More on penetration and home defense...

Corpus Christi teen kills burglar in home, police say

Associated Press

CORPUS CHRISTI — A 14-year-old boy shot and killed a man who broke into his family's home today and threatened to kill him and his mother, Police Chief Bryan Smith said.

Smith said the man, whose name was not immediately known, confronted a woman as she was carrying groceries into her home shortly before 1 p.m.

The man forced her inside and tied up her and her son. Smith said the woman was able to loosen the binding and free her son, who got his father's revolver from a security box beneath a bed.

As the man tried to break into the room where the two were and threatened to kill them both, the teen fired a shot through the door and hit the intruder in the head, Smith said.

Yet another example of how home defense shootings involve barrier penetration. Still think that .22LR, 20ga birdshot, or 40gr ballistic tip .223 varmint load is a good choice?

(RANT) Stupid Self-Defense Ideas...

Let's begin with a real-world event that happened recently:

Link To Article

CRAIG, Colo. -- A 60-year-old Moffat County man was killed during a home invasion shootout in Craig -- except he was the one who was doing the breaking in with a gun.

Police were dispatched to a home in the 800 block of Washington Street at about 5:40 p.m. on Sunday on a report of a home invasion. The 911 dispatcher told officers that shots could be heard from inside the home.

Officers found Mario Vigil lying on a floor outside a bedroom. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

The officers then found the homeowner, 33-year-old Josh Jackson, and his 9-year-old son hiding in a bedroom.

An investigation revealed that Jackson saw Vigil trying to break into the front door with the butt end of a rifle. Jackson grabbed a .410 shotgun and shot the intruder in the chest as he entered the home, but the shot did not stop him, police said.

Jackson and his son ran into a back bedroom and locked the door. Jackson told his son to hide under a bed and then grabbed a 30-06 rifle and started loading it. Police said the intruder then fired two rounds from a 30.30 rifle through the closed bedroom door.

Jackson yelled at him to leave and fired one round from his weapon through the bedroom door into the hallway. The intruder fired two more rounds and then began busting open the bedroom door, police said.

At that point Jackson fired another round, which apparently struck the intruder in the right hip area. The door remained closed and Jackson and his son stayed in the bedroom until officers arrived.

Stupid advice #1: Don't use a firearm that over-penetrates.

This is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You're using a firearm for crying out loud! They're deadly force tools, not less-than-lethal tools. If you want those, get pepper spray or other such ineffective garbage. Why on Earth would you want to limit your effectiveness in a life or death situation? Because you fear that your missed shots will somehow travel elsewhere and hurt or kill someone else? Where are your priorities? On the psychopath 10ft away and 2 second from KILLING you, or on the well-being of your neighbors who could only be hurt by a virtually impossible one-in-a-million bullet hitting them due to penetration? What are the odds here? Your life and the life of your son in a room being killed, vs the safety of neighbors in an entirely different area?

Look, over penetration is an advantage, NOT a liability. - just ask the military why they use armor piercing ammunition.

People have fallen victim to the myths and bullshit perpetuated by idiot firearm instructors who fear litigation and by the police who'd like to see you have ineffective arms. These instructors think they're doing you a service by getting you all worked up over the aftermath of a shooting. Guess what? There won't be a fucking positive or negative aftermath for you to experience if you follow their stupid advice. You'll be zippered up in a body bag. Your choice.

As for the cops....they always advocate the most ineffective arms for civilians for a number of reasons. For one, they don't like you being better armed than they are. Secondly, they feel as though only their elitist and expert fingers are qualified to use such arms. (despite the fact that they far exceed civilians in firearm related accidents) Finally, they don't feel as though you have the capacity to successfully deploy a firearm in self-defense; after all, you didn't go to a 6 month police academy.

The last component of this rediculous advice stems from the police LIE about their choice of arms. At one time the police used MP5's, these are 9mm (medium power pistol cartridge) HK submachine guns. They've since largely switched to the AR-15 platform which fires a .223 Remington cartridge (a medium power rifle cartridge). The stated lie was that the 9mm penetrates interior walls much more than .223 which "fragments" quickly, thus posing less of a threat to innocents. This is pure bullshit. It has been extensively debunked that the .223 is not some sort of insta-frag bullet which stops after a couple layers of dry wall. The .223 is a serious cartridge that will penetrate well over 4 interior house walls. The real reason police switched is two-fold. One, the AR-15 platform is cheaper, you can arm 3 times as many officers than you would with the expensive MP5. Two, the .223 is far more effective and destructive to human tissue than the 9mm. That's right, they aren't seeking less effectiveness, they are seeking MORE effectiveness.

I won't even discuss the complete insane stupidity of ever using a worthless cartridge like the Glaser "safety" slugs in pistols. The only safety they provide is for the lunatic trying to kill you.

Stupid Advice #2: Gun Gadgets.

