The 1960s was a tumultuous decade. The Vietnam War protests, the Woodstock Festival, the decade of “Drugs, Sex and Rock & Roll,” three assassinations, the civil rights movement and urban race rioting all led to the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the formation of the ATF Form 4473—Firearms Transaction Record used in all firearms purchases today.

The three assassinations were President John F. Kennedy, civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy. At the time of the third assassination, Lyndon B. Johnson was president and pleaded with Congress “in the name of sanity … in the name of safety and in the name of an aroused nation, give America the gun control laws it needs.” The polls showed that approximately 80% of Americans favored gun registration laws. President Johnson proposed and Congress passed on October 22, 1968, the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921, et seq. National gun registration although proposed, was not included in the Act and was dropped to as-sure the Act’s passage in Congress.

Because the firearms used by the three assassins had variously been purchased through mail order, over-the-counter by a convicted felon and acquired by an illegal alien, the legislation had three major features:

1. It prohibited interstate traffic in firearms and ammunition.
2. It denied guns to specific classes of individuals such as felons, minors, fugitives, illegal aliens, drug addicts and the mentally ill (ATF Form 4473).
3. It prohibited the importation of surplus military weapons into the U.S. as well of guns and ammunition not federally certified as sporting weapons or souvenirs.

The ATF Form 4473 has been utilized for 50 years. Very few changes have been made to the form until October 2016 when states voted to decriminalize marijuana. Once abhorrent behavior, marijuana use became acceptable.

Medical and Recreation Marijuana

I grew up during the 1960s, the decade of rebellion, with the incumbent breakdown of morals, values and ethics in our society. Many of the young people who participated in the rebellion of the 60s are in positions in society today to change the country. Many of them went into the fields of education, journalism and politics. The use of marijuana back then was considered the steppingstone to other drugs. It led to LSD, cocaine, heroin, PCP, etc. Possession and use were criminalized. Marijuana users in the 60s are in positions of persuasion today and have successfully convinced society at the state level that legalizing “pot” for medical and recreational use is moral and necessary.

However, there’s an underlying problem. It is still against federal law to use or possess marijuana. Question 11.e. on the ATF Form 4473 (re-vised 10/2016) asks: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medical or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.” Anyone who answers YES to this question can’t purchase a firearm. They’ve lost their Second Amendment right.

Adjudication and the Mentally Ill

During the 1960s, psychiatric hospitals became a haven for those who were schizo-phrenic, anti-social, psychotic, drug-addicted, alcoholic, deviant, mentally delayed and for anyone else who normal society couldn’t handle. Over-packed and underfunded, eventually state governments found that medicating and mainstreaming these people were the answer.

According to an article in The New York Times dated 1984, there was a Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health, set up by Congress in 1955. The finding showed “… the political community wanted to save money … . [T]ran-quilizers became the panacea for the mentally ill … . The state programs were buying them by the carload, sending the drugged patients back to the community, and the psychiatrists never tried to stop this.”

Dr. Jack R. Ewalt, director of the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health in 1955, believed that “drugs can help people get back to the community, but they have to have medical care, a place to live and someone to relate to. They can’t just float around aimlessly.”

Dr. Bertram S. Brown, a psychiatrist (and later deputy director of the National Institute of Mental Health), was instrumental in shaping the community center legislation of 1963 (Community Mental Health Act). The discharge of mentally ill patients was accelerated in the late 1960s and early 1970s in some states as a result of court decisions that limited commitment powers of state and local officials. The community center was created to counsel and medicate.

Today, there are few psychiatric hospitals and just as few community centers. Most mentally ill persons, no matter their diagnosis, are mainstreamed and medicated. They’re taken to facilities for initial observation, and psychiatrists determine what medication and what counseling are necessary. Many of these people do not have the ability to care for themselves, let alone make their counseling appointments and take their daily dosage of medication. And, here’s the problem. Very few mentally ill people go through the court system any longer. Most are not adjudicated, so they can legally purchase a firearm. If they had been adjudicated, this information would be sent to the National Information Center and be accessible to licensed firearms dealers.

Question 11.f. on the ATF Form 4473 (re-vised 10/2016) asks: “Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?” The definition for adjudicated as a mental defective is “a determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs …” (27 CFR §478.11). The definition for committed to a mental institution is “a formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” (27 CFR §478.11).

The ATF Form 4473 has always considered marijuana use and mental illness as abhorrent behavior. What has changed is society’s handling of both. Here are two different behaviors with two different results. One behavior can’t have the Second Amendment right, and the other shouldn’t have the right. A conundrum it appears that nobody wants to tackle.

Well-crafted propaganda has amazing longevity, outliving even government programs, which are seemingly immortal.

The creation, nurturing and old age of the “assault weapon” campaign sits high in the sky parlor of propaganda, rivaling many religions in terms of blind faith and overwhelming fear. Twelve years past the sunset of the federal assault weapons ban, the gun control industry has yet to relent that their mission was fraudulent, their goals insincere and their outcomes failed.

