The Firearm Blog

[ This guest post was written by Brian Nelson. ]

Not quite a month ago, Wilson Combat released the new 7.62×40 WT (Wilson Tactical) round. When I first read about it, I wasn’t sure I had a use for it.

But after looking closer at it, I think it has a real future with 3-gun competitors wanting to make “major” power factor, and hunters that want a little more punch, without taking a big step up in size and weight. First this disclaimer: I haven’t actually shot this new round. However I have looked at it in person, and talked with the round’s designer, Kurt Buchert.

What is it?

Essentially, it’s a .223 case necked up to take a .30 caliber bullet. Wilson’s stated goal for the round was to “Develop an inherently accurate and low recoil cartridge in the immensely popular .30 caliber that has more terminal effectiveness than the 5.56 while utilizing as many standard AR platform 5.56/.223 components as possible.’’ The only caliber-specific component required is the barrel. Normal AR mags will accept the new round, but they won’t reach full capacity. Wilson also offers modified Lancer L5 mags (20 and 30 rounders) that will get full capacity.

“That sounds a lot like the .300 AAC Blackout!” Yes, they are both very similar rounds. They are made essentially the same way, however a suppressor company designed the .300 BLK for use with a suppressor (meaning it is designed as a subsonic round) and it’s shorter. The 7.62×40 can also easily be handloaded to subsonic velocities. And don’t go thinking that Wilson just stole AAC’s design and tweaked it a bit. Kurt Buchert, the round’s designer, had been playing around with it as a “Wildcat” (one-off custom round) as early as 2007.

How?

.223 brass is trimmed down to an Overall length (OAL) of 1.560”, then run through a sizing die that stretches it out another five thousandths of an inch. It also widens the case neck to make room for more powder, and allows for the use of higher-pressure propellants such as Accurate 1680 or H110. The end result is a round that will work with the .223 bolt face and magazines, takes the common (and hard-hitting) .308 bullet, and (mostly) fits into .223 mags.

Spec sheet for the new case. Here is the same sheet in a PDF file.

Application

Hopefully…on target . But seriously, the new round is very versatile. I really dig that it makes “Major” power factor in 3-Gun (more on that in a bit), and it’s also a substantial round for small- to mid-sized game such as deer and hogs. The round’s designer said that it was “Wildcat performance for hunters who don’t reload”. Wilson now makes ammo for the new round and it’s priced about the same as .223 match ammo.

3-Gun

For those of you not familiar with 3-Gun, it’s a high-adrenaline run-with-a-gun sport with -you guessed it- 3 Guns (rifle-pistol-shotgun). Different scenarios are set up with arrays of paper, steel, and clay targets that are engaged with different guns, all on the clock.

3-Gun. Rifle (Jerry Miculek, Team S&W)

Pistol (SGT Daniel Horner, U.S. Army)

Shotgun (SGT James Gill, USMC)

There are two methods of scoring, one of which is called the ‘’power factor’’. Different zones on the paper are given different scores if they are shot with “major” or “minor” power factor (or PF) rounds. Obviously those shot with “major” power factor rounds are scored higher than those shot with “minor” rounds. Power factor is calculated by multiplying the bullet weight by the velocity, then dividing by 1000. “Major” power factor is 320 or higher, “Minor” must be above 150. So if a .223 round is pushing a 55-grain bullet at 3100 fps, that’s 55×3100/1000, or 170.5 power factor (minor). Shooters must make at least “minor’’ to be allowed to compete.

For years 3-Gunners got along just fine with the ‘’minor” PF .223 ammo, until the elite shooters of the Army Marksmanship Unit showed up at the 2009 Multi-Gun Nationals with custom AR’s built by the AMU’s own custom shop (which is truly a sight to behold). Chambered for a “Wildcat” round, the .30 Gremlin, they made Major PF, but ran on modified AR mags in normal AR receivers, with custom one-off bolts and barrels. But I’ve yet to see anyone except those with Uncle Sam building and paying for their guns and ammo using the .30 Gremlin as it’s a “wildcat”, with very few components, no reloading dies or any parts available for it.

Now consider the 7.62x40WT round. Wilson makes their ammo so that it will make major out of a 20’’ barrel, and it can be handloaded to make major out of a 16’’ barrel safely (but it will be veeeery hot). It’s based off of readily available .223 brass, easily trimmed and resized, and takes .308 bullets. It uses a .223 bolt, so it can be used with a “low-mass” carrier, which reduces recoil coming into your shoulder. In fact, the only unique component is the barrel, which is threaded to take AR-10 compensators/flash hiders, for obvious reasons (you ever try pushing a .30 cal bullet through a .22 cal hole?). Wilson offers modified Lancer L5 polymer mags, which there are magazine couplers and extensions for. Lancer mags will also work with the Arredondo Magwell; a popular accessory for 3 gunners. Unfortunately there is no way to make the new round work in a Beta C-mag (100 round drum).

A Lancer L5 48-round competition mag. Note the Arredondo magwell on the AR.