Look folks, in a life or death, high speed, high stress situation...you (on the defensive) will not have ANY use whatsoever for a weaponlight, laser, reddot, bipod, tactical grip or whatever other nonsensical garbage people put on rifles. Now, this stuff is great when the situation calls for it. In a New Orleans type disaster situation, that stuff comes in handy because you have the time and position to be able to deploy these tools, but when you have just mere seconds to respond and begin moving and shooting, you do not have time to turn on or use this crap. Cops use lights and lasers and all these gadgets because they have the time to turn them on in the armored personnel carrier just before they kick down a door and offensively assault a building.

Stupid Advice #3: Only shoot at what you can see.

That advice only applies to hunters, not to home defense situations. Note: I'm assuming you've ID'd that there is a real threat, I don't advocate you shoot at something or someone that might not be a threat. Gunfights are different:

There's only 1 rule to a gunfight: There are NO rules. Period.

People constantly think that you need to see your target before pulling that trigger. Bullshit I say. Look, you've got some armed psychopath in your home -- if you can guestimate that he's behind a door or a wall...OPEN FIRE. Sure you might miss, who cares! Shoot more! That's why it is essential that everyone obtain the highest possible capacity magazines. More = better. If you don't believe me, then just ask the military why they don't go back to single shot rifles. If you luck a hit - you win, or at least stay alive, which is the goal. The goal isn't to worry about your home's walls or furniture. Those are replaceable, you are not. Shoot, shoot, then shoot some more.

Stupid Advice #4: Any gun is better than no gun.

This is true. Especially in concealed carry situations where you are limited to what you can carry, and it is always better to carry than not to carry. However, in a home - there's no excuse to not use serious firepower. A .410 squirrel shotgun is useless. The 60 year old psycho in the article took one to the chest and carried on with his goal of killing the father and his son. The .30-06 took this dirtbag out quick. For home defense, shotguns are not the best choice. I'm going to write an entire article on why shotguns are aweful choices, but for now, they don't fire as quickly nor do they penetrate well enough for effective defense. Pistols are worse. The best choice is a semi-automatic rifle chambered in a medium to full power cartridge, with high ammunition capacity like the AK-47 or AR-15 patterned rifles. These are easier to aim, easier to shoot, offer rapid fire, excellent lethality, and have plenty of ammo to get the job done. Don't sell yourself short.

***

After reading a real-world situation like that linked article, where are all the "over penetration" idiots to come out and advocate the use of frangible ammo that wouldn't penetrate that bedroom door? Where are all the "tacticool" poseurs and mall-ninja commandos to come out and convince us that self-defense can not be obtained without a $600 flashlight mounted on your rifle? These people are not in touch with reality at all. Don't listen to these clowns. Use your common sense. Read about real home invasions to learn what really happens.

Chrono Results (Winchester Ranger 9mm)

Got some results for for Winchester's Ranger Law Enforcement Ammunition. These results are for 9mm. Check out the picture below for the ammo's identity. The Ranger line of ammunition is the politically correct version of the infamous Black Talon. The hollow point bullet is no different. Only difference is that they did away with the thin teflon coating on the bullet, and no longer use nickel cases. Works well. When looking at it, it doesn't resemble the old Black Talon one bit. In fact, it looks like a cheap generic bulk-pack hollow point. Not a shiny spiffy specimen of a premium defense load.

Five shots were fired from an HK USP Compact which has a 3.5" polygonally rifled barrel. Temperature was around 80-82 degrees. Chrono was about 4-5ft away. Shots were fired from one magazine, with about 10-15 seconds between shots (to write down data).

Average velocity: 1,310 fps

Wow, I never thought that it would be that hot! Looking at spec sheets, velocity was published at 1,350 fps. However, virtually all ammunition manufacturers inflate these numbers, or these numbers are achieved under specific ideal conditions or from special test barrels, not from actual firearms. Also, I believe that velocity was determined on either a 4" or 5" barrel, certainly not a 3.5". I doubt that the polygonal rifling has much to do with this. In any event, I am quite pleased. For a short barreled 9mm pistol, this is one blistering fast round. Being 115 grains and traveling that fast might not equate to good terminal performance. Might expand too quickly and blow apart, thus not achieving the number one goal of penetration. Don't know until I can find someone's ballistic gelatin tests of this cartridge.

Bottom line, whomever is on the receiving end of this light but fast round is going to be "in a world of shit", as Sgt. Hartman said in the movie"Full Metal Jacket."

Avoiding the infallible reliability blunder.

I wish I had a nickel for every idiot that beats his chest with proclamations of "I've never cleaned my rifle", or "I've shot 2,000 rounds without cleaning it." Especially when they are describing their primary defense rifle or pistol.

Where do I begin?

OK, for starters. I'm writing this to combat a mindset, not to advocate a particular style of firearm, or method for cleaning or reliability testing them. So don't be offended. I'm a very practical person, and like to look at the big picture. One of the major problems I see is how people fall in love with their weapons and begin to give them attributes they don't deserve. Understand the following as truth:

• All firearms are man made machines, and none are exempt from potential failure.
• There is no such thing as 100% reliability.
• All firearms or their parts have a finite life.

A firearm is not the only component to a weapon system. Key word: System. There are a few components. The firearm, the magazine (if autoloader), the ammunition, and the user (you). If any one of these fails, the mission fails. That mission can be anything, like home defense or personal protection in a SHTF scenario.

