Guns

CSAT sights

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Back in October 2015 when I attended the Combat Shooting and Tactics (CSAT) Tactical Rifle Operator course taught by Paul Howe, I picked up a set of his iron sights.

The front is is a TROY Industries M4 folding sight, and the rear is a TROY Industries folding sight as well. But the real hook? The rear sight is using the CSAT Aperture.

Here’s a short video of Paul Howe himself demonstrating and explaining the CSAT Aperture:

And here’s another video that explains it a little more in-depth:

I finally got a chance to install them on my S&W M&P-15TS. It came with factory Magpul BUIS, and these TROY replace them. I do use a Aimpoint T-1 most of the time, but that’s what the BU in BUIS is about.

I started zeroing at 7 yards using the small peep, just to get on paper. Only had to make a slight windage adjustment to the rear. That was a small pain because the TROY uses a pin in the adjustment wheel to keep things in place. BUT, making it a pain to adjust means it’s a pain to adjust – accidentally. So I actually like that feature since it will keep things in place. Once I got on paper, I went to 10, 15, 25 yards, all standing, Things seemed to be working well.

When I got to 50 yards, I wanted to go prone. Well, that didn’t work. 🙂  I was of course shooting at the KR Training facilities. The past few weeks, Texas has been getting lots of rain, so that means grass has been growing and no mowing has been able to take place. Karl’s only been able to mow bare essentials for class, and so much of the non-essential areas are tall grass. Going back to 50 yards? Non-essential, tall grass, and when I went prone I couldn’t see the target at all. 🙂  I did some kneeling, but I suck at shooting from a kneeling position, so not an ideal way to try to zero. I figured there was no point in going back to 100 yards either. Of course now as I write this, I’m thinking I should have just pulled a barrel and bench back to 100 yards and shot from that, but I guess the Texas heat fried my brain and it didn’t occur to me. Ah well. Things do seem zeroed enough for now, and I can refine it later.

After that was done, I went back to 7 yards and played with the CSAT Aperture’s rear notch. It takes a little getting used to the sight picture, but it works great. At 7 yards I was POI = POA and that’s some surgical shooting. I was using a 3″ dot as a target area, and was drilling the center out just fine at 7 yards. So I played with distance. I went up to 3 yards and nothing — you’re just way too close, the bullet hasn’t has any time/distance to start rising, so it’s still holdover time. At 5 yards it was hitting at the bottom of the 3″ dot. Around 10-12 yards it was hitting the top of the 3″ dot (aiming at the middle of the dot). After that it rose pretty quickly out of the dot, so for sure it’s back to the peep.

The more I shot it, the more I got used to the new sight picture. Really, I am digging this.

It almost makes me want to shoot irons and not red dot. 🙂

And think about it. In a home situation, that sort of 5-10 yards is about your distances, yeah?

I did a little more shooting too.

Most of the work was just using some Freedom Munitions .223 Rem 55 grain new manufacture ammo. But I did switch to some Hornady TAP 5.56 55 grain GMX barrier-blind — just 1 box of 20 (because expensive and hard to find), but after I had things dialed in I tried that ammo. Fed and ran fine, and at these shorter distances I noticed no difference in trajectory or impact point vs. the Freedom Munitions. 100 yards will be more telling. Yeah, switching to the TAP 5.56 55gr GMX for more serious purposes (from the TAP 75 grain non-GMX stuff); seems to be the better recommendation these days.

Also just did a bunch of mag dumps — because fun. 🙂

A couple things I need to work on.

First, I should dry-practice my rifle more. I focus mainly on pistol, but I really should do rifle dry work more.

Second, I’d love to take Paul’s class again.

Third, when I shoot I need to square up my body more. I tend to get bladed and that puts more of the recoil into points in my shoulder/pectoral and it gets old after a while. If I’m more squared up, the recoil is spread out more and it’s more comfortable. This goes back to point 2, as dry work will help me get my body into the habit.

Anyways, I’m digging the sights.

 

Talking Campus Carry

/ hsoi

My friend Paul Martin participated in a panel discussion on campus carry sponsored by NEW Leadership Texas – part of the UT Center for Women and Gender Studies.

Paul shares his experience, which was positive and impactful.

The audience leaned left of center, although there were at least two license to carry (LTC) holders in the group.  They were very engaging and willing to listen to opposing viewpoints in a respectful way.  Likewise, the panelists were respectful of each other despite the significant difference of opinion among us.

One of his observations stood out to me:

Those who oppose concealed carry have little understanding of the licensing process or the training curriculum. Students seemed surprised to learn that non-violent dispute resolution is a statutorily mandated curriculum requirement. There seemed to be some belief that 18 year olds can obtain a LTC (minimum age is 21, unless the applicant is active duty military or veteran).