A Low-Mass bolt carrier assembly, Wilson-modified L5 mag, some 7.62×40 rounds, and a Wilson case gauge for the 7.62×40.

Hunting

Say what you will about the AR platform for hunting, if you’re not opposed to using an AR then the 7.62×40 round is a fine round for it. As you can see, it’ll stop a hog or deer just fine, but it’s probably a little light for Elk. The new round hasn’t got a lot more kick to it than a .223, which makes it great for younger hunters.

Magazines

As I mentioned before, the only caliber-specific components required for the new round are the barrel and magazine. Normal .223 mags will take the 7.62×40, but they won’t work at full capacity. The ribs inside the magazine designed to keep the 5.56 round stacked uniformly will hit on the thick .30 caliber bullet and push them out of alignment.

Wilson offers modified Lancer L5 magazines, which are tough, transparent polymer. To modify the mags, they stick ‘em in a CNC machine and trim the ribs down. They then laser-engrave the floorplates. The magazines will still feed .223 flawlessly, though.

The engraved floorplate.

It’s also possible to modify polymer mags at home, using a hand file, but Wilson recommends using Lancer mags as they have functioned 100% with the new round. Unfortunately they found that Magpul Pmags aren’t as reliable as the Lancers are with the new round, so they won’t be offering any modified Pmags. It’s also impossible to modify metal USGI mags for the new round as the ribs are stamped into the metal. And, as I mentioned earlier, the new round won’t work in the Beta C-mag 100-round drum.

Handloading

If you can reload rifle ammo, it’s easy to reload the 7.62×40. But if you’re not set up to reload, Wilson does offer ammo at a decent price.

Handloading components and tools for the 7.62×40 are readily available as it’s based off of the .223 case and takes .308 bullets. Wilson offers pre-trimmed brass or you can trim your own on a case trimmer. It seem to me like the fastest setup would be a Dillon RT-1200 trimmer with a custom die (Dillon recommended CH4D), set up on a progressive press with a case feeder. Then trimming brass becomes no harder than pulling a lever.

As for dies, Wilson offers Hornady custom dies for 7.62×40, as well as case gauges. Load data can be found on Wilson’s website.

Build Your Own Gun

If you want to build your own AR for the new round, Wilson offers barrels complete with headspaced bolts. If you already have a bolt for .223 that you’d like to use, Pacific Tool and Gauge can make you headspace gauge for the new round. Pacific Tool also makes chamber reamers for it if you’d like to chamber your own barrel blank for the new round. They make the tooling that Wilson uses to make their guns in 7.62×40. As I’ve mentioned, the barrel is the only special part, so you can use your favorite handguard/bolt/carrier/whatever-the-heck-else-you-put-in-an-AR. Note however, that you have to use an AR-10 (.308) flash hider or comp on the 7.62×40.

One of those barrels could be 7.62×40!

Wilson also offers complete uppers chambered in 7.62×40, if you just want to bolt it on any Mil-Spec lower and be done with it. But where’s the fun in that? (Hint: shooting it!).

Conclusion

I for one think that it’s a very good round, and I agree with the Wilson guys that it’s the “Practical .30 cal AR solution”. I’ve been looking for a project for an unused AR lower for a while now, and I’ve settled on a 7.62×40 for both 3-gun and for hunting medium game (deer, boar, etc.). Thanks to Kurt Buchert for answering all my questions about the new round, and for giving me some of the gear to play around with.

[ Guest post written by Charles222 ]

As most of this blog knows, I’m an 11-B/light infantryman in the United States Army. I’ve carried a number of M4s in the eight years I’ve been in the Army, and I guess this is my non-sarcastic attempt to share some of the things I’ve learned about them with the populace at large …

The authors M4 during his 1st deployment.

The first thing: the whole myth about “clean your M16/M4 twice a day or else” is just that, a myth. I think that came out of the massive issues the original M16s had due to the wrong propellant going into the M193 round; I’ve certainly never abided by that rule and can’t think of anyone else who does. On average I clean mine (when we’re overseas, anyway, and have them with us all the time) about once or twice a month. And that cleaning process is honestly pretty short and simple: First, I run a barrel snake down the barrel a few times until the bore is bright and shiny-this is the only part I ensure is shiny, because dirt in your barrel affects accuracy of any rifled weapon. Second, I scrub out the star chamber-this is easily the most time-consuming part of cleaning the M4 due to how small an area it is. But it’s very important not to let gunk cake up in there; I’ve never seen it happen, but I can imagine it getting nasty enough for the bolt to be unable to seat properly with a chambered round, and then, well, KABOOM. Third, I wipe off the interior receiver walls and run a q-tip around the trigger mechanism, and run a CLP rag over the bolt-lightly; it doesn’t need to be swimming in oil. Fourth, I clean off my optic’s lenses with some optic cleaners-I use the ones people use on their glasses; they make my ACOG just incredibly bright and clear, even more so than usual.

And that’s really about it, besides barber-brushing the exterior, which I only do because 1) it keeps people who outrank me off my back and 2) I like how it looks anyway. It’s not a necessary step to ensure proper function. The entire process takes between five and ten minutes, or out to twenty if I feel like I need to spend more time on it. And this process will make your M4 more than clean enough to function reliably.