One of the most egregious offenses of the three basic truths listed above is committed by owners of rifles patterned after the AK-47. A close second would be the owners of Glock pistols. Unfortunately, a lot of folks buy into a dangerous mythology based on the reputation of a particular firearm. People buy an AK or a Glock and just assume that they procured an instrument of infallible reliability. Now, I'm not basing the AK or the Glock. They are perhaps two of the most reliable firearms in their respective categories ever. However, they, like anything else, are machines made by man and are not immune from failure.

Torture Tests

I'm beginning to loathe torture tests. Sure they are interesting, sure they are cool. But what the hell do they really prove? The reality is, all they really prove is that the particular specimen being tested either survives or fails the torture test. Your copy of that very same firearm 2,000 miles away, built from different stocks of material on a different day, in a different year is not the same firearm. Truth is, not even the very next firearm that came off the assembly line can be considered the same. Now, many of these tests are indicative of particular designs reliability, but that is not a substitute for writing yours off as having infallible reliability. It is just a guide.

These torture tests can be pretty stupid if you ask me. What good is freezing the firearm in a block of ice for a person who lives in Arizona? What good is filling the firearm with sand for a person who won't be crawling around in the desert? These tests might be fine for the military that operates in virtually every environment on Earth, but will you be operating in all of these environments? I doubt it. Certainly having that Antarctica-proofed reliability is better to have and not use, than to not have, and then need. My point is that it is somewhat of a distraction for many people. The best of the best produce a lemon from time to time. Test yours and make sure it wasn't built on a Friday.

"My gun is so reliable, I don't even clean it"

This is perhaps the worst of the worst. I keep hearing dozens upon dozens of AK owners spouting this crap. Sure it is wonderful that the AK is one of the most reliable weapons ever. But why would you leave your rifle dirty? People read this garbage on the internet then begin to try it themselves. Consider this; the Soviets trained their professional soldiers to clean their AK's after every use. They didn't tell them it is so reliable that it never needs cleaning. Ironically, the U.S. government told that to the very first soldiers to receive an M16. Look what happened there!

The only people who do not clean their rifles are illiterate, filthy, toothless and barefoot 3rd world thugs. Does the AK work for them? Sure does, and that is a testament to its amazing reliability. However, that is absolutely no reason to treat the rifle the same way. If the rifle is 99% reliable, why not make it 99.9% by keeping it clean? By the way, powder fouling filth doesn't affect most quality firearms as far as reliability is concerned unless it is a considerable amount. Cleaning after every session works more like a function of inspection. Rifles and pistols do wear out. A pistol that has fired 4,000 rounds without a single malfunction might have a spring snap on round 4,001. Cleaning and inspecting often are proper and responsible things to do. Finally, cleaning works to clean the firearm of foreign objects that are much more harmful to reliability than simple powder fouling. It also deters corrosion.

No firearm's legendary reliability record is a substitute for proper training. If you bought an AK and think that "it never jams" and you avoid taking the proper precautions, you are setting yourself up for defeat. Think of this, what good is an AK-47's reliability when ANY brand of ammunition has the ability to have its case head get ripped off by the extractor resulting in a stuck case? This can happen to any firearm, whether it is an AR-15, AK-47, FAL, G3, M1A...they're all the same. They're all reduced to metal and wooden clubs by the failure of a single piece of brass (or mild steel). This is why it is a good idea to keep a sidearm along with your primary defensive rifle. What happens when a particular round is under charged and results in a short stroke? Will you need those jam clearance drills then?

Bottom line, a weapon system is only as good as its weakest part. You can alleviate this by carrying a backup weapon (like a pistol) and training to clear malfunctions. Keep your rifle spotless clean and oiled to reduce the chances that there will be a filth related problem. Choose the best ammo you can. Buy the best magazines. Inspect the firearm during every cleaning to check for worn out parts or trouble signs. Most of all, TEST all the components together. Ammo, mags, rifle and of course - yourself. Yes, some rifle platforms are better than others, but that factor is secondary to an individuals approach towards establishing a reliable weapon system. Your mindset towards firearm reliability in general is more critical than the reliability record/reputation of one firearm over another.

Go ahead and use TW-25b, if you want your firearms to fail.

I don't know where to begin. There are so many people out there advocating the use of this garbage, from the average Joe, to leading shooting schools like Gunsite and all the "elite" gun instructors. Many claim that the USMC has used this product for several years with success. Isn't it funny how everyone claims the USMC uses their lube? I don't like the stuff because it doesn't do anything I need it to. Here's why:

I did my own garage testing of various things people use to lubricate their firearms with. I place a heavy emphasis on two fundamental criteria, 1] stopping or limiting rust, and 2] lubrication for proper function of firearm and to minimize wear for longevity.