As the founder and chief researcher at the Gun Facts project, I am self-inflicted by gun control industry agitprop. A recent communication by one of their hordes was stunning in its composition, claiming that the common AR-15 was a “powerful weapon of war.” This is an unsubtle reminder that theirs is a long con and one that remains in play.

Josh Wasn’t Joshing

The origins of the assault on your weapons is as sinister as it was well-constructed. In the same year that Florida began the stampede toward near-universal concealed carry in the United States, a lone but well-financed propaganda master was popularizing the notion of “assault weapons.” Josh Sugarmann, the only visible working component of the Violence Policy Center (VPC), continued his crusade on private gun ownership by planting seeds of deception. Sensing that gun-owning herds could be culled, he set his sights on firearms that were simply scary to the uninitiated. At the VPC website, Sugarmann wrote:

“Assault weapons… are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons–anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun–can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons” (emphasis clearly mine).

Politicians in search of a cause (which is their main stock-in-trade) latched onto the “assault weapon” theme for the simple reason that some firearms look frightening, and fear is the primordial tool in politics. In 1968, every voter had watched the Vietnam war nightly during dinner. They saw M-16s carried by American soldiers, AK-47s carried by Viet Cong and had no other reference to what they were.

Hence, the phrase “powerful weapon of war” to generically describe “assault weapons” invokes the fear of war. Facts, the differences between civilian and military incarnations of certain rifles and the utter disconnect created by broad “assault weapons” classifications are unimportant to voters. Not being shot by a “powerful weapon of war” is.

It was the coining of the term “assault weapon” that was the gun control industry’s crowning achievement, because the term means nothing yet is instantly repeatable. Before Josh and his moneyed patrons began force feeding that phrase to the media, there was no such firearms classification. Whole cloth is a wonderful material for propagandists because it can be used to cloak legislative fiction.

This happened in 1989 in California, the caldron for American gun control. The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act outlawed ownership and transfer of more than 50 brands and models of semi-automatic rifles and a hodgepodge of pistols and shotguns. It also introduced the legislative perfidy of banning weapons on irrational–and often cosmetic–design elements, such as having a thumbhole in the stock of a rifle.

Intellectually embarrassing as Roberti-Roos was, it set the stage for other states and the federal government to ban whatever they felt like banning by using the umbrella term “assault weapon.” Proof of this came in 2004 when the gun control industry was battling mightily to preserve California Senator Dianne Feinstein’s federal assault weapon ban. The Legal Community Against Violence (today rebranded as the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence) produced an oddly honest document (Banning Assault Weapons–A Legal Primer for State and Local Action) detailing the sundry “assault weapons” legislation from around the nation.

Across eight jurisdictions, they reported from 19 to 75 banned firearms, codified using six differing generic classification schemes and with several legal systems for banning more guns by bureaucratic edict. This list might well have been created with random tosses of darts at the corner bar near the newspaper offices (there is always a bar near a reporter). You would be hard pressed to find any commonality among these laws or the firearms they banned.

Instigated by Josh Sugarmann, and accelerated by California politicians, assault weapon demonization became a working meme that has lasted over 20 years later.

A Non-Problem from The Gitgo

Because California politicians were eager to run with the assault weapon ball, certain members of California’s law enforcement community were recruited to understand the scope of the problem. Paraphrasing, they collectively said “What problem?”

“I surveyed the firearms used in violent crimes … assault-type firearms were the least of our worries,” said S.C. Helsley, who was the Assistant Director DOJ Investigation and Enforcement Branch. Part of Helsley’s job included working with state crime labs, and thus he had access to the make and model of every recovered crime gun in California, except those held in city-run labs. And though his dataset was large and compelling, he could not compel the big California cities–San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc.–to participate in the study by handing over their recovered weapons roster.

“I wanted the various crime labs to start consistent reporting of confiscated crime guns,” said Helsley. “But there is a divide in crime labs.

Rural areas don’t have them and rely on state-run labs. The big cities, the ones with more violent crime and more gangs, have their own labs. Yet those cities, where calls for an ‘assault weapons’ ban came from, were not cooperating in tracking or cataloging crime guns.”

That last bit is vitally important. Gang members don’t carry assault weapons. Criminals require a certain element of surprise to be good at their jobs. They are fond of concealing their often-stolen guns on their often-doped bodies since that is the one place where their weaponry will always be readily available and portable to the scene of their crimes. Since a stubby AK-47 measures in at 870 millimeters, and the average male torso is a mere 600 vertical millimeters, hiding a common assault weapon on their person is a challenge, even when wearing large and puffy parkas during the dog days of summer, which is in vogue among modern gangsters. The situation gets worse when an unfortunate hoodlum cannot find an abbreviated AK and must jam a full-length M-16 (1,006 mm) under his arm, presumably with the muzzle jutting past his cheek and lifting his sweat jacket hood a few inches into the air like a cranial pup tent.