The authors M4 during his 3rd deployment

And speaking of reliability-there’s been a lot made of the Battle Of Wanat and various M4s ceasing to function after firing thousands of rounds. While I was not a participant in that action, I can tell you that I’ve seen M4s fire thousands of rounds without breaks for cleaning and continue to function-mostly from younger soldiers who couldn’t shoot to save their lives out at the qualification range on Stewart. Granted, there were breaks between qualification rounds that allowed the weapon to cool down, but these weapons were not cleaned in any way and continued to function. Personally, I’ve only had one M4 that had significant issues; the guy who had it after me also experienced serious problems. We eventually figured out what had happened; the soldier who had had it before me had removed the trigger mechanism and messed around with it somehow, which led to the near-constant double and triple feeds myself and my buddy experienced with it. Don’t mess with the trigger unless you seriously know what you’re doing.

The only other time I’ve seen M4s have problems with functioning on a widespread basis was a trip to the range in Kuwait to adjust zeroes from US weather to Middle East weather-remember this if any of you ever go hunting or whatever overseas; the humidity level and so on will be different and this can affect your zero. Anyway, we were given ammunition of British manufacture that our M4s just did not like at all, due to the ammunition we were given not being made to NATO standard, if I remember correctly (this was about 5 years ago). The cases were thicker and this led to lots of failures to extract. I find this kind of hilarious because, well, what’s the point of ammunition standardization if a NATO member country is making ammunition that doesn’t match the specifications?

As for the M4’s lack of long-range effectiveness and hypothetical killing power vs. 7.62mm NATO-I’ve only got a few things to say about that. Afghanistan is a distinctly novel tactical situation; over half of the world’s population lives in urban settings where average ranges would be measured in feet, not yards, and that number is just going to keep going up. The battlefield that any US or anyone else’s service weapon is going to be employed in is going to be an urban one, not long-range duels in the desert. I think the longest shot I’ve ever seen taken in Iraq was about a hundred meters with a SAW. As for killing power-frankly, 7.62mm NATO is overrated. The 147-grain FMJ is a highly accurate and long-ranged round, but on my last deployment, I saw an Iraqi civilian take a round through the neck. The round missed major arteries and his spinal column, and simply entered & exited the neck without any sort of tissue damage whatsoever. In other words, 7.62mm NATO’s killing power is very highly overrated these days, and it functions by the same rules as 5.56mm does-unless you get it solidly in the center of mass or head, the odds of it killing whomever it hits is unlikely. Also, the range of this engagement was maybe 50 meters, so it’s not like the round was out of kinetic energy. I think the crux of the problem is the FMJ bullets that both 7.62 and 5.56 are saddled with, plus an over-obsession with accuracy vis-à-vis killing power. As an example-the early M-16s had incredibly loose rifling; Stoner suggested a 1 in 14 twist, and Colt ultimately went with between 1 in 16 and 1 in 18 twists. The combat reports with these early rifles have to be seen to be believed; one Marine Lieutenant in Vietnam went so far as to say ‘ Taking prisoners is highly difficult due to even minor wounds becoming fatal.’ This can be read about in the book ‘American Rifle’, an overview of the evolution of American rifles (surprise, right?) from the Revolutionary War to today. However, obviously, with such loose twists the M16 did not have much of any long-range accuracy, and ultimately the Army and Marines overreacted and went with the super-stabilizing 1 in 7 inch twist. While this makes for an extremely stable and accurate round that is quite good at penetrating armor, it robs the M16 of a lot of it’s killing power, which was derived from the round being unstable in flight. Rounds like the Mk 262 and M855A1 can help overcome this issue-at least, I know M 262 can; haven’t heard any combat reports with M855A1.

One big thing the M4 has going for it is ease of use. With more and more soldiers and marines lacking prior firearms experience due to the changing makeup of the military, this is a big deal. The M4 is very simple and easy to be effective with; when the most complicated aspect is remembering which direction your optic’s windage & elevation knobs should be turned in, this is decidedly beneficial when instructing new soldiers in it’s use, especially in wartime -on two of my four deployments, we received a large influx of brand-new private literally weeks before we were supposed to deploy, and the M4’s simplicity saved a LOT of time in getting them halfway skilled before deployment. We could spend an hour or two showing them around their rifles before concentrating on the really important things like battle drills and individual movement. The M4 is beautifully uncomplicated and user-friendly; it’s simple to strip and there’s no guesswork at putting it back together-unlike, say, my M1 Garand; the first time I stripped that it took me a good hour to put it back together even with the manual’s help.

Another key attribute is the M4’s compactness and light weight; in my four deployments, I’ve searched way more buildings and people than practically anything else, and having a weapon that I could just sling across my back while I was doing this made the task of tearing somebody’s house apart while looking for contraband somewhat easier-at least, as easy at it can be when you’re roaming around in 40-odd pounds of armor. You can have your weapon out of the way while still being fairly quickly accessible; to contrast that with the other Infantry team-level weapon, the SAW, which I typically wound up setting down on the floor to help search because it simply got in the way too much.