Corrosion Control:

I did my own do-it-yourself garage rust test. I tested a variety of products that people use on their firearms. From CLP to WD-40, Rem-Oil, Militec, Mobil 1 engine oil, to TW-25b and many others. Stopping rust is critical. It is a huge part of keeping a firearm working and keeping it around for decades. Even with today's high-tech finishes and polymers, it is critical to prevent rust. I tested all these products on metal using a salt spray over the course of a few days. Out of all these products, only CLP prevented the rust. TW-25b was 2nd, but it was a far 2nd. On a scale of 1 to 10, CLP was a 9, TW-25b a 5, and everything after went down from there. I would NOT use TW-25b for any rust-prevention purpose.

Lubrication:

Here's the horror story. I've used this product on an HK USP pistol for a year. I never really had any issues with it. It did minimize wear, but not more so than any other product. However, I always clean my firearms after each range session, regardless of how filthy or clean they may be. I'd re-apply it, and then store my HK in my house. I'd shoot this particular firearm once every month or so.

I gave a tube of this stuff to a family member to try out. He cleaned his 1911, and applied the TW-25b the same way I apply it to my HK. He then put the 1911 in a quality lined zippered gun case and stored it his trunk. We live in the Southeast. It gets very hot, and very humid. Trunks can reach 140 degrees. After a month, he had taken out his 1911 to check the feeding of some new handloads. When he tried to rack the slide, it was gummed up beyond belief.

The TW-25b had dried up and somewhat hardened. It became (no exaggeration here whatsoever) almost exactly the same as nasty old caulking. Barely pliable, with a rubbery-like feel, but immovable from where it contacts. It reminded me a lot of the old dried up thermal paste you often see when removing a CPU from an old motherboard.

I was shocked; I never had such a problem with TW-25b. I knew it wasn't good rust prevention, but it worked as a lubricant for me, although, I never subjected it to any heat or humidity. It took a couple of hours of wire-brushing to get the TW-25b out of his 1911.

Now, a lot of you might be saying "don't keep a firearm in trunk", or "check and clean your firearms more often." Well, you know what? I don't care what excuses anyone might make for this stuff, I believe any lubricant worth a damn should be able to withstand the heat and humidity of a trunk, at least for a month. Any lubricant worth a damn shouldn't change state from a liquid to a solid. I'm sorry, but keeping a clean gun in a hot, humid trunk shouldn't be enough of a "torture test" to warrant turning a lubricant into a caulk-like disaster. Especially not a lubricant that sells for $9 (or more) per tube and is advertised as being "high tech", the choice of professionals, used by the military and whatever other marketing bullshit they can come up with. To these bogus claims I say "yeah right!" TW-25b is the market's way of making lubricant "tactical."

I'll stick with CLP thank you.

Are .223 military primers hotter?

Yes.

When I searched around the net looking for an answer to this question, I got two basic answers. One was that .223 military primers make no difference whatsoever in a handload, the other said that a military primer is the same as adding one full grain of powder to your charge.

Which is the truth? How can people possibly claim both? I don't believe that people's individual circumstances and handloading variables can be so far different that they can extinguish an entire grains' worth of pressure increase. This is precisely why it is important to never listen to others, test things for yourself, and work up loads slowly and carefully. In fact, I'm not going to tell you that they are hotter, instead I will show you my personal results, and that should be enough to create a doubt in your mind, or at least be enough of a warning. Don't trust me either, just test it for yourself.

Why use a military primer?

CCI makes a primer ( #41 ) that it also labeled as "5.56". This is a small rifle primer, and it is suppose to have a harder cup. The cup is made harder to compensate for the small dent made by the AR-15's free floating firing pin when the bolt is dropped on live round. Now, there's a whole other debate as to whether or not it actually helps or is needed, or whether the CCI #41 is actually harder than other brands. Hotter primers are also used to ensure that ignition is solid. Federal uses the #200, which is a magnum small pistol primer in many of their defensive ammunition brands, even though the #100 is the standard. Obviously, Federal adjusts their charges accordingly. The final reason to use these in a non-magnum cartridge would be to increase pressure for performance.

In any event, this primer is considered to be a MAGNUM primer according to CCI's website. I loaded Hornady 68gr HPBT's into Winchester military brass, using the CCI #41 primer and 24.8gr of AA 2520 powder. Using this load, fired from a 24" Wilson barrel in 1/8 (identical to the test barrel used by Accurate to record their data), I acheived 98% of a max load. That's well under a full grain from their published maximum load. Accurate's saami load max is listed at 25.9 grains, while their NRA load is listed at 27.0 grains. I don't think it would be a good idea to use this primer with 27.0 grains of powder...

What's the deal with weapon lights?

**Rant Mode On**

I don't get it. Perhaps I'm a newbie. Maybe it's my lack of experience. I just don't understand why people put these 1,000,000 candlepower xenon neon super-duper bright-as-the-sun lights on their rifles or pistols? You know, the ones that burn out a lithium battery in 30 seconds. It must be people's desire to be "tacticool", or to mimic police/swat. I've read all the positives for having a light. But I've never seen anyone acknowledge the negatives. Here's how I see it:

The purpose of a weapon light is to illuminate the target in a dark setting. Obviously, the person with the better view of their opponent will have a huge advantage in the speed and accuracy of their engagement. Most importantly, it blinds the opponent so that their response will be severely impaired. You're lighting up the entire target area and making it a piece of cake to see what you're doing, while your opponent's vision is rendered to nothing more than seeing a super-bright white light against a dark background (no, it's not the light at the end of the tunnel as you fill them full of lead). Their pupils instantly contract, and everything besides that light in their face is lost in darkness. The best your opponent can hope for is to shoot at the light, which is almost impossible, as it’s unbearable to even look in its direction, let alone establish a sight picture and return fire.

