A friend sent me these last night. Some one told me that the parts that failed are made by the Internet’s favorite AR maker but I have not confirmed that yet. It sure wouldn’t surprise me if it is. My other guess would be Stag Arms. Their amazing charging handles have really impressed lately and I have seen dozens of stag guns over the years fail in various ways.
The back of the receiver extension or, “buffer tube” to use common parlance , let go under recoil and the rear movement of the BCG forced the spring out the back and breaking the MOE stock. Which also makes one wonder about the quality of those.
A Colt employee commented to me after being shown the picture that the standard milspec M4 stock will stand up to this if the buffer tube fails. The stock will allow the gun to continue to function assuming the break is covered by the stock. He mentioned the MOE stock being one of the stocks the military will not use on rifles/carbines. Not strong enough.
I been trying to track down the owner of the rifle because I am dying to know how it felt when he fired a shot and that spring came out like that. It looks like it had the potential for injuring the shooter.
I was talking to Brent from The Colt AR15 Resource last night about this and offered up a p half joking prediction. Because of the massive amounts of cheap AR15s and products on the market now, in 10 or 15 years , younger Gen Z will think of the AR15 the same way the guys who used the M16 early in Vietnam thought about them. They will joke about what a piece of crap it is. It will be like listening to guys who were in the Army in the 80s complain about how bad the 1911 is because every one they handled was worn out. They won’t know any better because most of their experience around them will be around utter garbage like the one posted above. I could see that happening. Maybe on a longer timeline but I can see it.
I ran across this picture on one of the facebook groups dedicated to MACVSOG history. Unfortunately the person who posted it offered no details since he had none to give. The AK is suppressed with what looks to be a Scionics suppressor. I have no idea what model. The barrel and front site have been modified to either accept the suppressor or to make it a bit more compact. The claim was made that it was used by SOG recon team members but I have no idea if that’s true. It probably is. SOG teams used and evaluated a crazy amount of weapons. Some useful some not so much. The Gyrojet pistol comes to mind.
English-speaking DISARMAMENT, DEMOBILIZATION, AND REINTEGRATION OFFICERS.
This job was posted the day after Christmas. So for all the folks who have been saying “nobody is trying to take your guns” you might want to read this job listing and reconsider your opinion.
Those blue helmets make great aiming points
Is this in response to the Virginia crisis?
You may recall that citizens of Virginia have become outraged recently by new laws that are likely to pass this month, effectively banning all semi-automatic weapons. Sanctuary counties, cities, and municipalities now cover all but the most urban parts of the state. These sanctuaries have vowed to support the Second Amendment and are refusing to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.
Despite the AG’s opinion and threats from the state government, Virginians appear to have no plans to give up their guns or register them. Many members of law enforcement entities and the National Guard have said that they will not act on unconstitutional orders.
One has to wonder if this is why the UN is hiring “disarmament officers?”
Indeed. What IS going on here with this? The UN is a joke. no one other than the most rabid leftist idiot thinks they are anything but useless. So what is going on with this? You can read the full post at the link below, I have no idea how credible Daisy is on other topics within our area of interests but for the purposes of this post she makes some good points and the job listing is real.
Here is a description of the job for prospective disarmament goons.