In short, by not reporting details of gang gun use, large California cities were keeping the small number of assault weapons used in crimes artificially high in order to help pass “assault weapons” bans. This chicanery was essential given that in the rest of the state–where rifles were common and gang bangers were not–the firearms that Roberti and Roos wished to ban were used in less than 1% of all homicides. Nationally speaking, in 1994–the year the federal assault weapon ban was passed–you were 11 times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an assault weapon. This was because coast-to-coast assault weapons were used in a mere 1.4% of all crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime.

And the situation did not change over the next few decades. In 2004, when the debate to extend the federal assault weapon ban was in full swing, the National Institute of Justice issued their review of the effectiveness of that ban in a report titled, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence.” In a somewhat apologetic tone they said “ … we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”

If the Facts Do Not Conform to the Theory, the Facts Must Be Disposed Of

Statistically speaking, assault weapons were not a problem before the gun control industry ran the term downfield, nor were they any more of a problem after two decades of experimentation.

Conveniently, facts are less important than emotions to working propagandists. Take for example this lede on the poorly named SmartGunLaws.org website, maintained by shysters employed by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence:

“Assault weapons are a class of semi-automatic firearms that are designed to kill humans quickly and efficiently.”

Hyperbole is normally amusing, but not in this case. The gun control industry’s language remains designed to invoke fear. With the roaring commercial success of the AR platform and it becoming a mainstream firearm, the gun control industry has only one remaining hook on which to base public fear, namely mass public shootings by lunatics. A mere sentence later on the same web page, the LCPGV asserts “Assault weapons have been used in many high-profile shooting incidents, including the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the 2012 Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting and the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in that state.”

The insanely over-estimated high-end of assault weapons used in mass public shootings is 25%, which interestingly means that 3/4 of mass public shootings do not involve assault weapons.
Even then the rarity of mass public shootings (using the correct and blessed criminology definition of an event with four or more fatalities, not including the assailant) drops the number significantly. In a typical year in the United States, there are about 20 mass public shootings. This means five such events per year at most involve assault weapons. Compare that to 51 dead, mainly from gang violence, in January 2017 … in Chicago.

Despite the comparatively trivial degree of assault weapon mass public shooting carnage, the gun control industry desperately ties the two together for the simple reason that such violence is random. We all know where the bad neighborhoods are and avoid them (unless you are unfortunate enough to live there). We sense when people we know might become at risk and intervene or divorce ourselves from them. In short, most gun violence is avoidable. Mass public shootings are random and thus outside of our control. Hitching assault weapons to these rare and random events connects the fear of the events to the firearms.

To raise the artificial fear level some more, the gun control industry tries to attach assault weapons to endangerment of police officers. The LCAGV page asserts that “A study analyzing FBI data shows that 20% of the law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty from 1998 to 2001 were killed with assault weapons.” This study was provided by none other than the Violence Policy Center, Josh Sugarmann’s organization who popularized the entire assault weapons canard. The FBI disagrees with Josh in two ways. First, they do not classify the weapons used with any “assault weapons” designation (which makes LCAGV’s summary completely false), and the numbers just don’t add up. When you review the FBI’s data and triangulate using the types and calibers of weapons commonly in “assault weapons” categories, the number of police killed with anything remotely resembling an assault weapon ranged between 1%-8% of all police shooting deaths.

For perspective sake, 20 times as many officers were accidentally killed on the job than were shot to death (regardless of the type of firearm), and most of those were automotive accidents.

Agitprop and Reality

Reality can only be ignored when ancient instinctive reactions are used to override logic, perspective and facts. This is why the gun control industry continues to fight the non-existent scourge of “powerful weapons of war.” Laying it on thick is all they have left.

About the Author

Guy Smith is the founder and chief researcher at the Gun Facts project (motto: We are neither pro-gun nor anti-gun. We are pro-math and anti B.S.). The Gun Facts project has been deconstructing bad gun control policy information for over 16 years. Smith has a background in quantitative management and research, as well as extracurricular excursions into constitutional law and criminology. Smith is also the author of Shooting The Bull (http://amzn.to/1KotyQ4), a guide to spotting propaganda in real-time.

The Martini-Henry Rifle Collector’s Bible

The legendary Martini-Henry (M-H) rifle served Great Britain and the British Commonwealth in the late 1800s, during some of the bloodiest battles the British Army faced. You may recall it being featured in the classic 1964 movie “Zulu.”

The name refers to the design features it incorporated. It was a combination of the Martini action and a unique rifling pattern invented by Alexander Henry. Introduced in 1871, it was the primary rifle until the Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield arms were adopted in 1888. Production ended in 1889, yet it continued to serve in reserve units until the end of WWI in 1918.

The Foreword is written by International Military Antiques, Inc. owner Christian Cranmer. (His son Alex often appears on “Pawn Stars” as an expert on old guns.) Christian describes bringing many tons of surplus guns and equipment from Nepal to the UK and United States in 2003. Soon after, a hardcore M-H collector named Neil Aspinshaw came calling. Aspinshaw, the author of this book, is also the creator and owner of www.martinihenry.org.