Take that for what you will.

Still, Paul has a greater message:

We need to be taking these people to the gun range to let them experience it first hand. Some of the participants who visited with me after the event said that they were generally supportive of concealed carry but had some reservations – and these included people who expressed left of center political leanings. I took that as a good sign. But there are others who were indicated they were agnostic on the issue until they attended the event. We need to be doing a better job of inviting people who may not be “pro-gun” to the range in an effort to encourage people to have a better understanding of how guns work.

Bottom line: it’s about education. We can tell they don’t know, but chastising folks for their ignorance only serves to drive the wedge further, the strengthen alienation.

There was a time in American politics when we would “reach across the aisle”. Unfortunately today’s political climate seems to only want to yell, spit, and throw punches across the aisle.

If you’re willing to listen, I’m willing to teach. If you’re accepting of education, I’m happy to help. We can work together to have greater understanding, and that will yield better things; because allowing ignorance to rule and proceeding through life with ignorant zealotry, does no good for you or the world.

Why consult experts when an echo chamber will do

/ hsoi / 8 Comments

When you want to talk about global warming, the first people you go to are climate-change deniers, right?

When you want to talk about the rights of LGBT or racial minorities, you get your local Grand Wizard, right?

Right?

Of course not. Well, of course not if you want to be taken seriously and have a proper conversation on the topic. Right?

When the University of Texas laid out their “campus carry rules”, one stand-out was a requirement to carry without a round in the chamber.

This is profoundly stupid.

Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what 4 experts have to say on the matter, including our own Karl Rehn of KR Training, and the legendary Bill Rogers and John Farnam:

UT Alumnus Karl Rehn concurs, stating, “In the most likely scenario, those that want to carry at UT are going to arrive on campus with a round chambered and will have to handle their gun, most likely in the awkward, cramped space inside their vehicle, to un-chamber the round and reholster before leaving the vehicle. That’s a far more likely scenario for a negligent discharge than someone simply unholstering and putting the gun in a storage locker—and the working group has already rejected that idea as ‘too dangerous.’”

UT keeps talking about “safety”, yet this requirement works against that very desire on many levels.

“The weight of the deliberation was that we were going to go on the side of safety, as opposed to having the tactical advantage of having loaded weapons on campus,” [UT President Gregory] Fenves said.

[Full Story]

That’s fine. You can poo-poo all the “tactical” reasoning as to why empty-chamber carry is a bad idea. Like I said, there are many reasons why empty-chamber is a bad idea, and in this discussion we can discard most of them in favor of just looking at what UT itself claims to want, which is safety. Fenves said it right there: they want safety above all things.

So tell me how forcing people to handle their guns leads to greater safety? This is as opposed to leaving your gun holstered and not touching it at all? Please answer the question. Please articulate how this is better, safer.

The thing is, UT didn’t consult any experts.

Asked later to point to which experts the school relied upon, spokesman Gary Susswein declined to do so.

He said the working group “did not formally hear from outside experts,” but that members spoke individually with law enforcement officials and others. He noted that the method “mirrors the policy used by the Israeli military.”

And he added that working group members with military experience “also used this approach at various times during their service.”

If they had gone to any actual industry experts, they’d be parading them around because it would certainly deflect the criticism. In fact, they flat out admit they didn’t hear from any outside experts – just anecdotal evidence. And frankly, if you know anything about those “sources”, you know they are questionable. This is akin to saying that I spend some time looking at the sky and reading weather.com, so I can speak to climate change.

But I know why such groups never consult with true experts: because they’d hear things they don’t want to hear.

You’d expect such intellectual dishonesty from Fox News or MSNBC. Not so much from a supposed institution of higher learning. And even worse when policy, rules, and/or laws are being made.

You are welcome to hate guns all you want. You are welcome to crusade for their banishment from the face of this Earth. But at least be intellectually honest about it, else you’re just a shyster and deserving of no respect.

Simple in operation, but difficult in utilization

/ hsoi / 13 Comments

Revolvers are SIMPLE in operation, but DIFFICULT in utilization. The long, DA trigger pull takes work to perfect. Sending that shot straight, takes precision and care. Of course, any of this can be addressed through practice, but I absolutely believe that it is easier to train a novice on a compact framed or full sized semi-automatic pistol, than it is to train the same person on a revolver. As much as I love K frame revolvers for all around use, the learning curve is steeper with the revolver, versus the semi-auto.

From Dr. Sherman House, emphasis added.