There's one problem with all of that. When are YOU going to be on OFFENSE? That's right. Offense. If you haven't noticed, police and swat are pretty much the only folks using weapon lights. Why? Maybe it has to do with the fact that they serve warrants by kicking down unsuspecting crack dealers doors' in the middle of the night? These professionals are using the weapon lights in the proper context -- to ambush. That's what a no-knock warrant isn't it?

Those being ambushed are being taken completely by surprise. If having a weapon light was such a great idea, or such a useful tool, then perhaps crack dealers should put lights on their weapons in order to successfully fend off the home invasion? Police/swat entry teams are just that – teams. These guys form a “stack” of usually four guys. A fifth breaks open the door, and the “stack” enters the room. They are covered from head to toe in ballistic armor. Each man is responsible for a certain portion of that room. Each man is equipped with a brighter than bright weapon light. The beam of such a light blinds the perpetrator, but it is also so bright that it floods the room. Multiple lights like that and everything in the room is visable. Darkness is the enemy of the entry team. What they can’t see, CAN hurt them. See, their playbook is to enter the room and take control. If they see anyone armed, the plan is to shoot them multiple times. The thing they fear most, is missing the guy in the corner. It’s that guy they don’t initially see that might pop them with an SKS.

As an individual, you’re not executing ambushes, forced entries, not covered in ballistic armor, nor are you working with a team of guys armed with fully automatic assault rifles.

Many people place a weapon light on a home defense weapon. For starters, in virtually any home defense situation, you are on defense. It is a good idea to stand your ground in whatever room you're in, and wait for them. It is never a good idea to go hunt for the home invader(s). You don't know how many of them there are, or how well they are armed. You don’t know where they are, or what they are doing. When things go bump in the night, are you going to turn on that mini-sun and go scouting through your home? Or sit in your room behind a barrier and get ready to "open up" on them if they came through the door?

I don't plan on hunting for thugs in my living room. Nor do I plan on doing hits, assassinations, ambushing people, or conducting home invasions. A friend of mine swears by these lights. I told him to "try it"...he turns it on and blasts me in the face with the light from about 15ft. I couldn't even turn my head in his direction. He said "see." I said, “that's fine, but you’ll never get the opportunity to stand in front of me to shine that light.” Try coming down the hallway with that light on and then shine it on me. So he does it. He still thinks he had the element of surprise. I told him, I can see the light coming from the door way and the hall way. Who says I'm going to wait for you to reach the entrance for me to start shooting? Why do people assume that there are some sort of rules to a life or death gun battle? Why do people think that these scenarios play out according to their ideas? I’m not going to wait for this guy to work his way to the door. I'm going to be spraying the entire wall with gunfire. This is why I am a die-hard fan of high-capacity magazines, by the way. I'm not going to wait for you to pop-out and say “surprise!” I will be emptying my magazine long before that. After all, I am the home invader, and he is the defender with the weapon light. He must find me, I am already armed an in a ready position.

These lights are so bright that they’ll give you away in a dark home even when you are behind a closed door. They emit so much light, that light seeps through the edges of the door way. If you think you're going to approach your opponent, then turn on the light in a surprise attack - you've been watching too much television. That isn’t going to happen either. Forget the weapon light for SHTF use. You won’t want to be roaming the streets of any city or suburb with a big massive light beam essentially telling every thug within 400 yards to “shoot right here.”

Bottom line, if a weapon light was such a good idea, the military would carry them. They don't. SEALs, Marines, Rangers, regular soldiers...none of them are blasting lights around in a combat zone. Giving away your position is a stupid idea. If anything, use night vision - that's a great idea. You stay hidden, while you can see your opponent well. Weapon lights are for domestic offensive missions, like ambushing unsuspecting homes. Exactly what our law-enforcement uses them for. What works for police, might not work for you. Their "mission" is different. Quit trying to be tacticool, and get practical.


** Rant Mode Off**

Are Russian scopes junk?

In a word - NO! At least not all of them.

I must admit that I had a bias towards Russian optics at first. This was due to a lot of opinions I've been subjected to over the years, like, "commie junk." Also, the few Russian optics I had handled were very poor examples. Very old surplus optics from decades ago, or perhaps there were seconds with defects, or they were well used. In any event, looking through them was like looking through a soda bottle. Recently, I've spent a lot of time looking through a com-bloc scope and have been pleasantly surprised.

Someone I know was in the market for a scope, and was on a tight budget. They also had demanding requirements for a budget optic. Such as being bright, clear, tough, having turrets, illumination, military style reticle and light weight. Budget was $100-$130. I thought it was impossible and figured the only choice might be an Ebay purchase of a Bushnell Elite 3200 10x Mil-Dot for around $175. Well, that someone found a scope that fit all that criteria. It's called the "PO 6x40 M2."