Following that is the Prologue: Wednesday, 22^nd January 1879: The last moments of a Redcoat. This is an account of the disastrous Battle of Isandlwana, in modern day Republic of South Africa where the British Army lost over 1,300 men in one afternoon. It is told through the eyes of Private 883 John Kempster. Naturally it is a somewhat fictitious account, as 883 perished along with most of his unit, the 1^st Battalion, 24th Regiment of Foot. Private Kempster was a real soldier, and author Aspinshaw is proud to be the custodian of his campaign medal. The book is also dedicated to him.

This book features many color photographs of complete rifles, interior close-up photos and old B&W period photos. It also has many old patent and engineering drawings and sketches, as well as several battle scene depiction paintings. This offers a great mix of images. Almost every picture is accompanied with a caption. Going beyond the images, the main body of text covers the M-H’s early development, the rifle trials, weaknesses and improvements and changes throughout its service life.

Besides the technical aspects, the author also describes the M-H in battle. He also tackles the thorny issue of reliability. Due to the bloody defeat at the hands of the Zulu warriors at Isandlwana, the rifle came under close scrutiny. Aspinshaw is of the opinion that the rifle was fine; although early batches of ammunition were problematic.

The author did not simply recycle old war stories in regards to this issue. He spent countless hours studying reports from the era, mainly housed at the British National Archives at Kew Gardens and the Royal Armouries at Leeds. Quoting heavily from these reports, Aspinshaw suggests that the problem lay with the ammo, specifically the “rolled case” 577/450 Mk III Boxer design. The rolled case method of fabricating cases from thin sheets of brass foil created a cartridge with a very unique appearance. Wrinkled best describes it. The brass foil is wrapped around a mandrel, along with other parts for the base. The parts were then soldered together to create a case somewhat like a paper shotgun shell. Incidentally, I did notice one minor error here. The brass foil is 0.003-inch thick, not 0.0003 inch as stated. Three thousandths of an inch thick is flexible but not flimsy. Three ten-thousandths of an inch would be like tissue paper. These rolled cases worked well as long as they were not dented or bent. Unfortunately, this often occurred in combat. Chapter 17, Ammunition for the Martini-Henry: The Boxer Cartridge, and Chapter 18, Boxer Ammunition and the Great Jamming Debate, go into detail regarding this. Aspinshaw feels that six factors affected the jamming issue. These are:

1) Case shape. It was not tapered; instead it was parallel-sided.
2) The case would expand tightly against the chamber wall upon firing.
3) Any sand or dust in the chamber or on the cartridge increased the friction.
4) Denting or damage to the fragile case would make it difficult to load into the chamber.
5) If the paper of the paper-patched bullet became “rucked up” or folded back over itself, it became difficult to load.
6) The internal lacquering of the cases could gum up the chamber.

These issues disappeared with the adoption of modern drawn brass cases.

Other related models of the basic Martini action were tested and used by the British military. These are covered in detail as well. Chapter 12 studies the short-lived Enfield-Martini (E-M). (Notice that in this case the Martini name is second.) This was meant to be an updated model, chambered in a new .402-inch cartridge. However, as cartridge design was progressing at a rapid pace worldwide, Britain did not want to commit to a new caliber only to replace it with a newer smaller diameter round soon after. So, after spending 6 years (from 1881 to 1887) toying with the idea of replacing the M-H with the E-M, the E-M project was cancelled. Amazingly, the E-M rifles already made were converted back to M-H rifles! These are the M-H Mk IV “long-lever” pattern guns, in the original 577/450 round. The .402 barrels were removed from the action, re-bored to .450 inch, then refitted to the action and re-proofed. These will have two sets of proof marks stamped into the underside of the barrel. Chapter 13 covers this nicely.

Chapter 14 looks at the Martini-Metford, while chapter 15 covers the Martini-Enfield. Both of these are chambered in .303 British. The names Metford and Enfield refer to the type of rifling used. Metford rifling worked well with black powder but quickly burned out with early smokeless powder. Enfield-style rifling, so named as it was developed at the Enfield arsenal, lasted much longer with Cordite propellant. Notice the order of the names, the M-E being a .303, and the ill-fated E-M being .402.

Chapters on gun manufacture (neat old factory photos!), ammo (as mentioned above), bayonets and scabbards and care and repair round out the topics. An Appendices section that covers Service and Armoury Marks, Unit Markings and a section on Identification: Gun by Gun help to sort out all the many variations. Oddly enough, it does not have a detailed Index at the end, only a basic chapter list at the front. Not a big deal, but it is nice to have an index.

This book does a splendid job of describing all the numerous variants of rifles and carbines that derived from the original Martini-Henry design. This author highly recommends this book.