Simple in operation but difficult in utilization. This is the phrase I’ve been struggling to find. I see many people recommend revolvers for people who don’t train, aren’t willing to train/practice, etc. under the premise that they are simple to operate — “just point and click”. But most people cannot shoot revolvers as well as a semi-auto for all manner of reasons, and isn’t the desired goal to be able to shoot well and effectively?

A Glock operates just as simply, and more people can shoot it well and effectively. Certainly when you look at a semi-auto like a 1911 or a Beretta, the revolver operates more simply; but we live in the 21st century — our tools have improved. 🙂

Thanx for the phrasing, Doc!

Armed queers don’t get bashed

/ hsoi

The Pink Pistols maintain that, since “perceived sexual orientation” is the second most common source of animus in bias-motivated crimes (FBI Crime Statistics). This common animus, they further maintain, constitutes a clear and present danger to the sexual-minority community that predicates just cause to carry a firearm for self-defense. Further, they maintain that nowhere in the Second Amendment is the concept of “good reason” enumerated, and a requirement to show such special need is fundamentally unconstitutional. Today, the District Court agreed.

Press release: Pink Pistols Pleased with Court Decision re Grace v. DC

The advancement of civil rights sometimes requires force to back it up.

For me, not thee

/ hsoi / 5 Comments

“I feared for my safety and I had a lot of security around me,” she told CNN’s Kate Bolduan on “At This Hour.” “I’ve never had anything like this happen.”

Full Story

Those are the words of Sen. Barbara Boxer.

Must be nice to have (armed) security around you, Sen. Boxer.

Tell me, Senator, how are we plebeians supposed to manage in the face of similar circumstances?

XS Big Dots – a differing opinion

/ hsoi / 8 Comments

Dr. House writes about his experience with XS Big Dot sights.

He writes a lot on the topic, so you’ll just have to click through to read it.

Note: I respect the good doctor a great deal. I just don’t totally agree with him in this case. But that’s how life can be sometimes — and we’ll still be friends tomorrow. 🙂

I tried the XS Big Dots some time ago. They’re fast, they’re for fighting! I wanted to look into them because I wear corrective lenses and figured if I didn’t have my lenses on for some reason, could I still find a front sight and do my business? Well, the Big Dots didn’t help any in that regard. But I also found in my use of them a lot of difficulty in making accurate hits. Oh sure, I could get in the ballpark, but as distances increased and/or targets got smaller, it gets really difficult with those sights. What exactly do you line up?

They are big.

They are coarse.

I recall sitting in a restaurant one day with Daughter, we were far away from the line and cashiers, and I thought to myself: if I had to make a shot from here could I do it? The answer was “no”, because these sights just would not allow it. Oh sure, I’ve seen videos of people making “hits” at 100 yards, but just how accurate are those hits? A steel popper still rings if you hit it in the “toe”.

Even Dr. House alludes to this:

It also depends on the shooter, and which, “part,” of the dot you are using (meaning, “dot,” centered in the notch, the center of the, “dot,” or tritium vial bottomed out in the notch, etc).

That seems… complicated. When fur is flying, can I spend so much time trying to sift through such minutia?

Sure they can be “good enough for fighting” if you look at how most gunfights are within a car length (0-5 yards). But the reality is at those distances, you really don’t even need sights! Indexing off the frame/slide can be generally effective enough. Where sights start to become more important is at 7+ yards, and that’s where the Big Dots start to be more hindrance than help.

If you don’t believe me, try it yourself.

First, shoot some solid drills like the updated FBI Qualification, the Rangemaster Level 5 Qual, or other such tests. Something that requires fast, accurate hits, at distances from 3 to 25 yards, to relatively small targets. Shoot these with whatever sights you have now.

Then install some Big Dots, spend a little time getting used to them, then shoot the tests again. Compare your performance.

Then maybe even try getting other types of sights. My personal preference is a 0.100″ wide front sight with a red fiber optic insert, and a plain black (or maybe serrated black) rear sight with a 0.125″ wide notch. I get mine from Dawson Precision. Try shooting the drills. See how things do.

Try others, like from Warren Tactical, Heine, 10-8 Performance.

Spend time with whatever sights you choose. Make an honest assessment. You want things that will improve your performance, and that won’t fail under pressure.

Here’s where Dr. House and I mostly agree:

So pick what works for you. Get sights that you can see, and shoot to the point of aim and point of impact of your chosen practice and carry loading. Then worry about something else! It’s really easy to get wrapped up and concerned about the gear, but the gear is actually the LAST thing you need to worry about. In 99% of cases, most gear will do, if YOU will do.