The authors equipment in Iraq

Something else important that people either seem to forget or deliberately ignore-the M4 does not function alone. It, along with every other weapon in the military, functions within a system. It fills the primary weapon slot which should cover the vast majority of engagement possibilities; given that things have not changed since the German studies in World War 2 which showed that the huge majority of engagements are at under 400 meters-and there’s a study that shows that the average combat range in Iraq today was under a hundred meters, and frequently at 20-30 meters-the M4’s perceived lack of range is not as much of a handicap as frequently believed, particularly when you consider the nature of warfare that Iraq (and most urban battlefields) presented. The vast majority of combat in Iraq featured vehicle-based patrolling; while this presents a level of vulnerability to IEDs and the like, the amount of supporting arms it makes available is quite nuts. On my first deployment to Iraq, we typically moved with three uparmored Humvees-two with M240s and one with a .50-cal. On my second trip here, before our mission shifted to long-range air assaults with no vehicles, we typically rolled with either four or five (and occasionally as many as six) uparmored Humvees, with usually 3 M240s and 2 .50 cals, and occasionally a truck with a long-barreled SAW on it. When considering the M4 in relation to the other weapons available to the patrol, it becomes pretty clear that engagement with M4s is going to be the least likely option, and that M4s are going to be getting used at extremely close ranges where their size and maneuverability are distinct assets. This is also becoming the case in Afghanistan, with the mass fielding of the Mk. 14 EBR to units there (the goal is six for every infantry platoon) along with the platoon’s integral M240Bs and eventually XM25s, and of course, the organic mortars every infantry company has. The M4 is supposed to be your close-in, majority-of-engagements weapon; the M-14s and M240s are your long-range firepower for the (rest-of-world, anyway) rarer occasions when long-range fighting occurs. The M4 is not a do-everything rifle, nor was it ever meant to be; that’s not how the Army works.

The author with his M4

You may get the impression that I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the M4. That’s not quite correct; I do think there’s some ergonomic improvements to be made-in particular, the buttstock could be a whole lot less fragile. The buttstock is basically the same pattern that was introduced in the late 1960s with the XM-177E2, and there’s been seriously better collapsing stocks introduced since then. The rail system could also be improved; it was obviously designed as a drop-in piece to replace the old plastic handguards, and a one-piece along the lines of Daniel Defense’s RIS II would be an improvement. And honestly, that’s really about it, besides an ambidextrous magazine release.

I hope this piece has been informative for y’all.

[ This guest post was written by Matt Groom. ]

Writer’s note: All views and opinions expressed or implied in this article are purely the crackpot theories of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Firearm Blog or any related parties.

I’m a big fan of the .32-20 Winchester Center Fire cartridge, introduced in 1882 as a small bore offering for the successful Winchester Model of 1873. It soon became one of Winchester’s third most popular cartridge, and like it’s siblings in the WCF family, it was then chambered in numerous pistol designs, such as the Colt’s Model P (otherwise known as the Single Action Army) and later the Colt’s Police Positive Special, Colt’s Army Special, early S&W K-Frame, and probably several others.

.32-20 Hand Ejector Model 1905, 1st Change, Target Model

.32-20 WCF is a pretty neat little round, and it’s been the inspiration and platform for numerous other successful, and non-successful cartridges alike. Some spinoffs based directly on the .32-20’s case are the .25-20 and the .218 Bee, and attempts to make a semi-automatic version for the Winchester Model 1905 rifle resulted in the .32 Winchester Self-Loading, which was the inspiration for the much more successful .30 Carbine round used in the US M1 Carbine.

A lot of people will insist that the .32-20 and some of its offspring are far too powerful for small game, and far too underpowered for medium sized game, with a bullet that’s too small for self defense. Eau Contraire, mon frère. It’s all in how you load it.

Back in the day, thirty caliber pistol cartridges were considered more than adequate for self-defense and even military service by a great many. Witness the use of the .32 ACP by the French in WWI and then replacing it with the 7.65mm MAS just in time for WWII. The .30 Luger (7.65x21mm) was adopted by the Swiss, Brazilian, Bulgarian, Finish, and Portuguese armies. The Russian’s used the 7.62 Nagant Revolver, and replaced it with another .30 caliber, the 7.62 Tokarev. Some of these countries did a lot of fighting and killing, and sometimes, they even used thirty caliber pistol rounds, and the .32-20 was more powerful than any of those.

“Oh, bull!” says you “Nobody considered those calibers to be serious rounds. They were badges of honor for officers”. Well, maybe that’s true, but consider this: before the advent of cartridges like the .38 Special, .45 ACP, and 9mm, rounds like the .32 S&W Long and the .32 Colt were considered adequate self-defense cartridges, because then as now, very few people elected to carry a full sized pistol everyday when a smaller gun was more concealable, and thus, more practical. .32’s remained popular as pocket guns until the introduction of the .38 Special J-Frame S&W in 1959. It begs the question of why no one made a ‘magnumized’ version of the .32 S&W Long until 1983 when H&R came out with the .32 H&R Magnum, and until the 2008 introduction of the Federal .327 Magnum, there wasn’t a .32 caliber, magnum length cartridge.