Within delegated authority, the Disarmament, Demobilization and
Reintegration Officer will be responsible for the following duties:
Acts as a Focal Point for Disarmament, Demobilization and
Reintegration (DDR) components for two to three missions, responsible
for planning, support to implementation and evaluation;
Participates in DPO and Integrated Task Force planning meetings for
the establishment of a new peacekeeping mission with a potential DDR
Provides technical assistance to peace negotiations;
Participates in technical assessment missions;
Advises, develops and reviews (as appropriate) initial DDR
functional strategy and concept of operations for further development
into a full programme by the DDR component and the National DDR
Drafts and reviews DDR inputs to SG report, code cables, and talking points;
Develops initial result-based framework and budget for new DDR components in new mission;
Liaises with UNDP and donor community to raise voluntary contributions for DDR programmes;
Presents and/or defends new and subsequent DDR budgetary
requirements in the ACABQ and the 5th Committee of the General Assembly;
Develops staffing structure and terms of reference for a DDR
component, including terms of integration with other UN agencies, funds
Provides technical clearance for applicants to DDR units in new and ongoing missions;
Provides Headquarters support in planning the civilian and military logistics support for DDR;
Continually reviews DDR programme strategy and implementation through relevant documents, reports and code cables;
Conducts field missions to assess implementation of established DDR programmes;
Identifies potential problems and issues to be addressed and suggests remedies to DDR units in the field;
Liaises with Member States, UN actors and other DDR interested
partners to represent the mission’s DDR component at the Headquarters
Establishes and maintains an outreach network with CSOs and IGOs active in the area of DDR.
Supports the doctrine development work in the area of DDR in the
department, with the Inter-Agency Working Group (IAWG) on DDR and other
relevant national and international actors working on DDR issues;
Contributes to Department-level or Policy Committee-level policy development work on DDR and related issues;
Maintains and further develops the Integrated DDR Standards – a set of inter-agency policies, guidelines and procedures on DDR;
On behalf of the Chief of the DDR Section, co-chairs the IAWG on
DDR, contributes to bringing coherence to the interaction of the UN
system and its partners on DDR;
Supervises the Associate Expert (Junior Professional Officer) in the
development and maintenance of the web-based United Nations DDR
Liaises with others (UN, regional organisations and Member States) providing DDR.
On December 29, an armed gunman entered the West Freeway Church of Christ in Texas and shot two members of the congregation. Within six seconds, a third member of the congregation drew a weapon and shot the gunman dead.
The events were captured on live-streamed video, with the dramatic events — in the minds of many observers — highlighting the benefits of privately-owned firearms as a defense against armed criminals.
Moreover, the gunman, who had a criminal history, obtained his gun
illegally, and demonstrated one of the central pitfalls of the
gun-control narrative: namely, that those with criminal intent are not
easily restrained by laws controlling access to firearms.
Nonetheless, many media outlets were unable to bring
themselves to admit that privately owned firearms in this case were the
key in preventing a wider massacre. After all, had the
congregation waited around for the police to arrive, it is unknown how
effective a police response could have been. Nor is it clear that had the police arrived quickly, they would have immediately engaged the shooter or even engaged the right person.
These considerations were not sufficient to divert many media
observers from their insistence that private gun ownership is helpful
in situations like these. Both government agents and their
media boosters continue to insist that even well-meaning ordinary
citizens ought not be trusted with firearms and that what is really needed are “experts” with government-approved police training.
Elvia Diaz at the Arizona Republic demonstrated this premise well when she wrote :
The reality of Wilson’s heroism is a lot more complex. He wasn’t just
an ordinary parishioner, as gun advocates may want you to believe. The
church’s volunteer security team member is a firearms instructor , gun range owner and former reserve deputy with a local sheriff’s department, according to a New York Times detailed account.
In other words, he’s exactly the kind of man you want around with a
firearm. But we know nothing about the at least six other parishioners
who also appeared to draw their handguns at West Freeway Church of
Christ in White Settlement, Texas.
And that’s terrifying.
To many people who aren’t left-leaning journalists, it is hardly
“terrifying” that some other private citizens of unknown expertise were
armed in the congregation. After all, these people never fired a shot
once they saw the shooter had been incapacitated. None of them provided
any reason to suspect they pose any risk to anyone else.
On the other hand, 2019 has provided plenty of reminders of
what sort of “expertise” and heroism government-provided security forces
In the Spring of 2019, the parents of victims of the Parkland school
shooting are sued the Broward County school board and the sheriff’s
office for failing to take timely action against the school shooter who
killed 17 people at the school in February 2018. According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, police officers repeatedly sought
to protect themselves rather than the victims in the school. An
analysis of communications among law enforcement officers at the site of
the massacre confirmed there were “at least two times a Broward deputy
urges another officer to protect themselves, not confront the killer.”