I say “mostly” because I think it’s worthwhile to spend the time to research and try things out. Equipment DOES matter and it can help OR hinder your performance. So it is worthwhile to find gear that is solid, proven, reliable, and can enhance your performance.

But then yeah, once you get it figured out? Stop dwelling upon it. Move on to more important topics because gear is the least important thing.

KR Training 2016-05-07 – Pocket Gun / Skill Builder Quick Hits

/ hsoi / 12 Comments

Saturday May 7, 2016 was a different day at KR Training. In the morning was the “Pocket Gun Class” and in the afternoon was Skill Builder. I say different because these are two classes we don’t run often, but they are so important.

Why don’t we run them more often? People don’t want to come out for these classes, and we’re honestly mystified as to why.

The Pocket Gun Class is that class for all those little guns that no one admits to carrying yet you all do. The little snub revolver, or the micro semi-auto that you throw in your pocket to run to the mailbox or the grocery story. The smaller gun that you carry because it’s a hot Texas summer and you don’t want to strap on your “heater” with the tank-top and flip-flops attire du jour.

I guess you think that if you can do it with your big gun you can do it with your small gun?

Not necessarily.

And this class was a perfect example.

Note: don’t take the following as picking on students. It’s more that the results of class were a perfect illustration of the importance of this class. I know from speaking with these student afterwards they were thankful for taking the class because it was exactly the eye-opening “get this sorted out before it’s truly relevant in my life” experience they needed.

Skills may not translate

So you think that all guns are the same? That if you have skill here it will translate over there? That if I can shoot this gun, I’ll be able to shoot that gun just as well?

Well, perhaps.

The closer the two platforms are to each other, the more things will translate. So for instance, if you were shooting a Glock 17 then switched to another Glock 17, chances are you’ll shoot just the same. If you switched to a Glock 19, you’d probably shoot just the same. A 17 and 19 aren’t 100% alike, but close enough that skills will transfer. Switch to a Glock 26 and chances are you’ll shoot pretty close, but there’s more difference between the 26 and the 17 that some issues will creep in.

Now let’s try a more radical difference. We had this in class: a student shooting a snub-nose revolver. So a very small gun (and he had very big, meaty hands), with a long, very-heavy trigger pull. Plus, snubs like this have a different “point of aim” to them. Then he switched to his normal gun: a proper 1911. So this very large frame, a short and sweet trigger pull, and that “natural point of aim” 1911’s are so famed for. You can’t get more different in the two platforms than this, and it manifested itself in the student’s performance. In fact, towards the end of class we shoot the “3 Seconds or Less” drill with the pocket gun, then shoot it again with your normal carry gun, and every student sees marked differences – generally how much better they are with a full-sized gun. Is that because of the gun itself? or because they just don’t practice enough with the small gun? Either way.

There was another difference manifest in this experience. That sudden switching was difficult! Another student was shooting a snub revolver, and I don’t recall what his normal carry was (I think a M&P9), but when he switched from the snub to the normal  he was yanking the trigger terribly because he had been used to this long, heavy-trigger and his body was still expecting to have to shoot that way.

With another student, he was working with a Ruger LC9, then switched to his normal which was an M&P9c. The difference was dramatic. He has the skills, he can certainly shoot. But that long, heavy, trigger press on the Ruger he was working so hard to overcome every time that was slapping the trigger to a high degree. Switch back to his M&P and he was shooting great.

So what are some take homes?

To me, this is one reason I gave up on carrying a snub as a back-up gun or even as a “small gun” when I needed a small gun. When the platforms are too different, I don’t find advantage. There’s no question different tools can have different advantages (and disadvantages): there’s certainly things that a snub revolver can do that the smaller semi-autos just cannot. But trying to switch between my primary M&P9 and a S&W 442 as a backup? It just grew to have more problems than benefits. Instead, I opted that when I need a smaller gun, pick something of similar setup: like an M&P Shield.

So that whole Glock 17/19/26/43 setup works really well. You can have the different sizes, and the skill transfer between them is pretty close. You still need to work with the different sizes because it’s not a perfect 1-to-1 transfer, but it’s a LOT better than wider swings like a 1911 to a J-frame.

Another take home? Long, heavy, trigger presses suck. What advantage do you gain from them?

Another? The more the dohickies, the more complicated the machine is to operate, the more you must practice – and ensure you put manipulation of the dohickies into your practice. If it’s too annoying to always manipulate in practice, then that’s a clue.

Methods

I particularly enjoyed this instance of class because we had a variety of carry methods. We had fanny packs, appendix holster, pocket carry, a SmartCarry/Thunderwear, ankle rig. There’s all sorts of “non-traditional” methods out there.