The PO is a fixed 6x. Made in Belarus by Zenit. A one-inch tube. It has turrets, illuminated range-finding Dragunov reticle, and a 40mm objective. It is nitrogen purged and has all the features for robustness and for being waterproof that any other quality scope has. Price? $120.

At first I was extremely skeptical. I figured that this scope is probably just some piece of junk that the former communist nations build strictly for the consumer market, and that it doesn't contain any quality. I thought it would be a gimmick. I couldn't have been more wrong.I took this optic, sat down with a Burris FullField II and began to compare. The Burris is a fine scope. A very underrated scope in my opinion. It compares very well to a Leupold VXII. After 3 hours of looking at and comparing all sorts of things, I was shocked to see that this scope was the Burris' equal for the most part. On resolution, they are virtually indistinguishable. I had to spot some tree bark far off in the distance, and compare which scope gave me a crisper view of the edges. The Burris just barely, and I mean barely, edged out the PO. On contrast, the PO edged out the Burris. I attribute that to the coatings on the PO. The scope has a tint (as many Eastern-Bloc nations have on their optics) and it is meant to bring out detail in foliage. The PO is bright, but I'd have to say the Burris is slightly brighter. The PO has a larger field of view than the Burris. It's also noticibly lighter. This is due to the magnesium tube they use. They don't use a one-piece tube design like American optics, they instead drill out the center block, then screw in separate tubes and then pin them. It's crude, it's outdated, but it works, and it's less expensive than cutting a scope tube from a single tube of aluminum using a computer controlled lathe. The scope has five illumination settings. The lower ones are barely visable even at night, which I assume are meant to be used with night vision devices. The brighter settings are perfect for the naked eye, and aren't too bright to harm your natural night vision.The Dragunov reticle is crisp. I'm partial to that reticle. It has the windage mil-marks, The chevrons. And the range-finding slope for ranging man-height targets out to 1,000 yards. Except this model has a second, smaller slope that allows you to range a prone-height target out to 400 yards. A shocker for me was the eye-relief. It is just as long, and maybe a tad bit longer than the eye relief of my Burris. Burris is known to have excellent eye relief too. The clicks are positive. I'd rate them as average. They aren't extremely precise and positive clicks found on optics costing $1,000, nor are they mushy, sluggish, barely positive clicks found on budget scopes.

There was only one negative. It should probably come with a rubber eye piece like many other Soviet optics used to. All scopes suffer from glare and reflection when hit by direct sunlight, but this scope is not usable at all as the eye piece lense glares far too much.

I haven't used the scope on a rifle yet. So the true test is yet to come. I'll be testing repeatability of the clicks, ability to retain zero, and a few other things. But for the momement, this scope is perhaps the best kept secret, the most under-rated scope I've ever seen. For its military features, and excellent optics, it could easily cost $300. If it proves accurate and repeatable, as well as robust -- I'll be buying not one, but a FEW of them for myself. For its price, I can outfit a whole collection of military pattern rifles on a budget.

Chrono Results (XM193)

I'll be posting chronograph results from various factory and handloaded ammunition as I test them. I chronographed some Federal XM193, which is the 55gr military ball 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition. It is made at the Lake City facility. Chronograph was set up 10 feet from muzzle. It was about 79 degrees outside, with 60% humidity, and the elevation of the area under 100ft. The XM193 was tested in two different AR-15 rifles. The first being a 24" stainless steel Wilson barrel, with a 1-8 twist. The second being a 16" chrome lined chamber and bore Colt barrel, with a 1-7 twist. Both have 5.56 chambers.

The results are as follows:

16" barrel:
Average: 3,249 fps
Standard Deviation: 33

24" barrel:
Average: 3,356 fps
Standard Deviation: 54

Originally I thought that the velocities produced by the 16" barrel were too high. This isn't the case. According to Federal's specification sheet for XM193, the velocity is 3,150 fps 78ft from the muzzle. A little over 25 yards. That's how the military determines velocity.

How much magnification do I need?

That is a question many people ask when searching for a scope. Everyone has an opinion, and this is mine. Let me start off by saying that everyone is different, has different skill levels, different vision, and different applications. So what works for one person, might not work for another. However, there are some fundamentals that do not change regardless of personal preference or ability. Let me also say that I’m not a professional of any kind in any field that requires the use of firearms. Personally, I like to tailor my equipment, optics and firearms towards the purpose of self-defense/anti-personnel. So I’ll be using examples that focus on that. Lastly, being that I outfit my rifles for a defensive role, any optics used must have the best field of view (FOV) possible. Everything below considers this important factor.

First, some basics:

Magnification is the ratio of the size of an image to the size of an object. Looking at a man 100 yards away with 1x of magnification will be the same as looking at a man 100 yards away with no magnification, or simply put, with the naked eye. Looking at a man at 100 yards using 2x magnification will make the man appear to be 50 yards away. He will look “2 times” closer. 3x magnification will make him appear to be 33.3 yards away.