Meanwhile, 2019 provided reminders police officers will shoot
citizens dead in their own homes for no justifiable reason, as was the case with Atatiana Jefferson on
October 12. According to multiple accounts the shooter — a
now-former-cop named Aaron Dean — entered Jefferson’s private property
unannounced in the middle of the night. He peered into Jefferson’s
windows, and within seconds, the officer had shot Jefferson dead.
Jefferson had been playing video games with her nephew.
Also in October, former police officer Amber Guyger was sentenced to ten years in prison for
unlawfully shooting Botham Jean in his own apartment. At the time,
Guyger was a police officer returning home from work. She illegally
entered the wrong apartment and promptly shot Jean — the unit’s lawful
resident — dead.
If there is anything that ought to be “terrifying” to ordinary
Americans, it is not the idea that some law abiding citizens might be
carrying firearms. Rather, the far-more terrifying thought is the
knowledge some police officers are so eager to murder residents in their
own living rooms.
More Guns, More Crime?
These facts will no doubt fail to derail the usual media narrative that there are too many guns, and the police — the same people who shoot residents in their homes or cower behind cars when faced with real danger — will ensure public safety through weapons prohibitions and by generally “keeping us safe.”
Fortunately, the facts certainly offer little to support the
idea that more legal gun ownership is a problem in terms of homicides.
According to 2019’s gun manufacturing data from the BATF,
total gun production and importation in the US has increased
significantly over the past twenty years. If we look at total guns
produced in the US (not counting those exported) and added to total guns
imported, we find new gun production increased from around 4.5 million
in 1998 to more than twelve million in 2017.1 Over
that same period, homicide rates decreased from 6.3 per 100,000 to 5.3.
In fact, after years of rising gun production, the US homicide rate
fell to a 50-year low in 2014. This correlation doesn’t prove more
guns reduce crime, of course. But this relationship strongly suggests
the benefits of increased gun ownership — namely greater self-defense
capability on the part of private citizens — are greater than the
Many states with weak gun-control laws are also among the states with the lowest homicide rates. For instance, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine — all of which have few gun restrictions — report remarkably low homicide rates.
Other gun-permissive states like Utah, Iowa, and South Dakota all have
homicide rates comparable to Canadian provinces, although we’re told
Canada only has low homicide rates because of gun restrictions. Clearly
there’s more behind the reality of violent crime than is suggested by
the usual “more gun control means less crime” claims.
Many anti-private-gun-ownership activists continue to insist that
only police officers and other government personnel ought to be carrying
firearms, and that the police will protect the people from violence
criminals. Yet, it’s unclear why the public ought to accept this rather
strained claim. In 2019, police were repeatedly shown to endanger the
public while pursuing their own safety. Meanwhile, the end of the year
brought another case of private gun owners stopping a murderous gunman
far more effectively than police ever could have. Nor was the Texas
church case the only notable example we
can recall this year. It is entirely possible, of course, that cases
like these are not typical or representative examples of police behavior
or what happens when armed criminal gunmen attack innocents. But
there’s no denying the optics this year were bad for the
pro-gun-control side. Faced with the choice of owning a gun for
protection, or trusting in police for protection, many apparently
continue to choose the former.
Time to pick back up with the happenings in the east. Things have not been quiet or calm. The HK boog continues on weekly in their fight for some amount of freedom from the communist puppet government and China. The protestors had a major event yesterday and blood was flowing.
“Organisers the Civil Human Rights Front said over a million people attended Hong Kong’s annual pro-democracy march on January 1. However, scattered clashes broke out mid-afternoon and after dark, with demonstrators hurling Molotovs and bricks, and police deploying tear gas.”