No wait, there was. It was called “.32-20 WCF” and people knew it was perfectly adequate for self-defense. Blues guitarist Robert Johnson even wrote a song about the .32-20 (and a cheatin’ woman): “She got a thirty-eight special, but I believe it’s most too light… I got a 32-20, got to make the caps alright. Her .38 special, boys, it do very well. I got a 32-20 now, and it’s a burnin’!” Something tells me that when Johnson wrote that song, he wasn’t referencing a cartridge that many of his contemporaries would have considered underpowered, or one they had never heard of. He calls the .38 Special “much too light”, which I interpret as being “underpowered”. He wrote that song in 1936, after the introduction of the .357 Magnum. If he wanted to brag, he could have bragged about the .357, he could have said he had a .44 Special, or a .44-40, or a .45 Colt, even a 1911 in .45ACP or .38 Super, but instead, he choose to write about a gun he probably actually owned, a gun he knew his audience would know and respect, and that gun was a .32-20.

John Taffin, in his article on the .32-20 wrote: “Elmer Keith related how, as a teenager, he broke broncs to get enough money to buy his first centerfire Colt Single Action, a seven and one-half inch .32-20. Thirty years later, Skeeter Skelton, freshly mustered out of the service at the end of WWII, stopped in Chicago long enough to purchase, yep, you guessed it, a seven and one-half inch Colt Single Action .32-20. When two gentlemen of such sixgunnin’ stature as these two start with the .32-20, one has to take notice.”

Both of these men were pioneers in the field of magnum pistol cartridges, credited as being the co-creators of the .44 Magnum and .357 Magnum respectively, and one has to wonder where they developed their ideas about loading rounds much, much hotter than they came from the factory.

One reason you can do that very well with the .32-20 is when you have a gun designed for a rather large cartridge like the .45 Colt or the .44-40 WCF, and then you stick a tiny, narrow-hipped little number in there, you have more metal and can load to considerably higher pressures than you can with the larger bores, which come from the factory pretty close to their safe maximum for their intended designs. Even though the .44-40 and .45 Colt were more powerful than the .32-20 in factory form, they limited you to a large frame revolver, and they could not be hot loaded without endangering the gun and the shooter! This is because of smaller rounds usually have smaller base diameters, which means if you compared the .32-20 to a .38 Special in the same sized gun, you could load the .32-20 hotter by virtue of the fact that it has a smaller base diameter (.353” vs. .379”) translating to an extra .013” of metal between the chambers, regardless of the gun they were used in.

“Okay. SO?” Well, consider this: according to Glen Fryxell of Handloads.com and http://www.lasc.us/Fryxell_Book_Contents.htm, an expert on the history of cast bullets, writes “The first bullet that we might call a SWC that had a separate beveled groove specifically for crimping the case mouth into was the 311316, the GC-SWC for high-velocity loads in the .32-20 rifle.” That came out in 1906, a similar design didn’t come out for the .38 Special until Elmer Keith designed one in 1928. You need a crimp groove to keep hot loads from pulling the bullet out, and unless you were carrying a large frame revolver chambered in .44-40 or .38-40, your only option for this a mold with this feature before 1928 was the .32-20. You simply couldn’t load a .38 as hot as a .32-20 without the risk of jamming your piece!

Suitable hollow point bullet molds were available for the WCF family as early as the 1890’s (31133 for .32-20). Also note that when you wrote to a company back then you could request that your bullet mold be made as a hollow point. Think about that: In 1906, you could have a target sighted, double action, swing out cylinder, medium framed revolver that fired a high velocity cartridge loaded with Unique or Bullseye powder, firing a 115 grain, gas-checked, SWC-HP bullet at over 1200 fps, generating over 400 ft/lbs of muzzle energy. That’s [Skeeter’s load](http://www.darkcanyon.net/What’s The Best Trail Gun For You.htm) from an article he wrote in 1977, which you can assume wasn’t nearly the maximum he tried in these old guns. That load would be considered dangerous in those old guns today (and rightly so!) and it only achieves numbers that would be comparable to a .38 Special +P, but keep in mind that such an animal didn’t exist back then.

The Winchester .32-20 Rifle ammo, from the 70′s, is NOT safe to fire in it!

If you fired your hot .32-20 loads out of a SAA or other heavy framed revolver, you could easily match the ballistics of a .45 Colt! Elmer said that you could get 1500fps in a large frame, SAA. When the Luger was new, rare, and expensive, when the most powerful automatics looked like the Mauser C96, before the .44 Special or the Model 1911 even existed, there was the powerful, accurate, flat shooting, light recoiling .32-20 WCF.