You take whatever the distance is, divide it by the magnification used, and you’ve got the distance at which that object appears to be under that magnification. Simple huh?

Here’s an example. Pictured below is the size of a man viewed with the naked eye at a given range. When 4x is applied, he appears larger, with 8x even more so. Note that the red colored chevron reticle stays the same size regardless of the magnification used. The vast majority of variable-power scopes have a non-magnifying reticle, so the reticle remains constant. With fixed-power scopes, this is not an issue. However, given the choice between a fixed 4x or fixed 8x, there will still be a difference in the size of the objects you can view with each, as well as the amount of FOV each has.

Using magnification helps you to view things further away than you could without magnification. Pictured below are two human shaped targets that appear to be exactly the same size. One is viewed to be that size using the naked eye at 100 yards. The other is that very same size through your view using 4x, but is really at 400 yards. The 4x magnification has brought the target four times closer so that it appears the same size as the other target which is 100 yards away using the naked eye.


What are you going to be shooting at?

The very first thing you should do is determine what you’ll be doing with an optic. Are you going to shoot varmints? Deer? Is it a defensive rifle that, should the situation ever arise, need to shoot humans with? There are many optics out there specialized for specific purposes, while others are general all-purpose optics. Then there's everything in between. What you plan on shooting has a bearing on what type of optic you choose, and what its characteristics will be.

How much zoom do I need?

Let’s assume that I want a defensive rifle, like something useful for a SHTF scenario. My target zone will be somewhere around the size of a human torso. Let’s say 12”x24”. To determine what I’ll need as a minimum, I’ll need to find out what is most suitable for my vision, capability, and comfort. Using the naked eye, I’ll determine how far away I can see my target. Being that my target is 12”x24”, how far away can I see this target before it becomes difficult to distinguish it from its surroundings? I believe that if I can see it, I can hit it. Might not be easy, but it is possible. If I cannot see it, you cannot hit it. That’s the basic principle behind this idea. There are other things to consider too. For example, just because I can see this target as a tiny spec through my view, doesn’t mean it is easy to visually place a reticle onto this spot. Having a little bit more magnification may aid in being able to relate the crosshair to the target better. Considering all of this, I have to decide with the naked eye at what distance the target becomes too difficult to see or target.

Here’s an example:

Say that the 12”x24” target zone becomes too difficult for me to see, or pinpoint with an imaginary reticle, past 150 yards. 150 yards is our magic number. Now, take 150 yards and multiply it by the magnification used.

• 150 x 2 = 300
• 150 x 3 = 450
• 150 x 4 = 600
• 150 x 8 = 1,200

As you can see, a 12”x24” target 1,200 yards out, being viewed through as scope with 8x magnification will appear to me to be 150 yards away. The same as if I was viewing it with the naked eye. The further out the target, the more magnification I would need to bring it to a size that I’m comfortable working with. That size is the size of the 12”x24” target at 150 yards using my plain vision.

Time for application:

Say I’ve set up a semi-automatic rifle, like an MIA, to become my “designated marksman” rifle for defensive use. A rifle I can shoot quickly with at medium range allowing me the ability to engage targets further than I could with an iron-sighted weapon. My primary targets are human beings. Unlike most animals, humans can pose a threat even when a few hundred yards away. There’s one major factor at work here. What is the furthest distance I expect to engage my target reliably?

Just for example, I’ll say that my goal is to be able to engage these targets out to 600 yards maximum. 600 / 150 = 4. A target at 600 yards, used with 4x magnification, will appear to be 150 yards away. 150 yards is the maximum distance I can handle based on the previous section. When shooting targets at 400 yards, they will appear to be 100 yards away through a scope with 4x magnification. Shooting at a target 200 yards away with 4x will appear to be 50 yards away. As a minimum, I’d want to use 4x magnification for this application considering I want to preserve as much FOV as possible for the maximum range I specified. I can opt for more magnification, but I’d be unnecessarily sacrificing FOV, especially when 4x gets the job done. It’s fairly simple.

Why use lower magnification?

Like I said in the beginning, for defensive use – maintaining the widest possible FOV is critical. Using lower magnification is a compromise in most situations. I give up some zoom, so that I can see more of the environment around the target. After all, most targets will be moving. For .308 rifles and up, the lower magnification is a compromise. For rifles chambered in 7.62x39mm or 5.56 NATO, the lower magnification is not a compromise. These cartridges each have an effective range much shorter than that of higher calibers. While they can still wound or kill a target 1,200 yards away, they were designed for best performance at ranges like 0-300 yards. Considering the range, then taking into account the size of the target they were meant to be used against (humans), you don’t need a whole lot of magnification to make it all work. I might be able to see further, but the bottle neck here is the platform.

...but snipers use higher power!

Modern snipers use much higher magnification. A power of 10x is standard. The situation for them is much different than what I’ve established as my situation. Their goals are to engage targets out to 1,000 yards and sometimes beyond. They are using precision rifles that can be effective at these ranges. They have the skills to shoot, and most of them have excellent vision. More importantly than any of that, is type of shooting they’re doing. They are making single shots from long range under deep concealment. Stalking, stealth, concealment are all important to their mission. Having a large FOV is not as important. When they make their shots, they are usually in a good shooting position, resting their rifle on something. They take their time, and make their shot count. This doesn’t mean they don’t have good situational awareness, because they have a spotter with them.