The Martini-Henry: For Queen and Empire
Full title: The Martini-Henry: For Queen and Empire—The British Military Martini-Henry, Martini-Metford and Martini-Enfield Rifles and Carbines; the Definitive History of Their Development and Service, 1869–1904
Author: Neil Aspinshaw
ISBN: 978-0-9960731-2-7
Copyright: 2019
Binding: Hardcover color
Size: 8.75x 11.25in
Pages: 256; Colour/B&W photos: Many color and B&W (sepia tone) photos, plus patent drawings, factory drawings and battle scene artworks, etc.
Publisher: Tharston Press, an imprint of International Military Antiques, Inc. (IMA)

I am continually amazed at how gullible people are, and how quickly they take refuge in rumor or falsehood when presented as convenient fact. Dan Quayle, as Vice Presidential candidate, corrected a child during a spelling bee – Quayle spelled “Potatoe” as he was taught in his classical education. I know this, and knew it at the time, because I personally was taught to spell it as “Potatoe” in the fine U.S. public schools of the 1950s and ‘60s. So, when people start talking about “Common Knowledge” and mock Dan Quayle for this event, dismissing him as an intellectual lightweight for adding the ‘e’ to the spelling of potato, I’m skeptical of the depth of their understanding of the lynching tactics of modern media. As reference, this quote from the Oxford Dictionary:

“The spelling of potatoe, while not terribly common, existed for almost the entire 20th century. For example, the New York Times was still occasionally spelling potato with an –e in 1988. In fact, one can easily find spellings of potatoe all the way up to 15 June of 1992, at which point they suddenly drop off or become used in an ironic way, referencing this incident.” – Ammon Shea, Oxford Dictionaries.

So, one of the most common misconceptions in “common knowledge” is total baloney, concocted and driven hard by the media in order to destroy a conservative Vice Presidential candidate during the re-election campaign. A very successful disinformation campaign, it worked to make a laughingstock out of Dan Quayle in the eyes of the uninformed. Read that as “most American voters.”

My point in this example? Only that people are damn gullible. They read things, and are easily led. Thus, we come to “gun control” in the U.S. A complete nut, maybe on too many meds or off them and destabilized, gains access to a firearm, and massacres some innocents. Most of the time the killer is avowedly anti-Christian, has lots of leftist beliefs, might be into Satanism, and damn sure is not a typical American firearms owner. So, who gets blamed by the media? The basic, rock-solid gun owning public of America. What’s called for? Is it more control over the proven mentally ill so they’re not allowed to purchase firearms? Nope. Is it perhaps arming people in the schools so they can defend against the actions of a crazy person? Nope.

We have to ban different classes of firearms so that law-abiding, morally grounded, properly trained, responsible American firearms owners can’t enjoy their Second Amendment Right to be armed in a modern fashion. That’s the vast majority of us. Typical, isn’t it?

Thankfully, this time the silly, pointless, and impotent laws that were proposed, that would never solve the problems, were defeated without having to go through ten years of ridiculous impositions on firearms owners. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be more attempts, and very soon at that. We need to discuss reasonable, rational solutions to the problems of a crazy person with a weapon – how to protect our children in the schools – with real solutions, not theatrical pronouncements and impositions on the Rights of citizens in misguided efforts at gun banning. The first step in trying to accomplish this is to understand that the gun-banners are irrational first, dealing only with emotions and misinformation, and that they are NOT the majority of Americans. It’s best to offer real solutions, to deal with these issues head on, not just hope they’ll forget about us for a while, because they won’t, they’re just backing up to regroup.

-Dan

For anyone interested in long-range precision shooting, there is a lot of equipment available to enhance your effectiveness. You can find all sorts of gadgets and accessories for your rifle and your shooting kit, including support bags, bipods and optics.

For most applications, the two optics necessary for your success are a precision riflescope and laser rangefinder (LRF). With the multitudes of options out there, the subject can feel daunting at times, and quite often buyers will complete their purchase only to find out soon after they should have gone another route.

PRECISION RIFLESCOPE

There are many important things to consider when picking out the best precision riflescope for your application. It can often feel overwhelming once you “jump down the rabbit hole.” However, if we just take a quick step back and start filtering our options down based on a short list of features and functions, finding the right optic becomes much simpler.

Magnification

When it comes to long-range precision, the question of magnification often comes up first. How much magnification does one need to accomplish the task? Although magnification is often helpful when refining your point of aim, it is not always beneficial optically. As magnification increases, FOV (field of view) decreases, light transmission diminishes, and clarity starts to fall off. Also, atmospheric effects such as mirage usually become much more intrusive and detrimental to overall image quality.

A good way to determine the amount of magnification needed, without going overboard, is to give yourself a scenario. Ask yourself, “What is the smallest target I can imagine being required to shoot with this weapon system?” Then ask, “Without magnification, what is the furthest I would feel comfortable shooting that size target?”

For example, if your smallest target were a 10-inch circle, many would say they would be confident hitting that target without any magnification out to 100 yards. This means that you could be effective with 1x magnification per every 100 yards. If that same 10-inch target was 250 yards away, you should only need 2.5x magnification. If that same 10-inch target were 1,000 yards away, you’d only need 10x magnification.