Do I recommend you load your antique, S&W .32-20 Hand Ejector to 1200 FPS? No! Of course not! Not even the later K-Frames with heat treated cylinders. Quickload estimates that that load would produce around 26.5kPSI of pressure which those old timers might be able to handle, but why risk it? Nowadays, we have hundreds of calibers and thousands of models which can deliver better performance, but in 1906, 1200 FPS was really something. If you must shoot a .32-20 to the maximum of it’s potential, do it in a Thompson Contender, or some other modern design. That way, if you blow it up, at least you don’t destroy an irreplaceable piece of our firearms heritage!

So, why doesn’t the .32-20 get the respect it deserves today? Well, frankly, it has been technologically out classed several times since the early 20th century. Perhaps all the fellas who knew died in the Great War, or in the Great Influenza (which killed far more Americans than WWI did) who knows? Then again, maybe all the guys who were in on the secret and willing to experiment blew up their own guns and bought something else! But it’s my opinion that before WWII, the .32-20 was a round to be respected.

[ This guest post was written by farmboy7.62 ]

Several months ago I purchased the Vortex Viper PST rifle scope. The scope is configured with Vortex’s proprietary EBR-1 MRAD, etched illuminated reticle. Having recently “gunbrokered”my Swarovski (Habicht 6-18X, TDS reticle) I was looking for a replacement to sit atop my main “work” rifle. My parents and I own and manage a 10,000 acre cattle ranch in the high plains of central New Mexico. Predators in the form of coyotes and mountain lions have proven to be a problem, and when not managed properly can have a devastating economic impact. One can say that my need to develop a skill set that included the ability to shoot long range was driven more be necessity then by sport.

My go to rifle, hunting pack and optics.

View of the ranch. Long range shooting ability is a great skill to have!

My primary rifle for managing predators on the ranch is a Remington SPS Tactical, chambered in .308/7.62. The rifle features a 20 inch bull barrel and includes Remingtons X-Mark trigger. Trigger weight is currently dialed down to around 3.5 lbs. The receiver is mounted on a Bell and Carlson stock. Atop the receiver is mounted the Evolution Gun Works 20 MOA, picatinny scope mount. I prefer to shoot off of my hunting pack but I do keep a bipod on the gun just in case. I have found that the bipod gives you a little bit more stability when shooting off of a pack. I shoot a variety of ammunition. I have had good results with the 180 grain Winchester silver tips, used primarily for big game. I utilize Hornaday 168 A-max bullets for long range work and train with a variety of Australian/ Austrian M-80 147 FMJBT military surplus ammunition. All bullets will hold .5 MOA granted I do my part behind the rifle. I zero my rifle at 100 yards due to the fact that I like the versatility to be able to shoot several types of ammunition. I utilize the Knights Armament Bullet Flight ballistic calculator on my Ipod, and each bullet has its own set of ballistic tables.

I have had good luck with the Millett rings. I like to mount a red lensed flashlight on top of the scope when hunting at night.

Vortex Bubble Level. I have found that it could be a good tool to have when shooting past 400 yards

One may ask why I got rid of the Swarovkski, which is a wonderful scope in its own right. The Swarovski glass was incredibly clear and the TDS reticle was definitely handy but the scope was not necessarily designed to precisely dial in long range shots. Though one can “dial in” shots on a Swarovski, I feel that I would have been exceeding the design of the scope and was concerned about my reticle not returning to a precise zero. What features was I looking for in my new scope? Because I do a lot of predator hunting at night, an illuminated reticle was going to be highly desired. I wanted a 30mm tube for increased field of view as well as uncapped “tactical” turrets so that I could dial in shots. I wanted some type of ballistic reticle, due to the fact that predators don’t always wait for those turrets to turn and at times, shots have to be taken very quickly. After several weeks of research I decided to go with the Vortex PST, 2nd focal plane, 2.5-10×44, 30 mm tube with the EBR-1 MRAD illuminated reticle. The turrets have a “zero stop” feature. The Vortex PST EBR-1 reticle comes in both MRAD and MOA configurations. Being comfortable using the metric system I choose the MRAD system, where 1 MRAD equals 3.6 inches at 100 yards. Reticle adjustments are .1MRAD or .36 inches at 100 yards. When looking through the reticle one will see hash marks every ½ mil. The reticle represents up to 8 mils worth of holdover/wind. That means at 6200 ft, the elevation of our ranch, I could theoretically send a .308 bullet out to 975 yards without making a single adjustment to the scope. Since the reticle is in mils as well as the turret adjustments, when time to shoot ,I simply use the reticle or dial in the shot. An example would be a coyote ranged at 300 yards. By consulting with the ballistic calculator on my iPod, I know that I will need to hold 1 mil high or dial the scope up 10 clicks. For all intensive purposes I would just simply use the reticle and hold 1 mil high. Another example would be a coyote ranged at 350 yards. This shot would require me to hold 1.3 mils high. Since the hash marks are spaced 1/2 mil apart, in order to maximize precision it would be better just to dial 13 clicks up, or 1.3 mils, then shoot.

5.11 pack. Perfectly holds Foxpro game call, rangefinder, water bottle and ammunition.