Stupid me forgot to bring some of my usuals, like my Maxpedition bag or my ITS Tactical messenger bag.

Bottom line: practice with it.

This is one of those things that you can most certainly do in dry-fire practice — and you should. Work these methods. Work on accessing your gun from them, because generally they are slower methods or methods with a higher chance of fumble.

Case in point: for giggles I carried my NAA Guardian .32 ACP in a pocket holster for this class. The particular shorts I was wearing have very deep pockets and a very wide pocket mouth, but the way the pants then ride the pocket mouth “closes” very tight against the body, which makes drawing a “fist” out of the pocket a little difficult. Every pair of shorts is different (unless you only wear one brand of clothing, I guess). If you are going to pocket carry, make sure every day when you get dressed you do a dozen dry reps drawing from that pocket to make sure it will work (else maybe change shorts, or buy new ones, or get these tailored, etc.).

Skills

Blending into the afternoon Skill Builder class, we transition from talking about gear to talking about skills. I don’t always talk gear so much, but so much of what the “small gun” class is about is the gear. But in Skill Builder, it’s all about you. 🙂

We had a good group of students, progressing really well. As a result, Karl went a little “off script” and taught some extra things – you weren’t there, so you missed out on these extra gems. 😉

One take home from me dovetailed well into my own practice from a few days ago: Going Faster.

There’s the old Ball-And-Dummy drill that everyone knows about. Well, Karl uses a variantion from the Rogers School where you set up a magazine: live-dummy 5x. When you shoot you should shoot the live then immediately shoot the dummy. Yes, you know the dummy is there – but it doesn’t matter. See, when you do other flavors of the drill, far too often you start to game it (I was doing this a bunch a few days ago), you start to anticipate, and you do more of a disservice to yourself. With this, believe me: the problems will come out. You will be forced to do better. But the better thing here is to move “at speed” into that second shot. As I watched Karl explain, as I watched the students execute I was like “Man, this is exactly the drill I need right now”. So this will move into my live-fire practice. It will help you get faster, it will help you flinch and slap less.

For the students in class: that 3M Drill? You can read about it here.

Other

All in all, a good day. Classes were small, which was a bummer because these are two classes well worth taking. But it wound up benefitting the students because class could run a little faster and we certainly took advantage of that working in extra things where we could.

Weather was great. It’s warming up to Texas summer now – wear sunscreen, drink water, eat well, take care of yourself.

Afterwards, Karl and I spent a little time looking at my M&P Shield. I’m honestly still not 100% sure if it’s a PEBKAC issue or a mechanical issue, and if there’s still actually a problem or not. But given what Karl and I did yesterday we’re both starting to lean towards: no, the gun has been fixed, but this is just the level of accuracy you’re going to get. We did drift the sights a little bit, which helped with a few things. But even shooting Karl’s Shield well… we are starting to lean towards these are just “combat accurate” to use a slight eye-rolling term. Jury’s still out, I still want to do more work with it to really see what’s what and if I’m willing to entrust to this particular gun or not.

But bottom line: I was outside, enjoying a wonderful day, with a good  group of people.

Life is good.

To the students: thank you all for coming out and spending your day with us. We’ll see you again soon. 🙂

 

Instructor Recommendations

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

Rich Grassi published an article in the May 9, 2016 issue of The Shooting Wire about Instructor Recommendations.

It’s by no means a comprehensive list; Rich even says: “Just because someone’s not on this list doesn’t mean they’re not good. I have space limitations and this was done ‘off the top of my head.'”. Still, you and I know that those things that come to us “off the top of our head” are generally a good indicator. So check out his list:

  • Tiger McKee
  • Dave Spaulding
  • Chuck Haggard
  • Paul Howe
  • Tom Givens
  • Darryl Bolke
  • Karl Rehn
  • Massad Ayoob
  • John Farnam

That’s a pretty solid group.

I must admit, seeing my boss-man, Karl Rehn, show up on the list was a bit of a surprise to me. I may be biased, but I believe Karl to be the best trainer you’ve never heard of. He doesn’t have the flashy marketing and massive self-promotion, and I guess that’s something to think about. Notice that all the trainers on this list? They aren’t the big marquee names that you see plastered everywhere, with slick marketing, and #operatorasfuck hashtags. No, these are guys that have a proven track record of being able to shoot, to teach, and enabling people to fight and win.

And certainly, there are good instructors out there that didn’t make this list; it’s just one guy’s list. But if you know anything about what makes a good instructor, for sure these guys personify it.