Perhaps you require more precision than that. Let’s say your smallest target was the size of a golf ball. This requires a much higher level of precision. In this example, perhaps you feel confident out to 25 yards without magnification for a target this small. In this scenario, you’d need 1x magnification per every 25 yards. If that golf ball were 250 yards away, you’d need 10x magnification. If that golf ball were 1,000 yards away, you’d need 40x magnification to be effective.

Turrets and Reticle

I like to put these two features into the same group because, in many cases, the design of one can influence the other. A riflescope’s turrets allow you to zero your optic at a given range and can be used to correct for bullet drop and horizontal deflection. The overwhelming majority of riflescopes designed with long-range precision in mind will have exposed, target-style turrets. These are designed for quick adjustment and ease of use.

The other method of correcting for bullet drop and horizontal deflection is to compensate using the reticle. These two methods can be used independently of each other or combined.

The important thing to consider here is, if your reticle design allows you to make these adjustments without the exposed, target-style turrets, you may not need them as a feature. However, if your system has exposed, target-style turrets, you may find yourself going with a simpler reticle design.

These two design features do not only influence each other, but other important considerations such as which focal plane your reticle should be in.

Focal Plane

Another very important feature to consider is which focal plane your reticle is in. This means, when you are adjusting the magnification of your optic, will you be zooming in on the reticle and target simultaneously, or will the reticle appear to look the same throughout the magnification range while your target appears to grow and shrink? Perhaps you are wondering why it matters either way.

If your reticle is in the First Focal Plane (FFP), the subtensions (graduation marks) on your reticle will remain accurate throughout the range of magnification. As you increase and decrease your magnification, both your reticle and target will grow and shrink as they appear closer or further away, remaining scaled evenly to one another. This is a beneficial feature if you plan to use the reticle to compensate for bullet drop and horizontal deflection at any magnification.

If your reticle is in the Second Focal Plane (SFP), any subtensions (graduation marks) available on the reticle will change in scale relative to your target throughout the magnification range. In this case, there will be one magnification, usually toward the top end, intended for accurate scaling. Take, for example, an SFP riflescope with a magnification range of 5-20x. Commonly, this riflescope would be set up with subtensions accurate at 20x. If the reticle were designed to accurately subtend at 20x, and you set your magnification to 10x, the subtensions would double in value because the target would appear half the size in relation to the reticle. Additionally, if you set the magnification to 5x, those subtensions would quadruple in value. SFP is more common with reticles with simpler features.

LASER RANGEFINDERS

Although some shooting sports provide shooters the range to their targets, in nearly all practical applications this is not the case. In most situations, shooters will need to determine the distance to the target before taking a shot. There are other methods for determining this distance such as GPS or “milling” with the reticle. However, the use of an LRF is by far the quickest and most convenient. LRFs come in all shapes and sizes, but they can usually be broken down into two primary categories: Monocular and Binocular style. Here are some important things to consider when picking out the right LRF for you.

Max Ranging Distance

Although it is easy to look at the max ranging distance as the primary determining factor in picking out an LRF, it is important to keep in mind the max ranging distance is based on optimal conditions and is not always easy to replicate. Many conditions can alter the effectiveness of an LRF, such as the position of the sun in relation to your target, the target’s color and the target’s density. A good rule of thumb is to purchase an LRF with a max ranging distance approximately double what you need.

For example, if the furthest I would conceivably need to accurately range a target was 1,000 yards, it would be beneficial to purchase a rangefinder with a max ranging distance around 2,000 yards. If the furthest I would need to range a target was 1,500 yards, it would be beneficial to purchase a rangefinder with a max ranging distance around 3,000 yards. This ensures that in the absolute worst-case scenario, your rangefinder will still easily achieve the task. In most cases, this will be overkill. However, it is worth the additional investment.

Modes

Depending on the price and intended use of the LRF, manufacturers include a multitude of options to aid in accurate ranging. A few common modes include angle compensation, first mode, last mode and ballistics. An LRF which can compensate for angle will typically allow you to toggle between LOS (Line of Sight) which displays the distance in a straight path between you and the target, as well as your angle of fire, or an HCD (Horizontal Component Distance). HCD can be referred to as many different things depending on the manufacturer. However, no matter the name, they all work on the same principle.

Angle Compensation

HCD mode is using the “Rifleman’s Rule” to account for the approximate distance over which gravity will be affecting the projectile. This can be determined manually by multiplying your LOS distance by the cosine of your angle of fire (LOS x COS(Angle)). The “Rifleman’s Rule” is not perfect; however, it is accurate enough for most applications.

First Mode and Last Mode

First Mode and Last Mode are very helpful when ranging through brush or other dense cover. When ranging with an LRF, the LRF will send out a signal in your target’s direction and receive a signal coming back. This signal will return in the form of many ranges, and the unit must determine which range has the best signal to be displayed.

Typically, the intended target will have the best signal because it is what the LRF is focused on. However, when ranging a target that is either in front of or behind other objects likely to be picked up by the LRF, First Mode and Last Mode can be utilized to tell the LRF which object was your intended target.