Predator control was the primary reason for learning how to shoot long range. Some of this years newborn calves.

The scope feels very well made The knobs are very solid and adjustments give an audible click. The magnification ring and top turret have a small fiber optic cable that enhances viewing in low light. The optics are on par with the Swarovski and the 30mm tube gives a tremendous field a view. I went with the 2.5-10 magnification. I found that on my Swarovski I never cranked the magnification past 11 due to the desire for a wide field of view. The scope is in second focal plane configuration meaning the reticle stays the same as magnification is decreased or increased. In order to utilize the reticle at lesser magnification requires one to multiply the milliradian by a certain value. The Vortex users manual gives a wonderful description on how to manipulate the magnification at lower settings in order to maintain a true milliradian at various magnifications. I have never had a need to use anything less than the 10x magnification while hunting, save for hunting at night where I have the magnification all the way down. Since most of the animals engaged at night are fairly close, less than 100 yards, one really wouldn’t need to utilize holdovers or adjustments. The illuminated reticle is very bright. The scope features 10 setting, several for night vision. The illuminated reticle “turns off” between brightness settings allowing one to keep the knob staged near ones preferred brightness setting.

I really like the fiber optics attached to the magnification knob and elevation turret.

I think the scope is a wonderful value for the features that one gets. I can really appreciate the consumer driven mindset that Vortex has. I think they have innovative products and their warranty is second to none. I highly recommend this scope . At present, I am considering putting together a rifle chambered in .300 Winchester magnum to further extend my ability to shoot long range. I will seriously consider the Vortex PST line for my next build.

[ This guest post was written by Steve ]

Hi folks, I’d like to share the story of how I acquired my Colt Single Action Army revolver. The gun’s history has a peculiar background that will probably forever remain a mystery. While the gun is in great shape for its age, I have others I can shoot more. This one is special to me because of where it came from.

In 2003, my great-grandmother turned 100 years old. She had lived by herself for nearly 10 years, but it was now time for her to move out of her house and in with relatives. At her one-hundredth birthday party, my Nana called me over and asked me if I was still interested in guns and shooting. I told her that I was, and she asked me to come over to her house the following week.

When I arrived at her house, I saw several distant relatives carrying away all of the valuable furniture, artwork, jewelry, and pottery. Inside, nearly every item was marked with nametags and when I rested my hand on a nightstand, I was asked to remove it by a very possessive third cousin. I finally found my great-grandmother looking out her windows for the last time. She looked up at me, and motioned me into her den with a twinkle in her eye.

She opened an old dresser drawer that creaked with dried paint and pulled out three packages wrapped in butcher paper and twine. I carefully opened the largest package and found this Colt SAA. (The other packages had smaller revolvers in .22 that she and my great-grandfather used for plinking in their backyard.)

As I held the Colt in my hand for the first time, she told me that the gun was my great-grandfather’s. He had been in the Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression, and had learned to fly a plane in order to do supply drops and mail runs. As the Depression eased, he found a job with Western Airlines out of Los Angeles. One day, he was going through the cabin after dropping off the mail and passengers, and found the old Colt just sitting in one of the seats!!

Today, the airport would have been shut down due to suspected terrorism, but my great-grandfather just asked the ticket counter if anyone had reported anything missing. The answer was no. He said he waited and waited for someone to claim the gun, but nothing was ever heard. I don’t know what the laws were in the late 1930′s or early 1940′s regarding carrying a handgun on an airplane, but even if legal it must be embarrassing to lose such a fine weapon.

My Nana said that the gun had been put away since the day it came home. She didn’t think it had ever been fired by them. She and my great-grandfather enjoyed plinking with .22s but were not deeply involved in the shooting sports.

Needless to say, I thanked my Nana profusely. I don’t think any of my greedy cousins realized what I walked out of that house with, and I had to stifle a grin as my third cousin reminded me again that he had already marked the nightstand with his name and that I was not to touch it.

I took the Colt to a local gunsmith who specializes in cowboy shooting, and he said the gun was in great shape and should be fine to shoot with black powder. It has a nickel finish, a 7.5” barrel, and is chambered in .45 Colt. The serial number dates the gun to 1891.

I have considered getting a Colt factory letter, and I still might, but I am more curious about where the gun was from 1891 to approximately 1940. It rode for 50 years with a total stranger, 60 years with my great-grandparents, and I have had the Colt for just under 10 years now. Where will the next 50 years take it? I do know that it will stay in the family, and that I hope I am able to pass it on to someone who appreciates it as much as I do when my time comes.

(Note: The holster is what the gun was found in. It almost looks homemade. The grips are not original – the SAA had the original black rubber prancing pony grips. One side was chipped, so I added these stag grips that I found at a gunshow. The knife came from my great-grandfather in his sea-chest from the Coast Guard. It also looks homemade, but feels very sturdy. The sheath is, oddly enough, marked USN. I wonder if he won it, or if any of his friends served in the US Navy? He died before I knew enough to ask him all these questions, so it will always remain a mystery. I do know that the knife and gun will always be special to me and will be passed down in my family as well.)

