While I was thinking in terms of a sidearm for uniformed personnel, most of the principles apply to civilian use, except possibly for concealed carry. Certainly, if you are in circumstances under which open carry is feasible, a large, bulky pistol is as much a matter of taste as anything else; however, a sidearm for a uniformed person (military, law enforcement, private security) can be large enough to make concealment problematic.
On the other hand, while I can conceal my Combat Commander fairly easily 95% of the time here in Western Washington--even on days like today, when the sky is that funny color I learned in Arizona is known as blue, it is still in the 60s*. On those rare days when it is a sweltering 85*, I could use something smaller. (I.e., concealable when I am wearing a t shirt and shorts, instead of my usual summer wear of a Hawaiian or camp shirt.)
The rule of thumb for selecting the caliber of a defensive pistol, is to get the most powerful caliber you can shoot well. We often leave out the caveat that, as a further rule of thumb, the smaller the pistol the less powerful it can be.
CAN BE.
I once co-taught an NRA BAsic Pistol class in which a couple showed up--I don't know that they were a "couple couple", but they were clearly "together", maybe co-workers--and she had a 1911, and he had a Smith and Wesson snubnose .38 of some model. (She was clearly the more gun-savvy of the two.) He could not believe that she would fire "that monstor"; he was having trouble with his snubby, until she finally coaxed him to try the 1911, and he was astonished by how easy it was to shoot. "Well, for one thing" I said "it's heavier than the .38, so recoil is less." I didn't try to explain about how the semi-auto mechanism actually helped reduce recoil, although I did mention that the longer barrel as opposed to his snubby helped.
A pocket pistol, however, in order to meet that description, is going to be much less powerful than a .45 ACP, and even a 9mm may be pushing it. (A close friend tells me she has one of the new Kel-Tec PF9s, and it has less recoil than their P3AT or P32, which, while not real pretty, when taking price point and Kel-Tec's rep for customer service into account, had been "leading the leagues" for pocket pistols in the .380 and .32 ACP realm.)
As for service rifles, if I were designing one today, I would want it to have some features that are showing up in the civilian world, many or most of which are things which an enthusiast can deal with, but in the military or a law enforcement agency would probably be "unit-armorer" level. For instance:
- There are a few companies out there which are selling "quick-change barrel" kits for the AR15 platform. This strikes me as a great idea, as you could start out with an arms room full of "Standard" rifles, and adjust them for the current (or anticipated) mission profile: Swap out 20 inch barrels for shorter ones for urban operations, designate x number of personnel as marksman and arm them with longer, heavier profile barrels for sniper duties, even change calibers.
- Rails. One of the things I always hated about the M16 was the suitcase-style carrying handle, which we always got yelled at for using. (And, later, yelled at people for using...) Eventually, I tried a handle-less railed AR (Olympic Arms' LTR) and loved it. Why didn't we have these? Well, now they do: The top receiver is railed, and the forearm is, as well. The rails are standardized, and a seeming inifinitude of accessories are available. The urge to make one's rifle look like the White Knight's Horse should be avoided, but the ability to put optics on top, and a light and/or laser aiming device on the bottom or side, and a vertical foregrip on the bottom, and then to customize all that so it fits the individual comfortably, is of inestimable advantage.
- I always thought the collapsible stock on the old Viet Nam-era XM177 carbine, and the later M4 carbine, was stupid. Due to the design of the AR15, specifically the recoil buffer tube, which is in the butt stock, a standard "folding" stock is not possible, so a collapsible one was substituted, which, perforce, does not get as short as a folding one would. But. That also means that the length of pull** of the rifle can be adjusted for the individual shooter: Mrs. Drang and I could each have the same rifle, and not have to compromise on the length. (I'm about a foot taller than her...) (Col Jeff Cooper, pbuh, wrote that in his experiance it is better to have a shorter-than-ideal length of pull, than a longer one.)
- Sights. One could easily go mad trying to decide between the various (almost infinitude) sight options out there, what with more-or-less standard "iron" sights, reflex sights, holographic sights, and telescopic sights with all kinds of bells and whistles and buzzers like range estimators, range finders, bullet drop compensators, illuminated reticles with adjustible brightness and chloices of color and shape... There are even scopes with rail mounts. Ignoring for the moment that some are better than others, I will say that any service rifle should have iron sights; you can purchase folding backup iron sights , or BUIS, which will not obstruct your view while using an optical sighting system, but which will be readily available when your optic breaks, or runs out of batteries...
- In what seems like wretched excess, but may actually be useful, if the thing can stand up to field usage, there is even a rail mount for an ipod, and ballistic software for same, so a sniper could have a computer right there to tell him how high (or left, or right) to hold...
Two other features require seperate mention. Magazines are critical. It is a truism that most malfunctions can be traced to magazines; on a rifle, this is particularly so, since the magazine sticks out of the bottom of the rifle, often leading to it being the first thing that hits the ground when the soldier "hits the dirt". The usual practice of going with the lowest bidder demands at least that the minimum specifications for magazine design and construction be robust, to say the least.
Also, call me old-fashioned, call me a traditionalist, but for a service rifle I feel that a bayonet is essential. Granted that in most cases all it means is an ounce or so knob of metal on front of the rifle, and the troops get issued a knife with a funny handle, which usually has a blade of poor design and poor materials. Make it a good knife out of good materials, and even if they never "Fix Bayonets!" after Basic Training, they will have a decent knife; and, just maybe, like the Highland Regiment at Fallujah, they will find themselves in a position where the soundest tactical move is a bayonet charge. (My own bayonet experiances will be a seperate post...)
No comments:
Post a Comment