Ballistics

With the advancements in LRF technology, ballistics has become a popular addition to the ever-growing list of options available. Some use simple profiles which roughly match the trajectory of a select group of cartridges. Others pull data from a separate ballistic solver, while some, such as the new Vortex Fury HD 5000 AB laser rangefinder binocular with Applied Ballistics, can range your target, designate the direction of the wind, input the speed of the wind and display the necessary correction to engage that target. This system, being a binocular, is great for locating targets, reading mirage and is easy to pack away when not in use. Systems like this reduce the amount of equipment needed to accomplish your task while simultaneously increasing your effectiveness of getting rounds on target.

The “Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022” was signed into law on March 15, 2022. Section 1101 of the Act included the “NICS Denial Notification Act of 2022.” The Act requires the Attorney General to report background check denials to state authorities and will require the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Section to report all FBI NICS denied transactions to local law enforcement within 24 hours beginning October 1, 2022. The NICS Section plans to implement this change on September 26, 2022.

The denial notification will include the date and time of the denial, the reason for the denial, the location of the federal firearms licensee (FFL), and the identity of the person. The NICS denial notifications will be transmitted electronically to the appropriate receiving authorities within each state based on the city, state, county, and zip code combination of the FFL location and the city, state, county, and if different, the zip code combination of the attempted transferee’s home address. If at any time, the original denial is changed to a proceed, an updated notification to those agencies originally notified will be required.

The NICS Section is working diligently on developing the tools to make this notification as seamless as possible. To make the necessary notifications, all FFLs will be required to provide the buyer’s complete address as recorded on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Form 4473. For FFLs who initiate a check by contacting the NICS Contracted Call Center (NCCC), the address will be required if the customer receives a delay or a denied status. The information will be required before the status is provided by the NCCC. For FFLs that initiate the check through the NICS E-Check, the address will be required if the customer receives a delay or denied response. The response will not be retrievable until the information is provided. Once the system is updated to allow for the capturing of this information an additional notification will be provided. In addition, if the transfer occurs at a qualifying gun show, future programming may allow for the full address of the gun show location to be entered also.

This post was originally published by Orchid Advisors and republished with permission.

Ron Dan will be joining the team at Trailblazer Firearms, bringing over 15 years of professional experience in the firearms industry. In his previous roles, Ron has overseen various functions of business including sales, marketing, customer service, product development and strategic planning. He has worked for some of the top companies in the industry such as RSR Group, Chattanooga Shooting Supplies, Vertx and Stryk Group USA.

“We are incredibly happy to bring Ron onto the team at Trailblazer,” said Aaron Voigt, Founder and CEO of Trailblazer Firearms. “Ron’s experience and reputation as a long-standing professional in our industry will be a valuable asset to our efforts at Trailblazer; all of this coupled with his strategic knowledge as both a professional and end-user, Ron will help bring Trailblazer to its fullest potential.”

 “I have been following Trailblazer Firearms since the commercial release of the LifeCard in 2017. They have always been on the leading edge of innovation and passion for some of the most unique firearms designs in our industry,” states Dan. “With the release of the Pivot rifle, Trailblazer has once again demonstrated their innovation and passion in one of the most revolutionary designs our industry has seen in decades. I look forward to working for the team at Trailblazer to provide the best available technology and designs to armed professionals and responsible citizens.”

Horus Vision is proud to announce that the Horus TREMOR3™ Reticle has been selected to fill the Ranging – Variable Power Scope (R-VPS) component of the Miniature Aiming Systems – Day Optic (MAS-D) Program for the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM).

Installed into the Nightforce MIL-SPEC ATACR™ 4-20×50 F1, the TREMOR3 will be integrated as the Mid-Range and the Designated Marksman solutions for USSOCOM’s current and future anticipated Semi-Automatic Sniper Systems. 

The R-VPS will round out a complete family of Variable Power Scopes containing Horus Reticles, all awarded to Nightforce Optics, within the MAS-D Program. As part of a life cycle replacement program and capabilities enhancement, the Nightforce MIL-SPEC ATACR™ 4-20 with Horus TREMOR3 reticle, is optimized to provide improved target detection and identification, as well as hit probability, for engagements out to 1,200m.

“Through innovation, Horus Vision has continued to be the chosen reticle of America’s most elite soldiers. The continued use of Horus reticles will serve USSOCOM personnel with consistency across other platforms that already feature Horus reticles. We will continue to develop technologies to increase the capabilities of both long and short range optics and look forward to continuing to support USSOCOM.” said Horus Vision’s Program Director, Nate Gallery. 

The Nightforce MIL-SPEC ATACR™ 4-20 offers excellent performance in intermediate range target detection as well as reliable mechanical adjustment. The optic feature Nightforce’s exceptional glass, 0.1 Mil-Radian adjustment value for both windage and elevation, and a tan, hardcoat anodized finish. Like the previous VPS Program solutions the R-VPS is provided as a system, utilizing a purpose-built Nightforce scope mount and laser range finder integration platform. When employed as a complete solution, the SOF end-user’s ability to detect, range, and receive a firing solution correlates well with the semi-automatic weapon capability it is intended to enhance. The new optics are to augment multiple systems in the SOCOM inventory and are intended to support the MRGG (Mid-Range Gas Gun) once it is fielded.  This scope joins the ATACR™ Nightforce 1-8×24, ATACR™ Nightforce 5-25×56, and the ATACR™ Nightforce 7-35×56 all of which feature Horus Reticles for USSOCOM. 

