May your first day in hell last 10,000 years, and let it be the shortest.

I think it is possible that there are people in the world you can hate so much that it is impossible to find a word for the intensity of that hate.  It is like the heat of a million exploding suns.  No stranger to hating people myself, I can not think of anyone I hate more than my ex wife  or osama bin laden ., except for this thing.   Certainly, if you read this website, you are the kind of person already familiar with it.    obama better watch out, he has a strong competitor easing up on his position.

 

10408639_10205592172274042_4440779853818310888_n

 

If you have a twitter account, I would suggest twitting your thoughts to this twit.

PTR Classic Model Review

We here at Loose Rounds recently came to be in possession of a PTR Industries PTR Classic Wood Legacy Model for review. PTR Industries, formerly JLD Enterprises, produces a line of American made Heckler & Koch G3 style clones in a variety of configurations.

Our particular model featured wood furniture, an 18” barrel PTR Ind describes as match grade with an HK tapered profile, and a polymer grip/trigger group housing. Weight is listed as 9.5lbs and overall length as 40.5”.

IMG_6807

IMG_6833

IMG_6829

I have to admit I wasn’t exactly pumped when I heard we had a PTR in to test. Nothing against PTR, I’ve just been leery of US made clones of foreign combat rifles since being greatly disappointed by an Ohio Rapid Fire built Galil that was the definition of half assed. I was pleasantly surprised upon first handling the PTR as it came off as well put together with quality parts.

After handling the PTR a few things stood out. Its weight is listed at 9.5lbs but it feels lighter in the hands. The polymer grip/trigger group housing detracts from the “classic” feel they’re going for with the wood stock/handguards. I also did not care for the feel of the grip, I found it too narrow side to side and too long front to back.

IMG_6810

The ergonomics of the controls suck ass. No one this side of an NBA court can manipulate the mag release button and the safety selector lever without altering the firing hand grip.

IMG_6751

I did like the slim profile of the wood handguard as it allows for an aggressive grip on the front of the gun, good for controlling .308 recoil.

IMG_6812

The charging handle operated smoothly and without an undue amount of force to pull back. It also allows for the patented HK slap to charge move if you’re feeling Hollywood.

IMG_6832

IMG_6840

At the range the PTR ran well and was 100% reliable. Recoil was about what you would expect from a semi auto .308. Not punishing, but far more than your average 5.56, though controllable with technique. I’m sorry to say we did not shoot for groups. Our particular PTR had no provision for mounting a scope, and to be honest it was too damn cold for us to feel like proning out on the ground. Yeah I know, we suck.( see bottom update for accuracy results)

IMG_6744

Shawn demonstrating proper 80’s action hero firing stance.

IMG_6883

I did run into an issue with the rear sight but it may just be me. When using the rear sight on the “1” V notch setting the V was so low to the receiver that I had a hard time getting my head low enough on the stock to be able to use it effectively.

IMG_6839

IMG_6836

The PTR lacks a bolt hold open after the last round so a click lets you know you’re empty. Mags on the PTR rock in so it takes a little bit of practice to become smooth with the motion.

I actually liked the PTR more than I thought I would though it’s not without its issues. It looks cool, seems well made, was 100% reliable in our testing, and more fun to shoot than I expected it to be. However its funky ergonomics, lack of a bolt hold open, and inability to easily add lights, optics, etc. relegate it to range toy status.

To be fair PTR Industries does offer other models that feature receiver rails with which to mount optics and railed handguards to mount accessories but you’re still going to be dealing with poor ergonomics, no bolt hold open, and rock in mags. Plus the weight of all that added to a rifle on the heavier side to begin with.

I liked the PTR and think it would make a good addition to an HK design collection or guns of the Cold War collection, but would pick something else for a fighting rifle.