In my example, one that focuses more on a SHTF situation, dealing with short to medium ranges, targets will not be stationary, the situation calls for more speed. The situation might call for engaging multiple targets, all of which will most likely be moving.

Even though each goal is different, both use optics appropriate in magnification for their individual needs. Someone who hunts tiny varmints at long range certainly needs a higher magnification scope, 12x – 20x. Often, these shooters are using a bench, bipod, or some form of rest. On the other side of the spectrum, big-game hunters opt for lower magnification scopes, 1x – 3x. Their target is large, and the range of engagement is often very close. Dangerous game mandates that you need the ability to acquire your target quickly, or you might end up trampled or eaten. Both big game hunters and varmint hunters use magnifications that correspond with the range of their target, and the size of their target. You can’t expect to be able to hit a prairie dog at 250 yards with a 2x scope, and neither should you be able to shoulder a rifle and fire at a charging rhino with a 20x scope at 50 yards. In each instance, you won’t be able to acquire your target. The confusion begins when the target is medium sized, like a human. People struggle trying to figure it out. Some folks believe iron-sights are fine, or a 1x red-dot to shoot at a target of that size out to very long ranges, sometimes extreme ranges. Others put 9x or higher power scopes on rifles they consider to be weapons they will use at 200-300 yards. If you think these extremes will work for you, fine, but it doesn’t mean they are the most effective choice out there.

IOR Valdada Ring Info

I bought a pair of IOR Valdada rings to use with an IOR Valdada M2 scope. These are the high height all-steel rings. These rings are very heavy duty. Finding info on the height of these rings on the web was impossible, so I took the liberty of measuring mine with a set of calipers. The measurement to the "middle" of the scope is the best estimation I could make. As you can see, the rings are not split into perfect halves. These measurements are not off by more than a couple .001". Measurement to bottom of scope is exact.

Stingers in Bentz Chambers

There's a lot of confusion and misinformation out there concerning the popular CCI Stinger ammunition. What makes it different? The Stinger is a .22 long rifle cartridge that was made for hyper-velocities. Standard velocity for the .22lr is around 1,000 to 1,100 fps (feet-per-second). Sub-sonic is typically under 1,000 fps. High-velocity ammunition is usually over 1,150, but typically 1,250 fps. The Stinger is meant for hyper-velocities around 1,600 fps. Give or take some fps, these are the general velocities for each type.

The Stinger achieves these high velocities in two ways. Firstly, it has a lighter weight bullet. A 31 grain bullet as opposed to other .22lr ammunition that uses a 36-40 grain bullet. Secondly, it has a longer case which is meant to increase the powder capacity of the cartridge.

On the left you'll see a CCI Mini-Mag HP. On the right is the CCI Stinger. You can easily see the difference in the height of the case. The Stinger's longer case is techinically "out of spec", but still manages to work in the vast majority of .22lr chambers - but not all.

.22lr chambers come in three basic flavors:

• Standard
• Bentz
• Match
  

A Ruger 10/22 carbine, one of the most popular .22 rifles ever, uses a standard chamber for autoloaders. This chamber is made loose to in order to be reliable with a very broad spectrum of bullet types, shapes, profiles and different ammunitions that people will use. The Stinger is safe to use with this chamber.

Bentz chambers are a "match" chamber for autoloaders. They are much tighter than the standard chamber and held to strict specifications. This increases accuracy. Most .920" diameter barrels (heavy barrels, bull barrels) for the Ruger 10/22 have this type of chamber. Many barrel makers warn against the use of the CCI Stinger in their barrels because the Stinger case is too long for the chamber. These bentz chambers do not have the built-in slop to make shooting the Stinger safe. There's a little bit of debate over this. Some people claim that they shoot Stingers in their bentz chambers with no ill effects. Others have had slamfires and other issues. The case on the Stinger is long enough where that when chambered in a bentz chamber, the case itself will hit the rifling and jam itself into it, or not allow the entire case to be supported. At best, accuracy will be negatively effected. At worst, you'll get a slam fire or stuck case.

Match chambers, or at least true match chambers, are not used in autoloading rifles. These are reserved for bolt-action rifles due to being too tight for an autoloader to reliably feed from a magazine. I wouldn't use a Stinger in these either.

If you must shoot the CCI Stinger, use a standard barrel - not a match barrel or target barrel. Green Mountain, a maker of affordable, yet very accurate barrels, makes a special Stinger barrel. This barrel is specifically chambered for the Stinger. It also has a slightly different twist rate to better stabilize the lighter/faster bullet. This barrel is known to produce excellent accuracy for the Stinger whose reputation is not one of being a tack-driver. If you've bought a heavy-target barrel, and still want a hyper-velocity cartridge, consider the CCI Velocitor. This round features a 40 grain bullet at an advertised 1,435 fps. One-third more weight than the Stinger, with 200 fps more than high-velocity ammunition. All in a standard length case.