For more information on Horus Vision visit www.horusvision.com. 

The estimate is derived from NSSF research, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report (AFMER) and U.S. International Trade Commission (U.S. ITC) data, in cooperation with manufacturers, importers and exporters of MSRs, or AR-15 and AK-style rifles. This most recent estimate includes production figures current through 2020, when the industry estimates over 2,798,000 of these rifles were produced or imported. This estimate does not include MSRs that were produced and exported or imported and later exported.

The MSR remains the most-popular selling centerfire semiautomatic rifle in the United States today. There are more MSRs in circulation today than there are Ford F-Series trucks on the road.

“This is a truly significant figure that demonstrates – again – the popularity of this commonly-owned style of rifle,” said NSSF President and CEO Joe Bartozzi. “The firearm industry responds to market demand and this shows that during the elevated period of firearm sales that began in 2020, this particular style of rifle is the top choice for law-abiding citizens for hunting, recreational shooting and self-defense.”

The MSR’s popularity for lawful ownership is attributable to several factors, including accuracy, reliability, modularity and low recoil.

During the holiday season, family members decorate their homes together and listen to Christmas music. The promise of presents and the smell of cookies bring out a nostalgic feeling and give birth to new memories alike. If there are fights, it is usually over politics or religion or something really petty; or it is over whether “Die Hard” is an actual Christmas movie.

“Die Hard” came out in 1988 and was an instant classic. The story takes place on Christmas when Detective Lt. John McClane (Bruce Willis) visits his estranged wife in Los Angeles. He arrives right in the middle of a Christmas party in a partially built building. While he is getting changed into fresh clothes, a group of terrorists led by Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) take the whole party hostage. McClane manages to escape into the building and spends the rest of the night picking off the terrorists one by one.

The main villain of the movie is Hans Gruber, who is played brilliantly by the late Alan Rickman. Hans Gruber is both cultured and a ruthless man who would enjoy a civilized conversation before killing anyone who gets in his way. He is considered one of the greatest movie villains of all time, up there with Darth Vader and Hannibal Lecter. He is also one of the smartest, as he easily outsmarts the police, the FBI and even John McClane.

Hans Gruber’s weapon of choice is an HK P7 M13 pistol, a variant of the P7 series. These guns were made for the German police forces to replace the Walther PP. They went against other pistols in a test and dominated most of the challenges. However, they were expensive, and only a few agencies accepted them. They also saw service in France, Norway and a few other countries. In the United States, the gun is rare and expensive but very popular. The front of the grip squeeze-cocking is disconcerting until you practice with it, but the gun becomes a favorite of almost all who shoot it.

The gun in the film is hard-chromed making it quite good looking. It shoots 9x19mm Parabellum from a 13-round magazine, making it the P7 variant that can hold the most ammo. The safety on P7 pistols is a cocking lever on the forward grip of the gun. To fire the gun, you have to squeeze the lever when you hold the grip. The Die Hard gun has a silencer, but it is a fake. On the top of the gun on one side it is stamped, “HECKLER & KOCH GMBH, OBERNDORF/N MADE IN W-GERMANY,” and below that, “HK T&E ONLY.” On the other side near the front of the gun are the words “M13” and “HK CHANTILLY VA.” On the pistol grip near the bottom are the logo of the company and the model of the gun, P7 M13.

Other guns used in the movie include a Beretta 92F used by John McClane and a Steyr AUG used by the villain Karl, who was played by Alexander Godunov. (Sidenote on Godunov: He was a famous ballet dancer who defected from the USSR in 1979 and was the inspiration for a movie, “Flight 222.”) Most of the terrorists in the film carry HK MP5s, one of which McClane manages to get his hands on. Police officers are seen carrying M-16s and one of the best characters of the movie, Sergeant Al Powell, uses an old school Smith & Wesson Model 15.

“Die Hard” is one of the greatest “man movies” ever made. It had a mixed reaction from critics but was loved by audiences. It launched the film careers of Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman. It also stars Reginald VelJohnson from “Family Matters” as Sergeant Al Powell, Bonnie Bedelia (Culkin) from “Salem’s Lot” as McClane’s ex-wife Holly and Paul Gleason from the “Breakfast Club” as LAPD Deputy Chief Dwayne Robinson. The film is filled with iconic action scenes and many great movie lines. It is a great movie worth owning and watching on Christmas or any other day of the year.

“Hans Gruber’s” P7 M13 Serial Number: 73169We’d like to thank Mike Papac of Cinema Weaponry for sharing the great Hans Gruber’s pistol with SAR’s readers!