 

 

UPDATE 

 

After the weather warmed  up, I did shoot the PTR for accuracy using ( wasting ) Federal Gold medal Match ammo.  It was disappointing to be kind.  At 100 yards, It was constantly 4-5 MOA.  I am not a stranger to iron sights, so I can confidently say , that is is not that great of a shooter. It is however, good enough for combat use  to a limit.   Obviously ball ammo just made the accuracy worse.   I for one, have no idea why they call it a “match ” rifle. It certainly is not.     it is sturdy and well made, if you can live with the polymer lower on a clone, and reliable but do not expect much for accuracy.  —Shawn

Colt LE6920-OEM1 & OEM2

Let’s take a quick look at two new offerings from Colt in the LE6920-OEM1 and LE6020-OEM2 models. Several places have these listed and they are in the Colt 2015 catalog, but no one currently has them in stock. They should be available and hitting the market after Shot Show. The OEM’s come without a stock, handguards, trigger guard and BUIS. Now, you might be thinking, what is the big deal with the OEM models? If you are new to the AR15 platform they might not be for you, but if you already have a few ARs you can see the benefits.

Colt LE6920-OEM1 & OEM2
Colt LE6920-OEM1 & OEM2

#1) It’s a Colt, you know what you are getting, (proven reliability), enough said. #2) I currently have several stocks, handguards , grips, rail systems and BUIS laying around. Most of us do as we are constantly getting new accessory products to try out. #3) The MRSP is just under 800 dollars. That means you will probably be able to get an OEM1 or OEM2 in the mid 600 dollar range once they start hitting the street. Slap on the extra parts you have laying around and you have a new standard configuration Colt LE6920 for under 700 dollars with the OEM1.

Colt LE6920 OEM1
Colt LE6920-OEM1

The LE6920-OEM2 is the real winner here, with the factory pinned FSB / Gas System that has been milled down to a low profile gas block. The delta ring has not been added, leaving just the barrel nut and no handguard cap behind the FSB. The OEM2 is screaming for you to slap on an extended Free Float (FF) rail system of your choice. If you choose a rail system designed to mount directly to the mil-spec barrel nut, (i.e. Centurion C4, Fortis or Midwest), you simply put it directly on. No removal of the flash hider or FSB is needed. This saves you time and money, while keeping the reliability of factory gas system in place. If you choose a propriety barrel nut FF rail system, you still get the benefit of the factory gas system, you save money not having to replace it with an unpinned low profile gas block or have the FSB milled down.

Colt LE6920 OEM2
Colt LE6920-OEM2

Hopefully the OEM’s will be available soon. I think these will be one of the best “Bang for the Buck” items, especially when most of us strip off the factory accessories anyway. The LE6920-OEM2 is on my list of next purchases.

Duncan.

Update:

A few days after we posted this article, Larry Vickers did a quick video of the Colt LE6920-OEM1 and OEM2 offerings at Shot Show 2015. Check out the video bellow.

ATF changes mind on Stabilizing Brace pistol stock.

The BATFE has released an open letter posted here.
http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Firearms/FirearmsIndustry/open_letter_on_the_redesign_of_stabilizing_braces.pdf

OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF “STABILIZING BRACES”

The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use
of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.” These devices are described as “a shooter’s aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols.” The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol.

These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator’s forearm to provide stable support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms Act (NFA) control. However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed. When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA.

The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines “firearm,” in relevant part, as “a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length” and “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.” That section defines both “rifle” and “shotgun” as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder….” (Emphasis added).

Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA “firearm.” For example, in Revenue Ruling 61-45, Luger and Mauser pistols “having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed” were each classified as a “short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act.”

In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer noted that

The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to dangerously “muscle” this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without compromising safety or comfort.

In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a “shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol’s handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand.” When strapped to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, “the device -2- is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder.” In making the classificationATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the
stated intent.

ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any “weapon designed or redesigned, made or
remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.

The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing antipersonnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a
weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an “any other weapon.”

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary
to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.

If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division at fire_tech@atf.gov or by phone at (304) 616-4300.

Max M. Kingery
Acting Chief
Firearms Technology Criminal Branch
Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division