the USMC could have bought new M4 carbines.

We will post an update when more information is available.