Hognose Reviews LooseRounds


Waaaaaaay back in the first year of this website’s existence, Kevin found us and talked a bit about us. We started LooseRounds within a few days of Kevin started Weaponsman. This article gave a track back to Kevin’s website and that is how we met. You can see the original first year logo/banner of Looserounds below. Take a trip back and see what Kevin had to say about us the first year we existed.

By Kevin O’Brien AKA “Hognose”

Loose Rounds is modestly bllled as “just another gun blog” but the thing that makes it stand out is this: it’s a good gun blog. The participants are ex-servicemen and law enforcement personnel, apparently, and they seem to talk sense rather than nonsense.

Recent postings on the blog have included some informed commentary on Smith & Wesson’s QC, a series of evaluations of the new Colt 901, a 7.62mm NATO AR that is neither an SR-25 nor an Armalite clone, but instead has a character of its own (image right). When it shot pretty well at 600 yards, they tried it at 1000 and beyond, and report their results. There are also posts on practical carry and practical shooting, and recently they provided a capsule history of the USMC M40 sniper rifle.

They are clearly guys who find weapons interesting in proportion to their accuracy and utility, but also their history. One conclusion that they did not draw, but is readily accessible from their data, is that the Colt 901, a 16-inch carbine, is intrinsically more accurate than the M40 was designed to be. That’s progress, which doesn’t alter the “cool factor” of the old M40, or the Army’s gas gun of the era, the M21, which the Marines laughed at at the time: “It’ll never be as accurate as a bolt gun.” That belief is still widely held, but it has little support in the laws of physics. Or, on the range.

One last comment about Loose Rounds: the guys can shoot, have access to a range with reasonable distances (something we’re finding a problem in our part of the world: most sport-shooting clubs think “long range” is 200 yards), and are not timid about posting their targets when they go shooting, especially when evaluating weapons or ammo. A lot of gun reviews online and in paper magazines comprise a bunch of words about styling and a description of a “range test” which sounds a lot like casual plinking. Of course, the services also teach some bad habits (three-shot zero groups, for one) which they then have to teach back out of their precision riflemen. Basic Rifle Marksmanship instruction in the Army or even the Marines is just that: an entry level course to bring the lumpenproletariat to basic combat effectiveness, informed by the fact that 90% of these guys will never file a rifle in combat unless something goes grievously wrong. The Loose Rounds guys (it’s a group blog) get that. And if they’re putting out bad info, we’re missing it: everything they say about shooting sounds to us good and grounded in reality.

All in all, it’s a very good site, all quality, no filler. WeaponsMan likes it.


  1. I did as well, and will add that I have read all of the Weaponsman archives with real pleasure., some of them twice.
    You guys do good work, I know that I will get an honest and informed opinion when I read your work.

  2. I seem to recall that the Weapons Man archive was to be maintained on this website. What happened to it? Where is it now? How can it be accessed?

    There is a great deal of wit and wisdom embodied in Kevin O’Brien’s writings and it would be a tragedy if they were to be lost.

      • Thanks. You have to scroll way, way, way down to find the archive link and I did not realize that it was there. As I recall, it used to be part of the LooseRounds home page header. I hope that you will consider restoring it to your home page so that people can find it more easily.

        • its easy to see if you are using the website on a desk top/lap top but it is not easy to find when on a phone. I think we do need to change that now that you mention it. I’m thinking a logo and link at the top like where the “looserounds” logo is

  3. Ah, the Colt 901 review series… I seem to recall Colt released it and no one knew nothing about it. No one bothered to write anything about it other than regurgitate press releases and to my knowledge there still isn’t anything out there other than “first looks” or short forum posts that go like “it ran flawlessly for the 50 rounds i fired over the last 2 years”.
    Good shit, it got me and probably many others hooked on this site, even though I didn’t learn of it from Weaponsman, but pistol-forum.

Leave a Reply to Shawn Cancel reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here