[ This guest post was written by James. ]

I think every house should have a shotgun. But you don’t need a “shoulder thing that goes up”, a potentially expensive pistol grip stock, a shell carrier on the receiver or stock, and you probably shouldn’t even install a sling.

I find the most important quality in a home defense weapon to be the degree of handiness it possesses. Is it compact? It’s difficult to keep 28 inches of barrel from alerting someone that you’re about to round a corner, so a short weapon is a handy weapon. Is it lightweight? The heavier it is, the harder it will be to transition to the threat: a lightweight weapon is a handy weapon. Is it easy to use? Turning on optics, fussing with slings, breaking your firing hand grip to disengage safeties – these are excellent ways to waste time. Home invasions don’t happen when you’re prepared for them, so the easier it is to employ the weapon, the more likely you’ll be able to react to the threat.

I made the mistake of heavily accessorizing my first shotgun, a ridiculously “tacticool” FN TPS. As a home defense weapon, it’s pretty poor. As modified, it could be used effectively on some sort of fantasy battlefield. I’ve used it to make effective groups with rifled slugs at distances of up to 100 meters. But it’s heavy, has a sling that can get in the way, the optic needs to be turned on, and the ghost ring sight arrangement is slow which makes it bad for close range use, where speed can be much more important than the precision and accuracy that adjustable ghost rings offer.

What to look for

There are a number of simple pump-action guns available that are short, lightweight, easy on the wallet, and can be made into capable home defense weapons with a minimum of added parts. If you absolutely must have a pistol-grip stock, make sure the type of shotgun you want has a cross-bolt safety that can be reached by your firing hand without breaking your grip. Many shotguns have a tang safety, which is impossible to disengage quickly with a pistol grip stock installed. There’s nothing wrong with a tang safety, they were simply designed with traditional stocks in mind. You may wish to purchase a semi-auto shotgun, and there’s nothing wrong with that if your budget allows for it. You should do your homework on the shotgun first, and find out if it will be reliable with the types of loads you have in mind. If you don’t know what all that means, you might save your self some grief by settling for a pump-action.

The longest distance I can find inside my home is about ten meters, and buckshot out of an 18” barrel with a completely open choke is going to be effective at that range. As mentioned before, the shorter your weapon is, the more easily you’ll be able to employ it when you’re working indoors. While you can own shotguns with even shorter barrels, doing so will require you to jump through some legal hoops and may not be possible in every state.

For my particular shotgun build, I chose a 7.2 pound Benelli SuperNova Tactical in 12 gauge. The choice is largely arbitrary, if you already own a particular make and model of shotgun that isn’t suitable for home defense, it makes sense to acquire a similar model so that you can retain your muscle memory and have some parts commonality. Most 18” pump guns will weigh around seven pounds unloaded.

Picking iron sights

When looking at iron sight arrangements, remember that speed becomes more and more important the closer your proximity to the threat becomes. There are three general types of iron sight arrangements on shotguns. A bead is quickest and offers a good deal of peripheral vision. Open rifle sights can be quick if they’re simple enough. For example, I find the open rifle sights on Benelli’s to be very quick, like a good set of handgun sights. Remington’s open rifle sights aren’t as plain, however, which makes them more difficult for me to line up quickly. Ghost ring sights are great for precision at long range and are usually adjustable for windage and elevation, but it can be both difficult and slow to acquire a sight picture. Once you do acquire a sight picture with ghost rings, your peripheral vision will become limited.

Increasing shotshell capacity

Some shotguns, such as the aforementioned FN TPS, will be set up to hold the maximum amount of 2 ¾” shotshells from the factory. Generally, a shotgun with an 18-18.5” barrel will be able to hold seven 2 ¾” shells in the magazine tube provided the tube is roughly even with the barrel. That being said, most shotguns – my new SuperNova included – only hold 4 or 5 shells in the magazine tube as offered from the factory. This is usually an easy fix, and there are several manufacturers that produce magazine tube extensions that will allow you to increase the capacity of your shotgun. Beware of caveats with various makes and models. Some Remington 870’s, for example, have indentations inside the magazine tube that prevent the use of a magazine extension without modification.

I chose a Nordic components magazine tube based on their positive reputation, lightweight aluminum construction, and modular design.

Nordic is possibly the most expensive manufacturer of this type of accessory, however, and you can get a quality part for less money. While you aren’t likely to need seven or eight rounds in a home defense encounter, it certainly can’t hurt, and the extension gives you space to mount what I consider to be the most important add-on to any true home defense weapon: a white light.

Integrating a white light

I consider a white light to be important simply because it is dark half of the time, and it’s dark more often than not when I’m home given that I work a day shift. If you’re reacting to a threat in your home, you’re better off employing a light on your weapon than trying to juggle a gun with one hand while you fiddle with the light switch on the wall. Modern defensive lights are extraordinarily bright, which will give you the advantage of being able to see the threat in detail while momentarily blinding it. If you find it critically important to identify the threat before engaging it as I do, a good white light will give you the upper-hand in a time-critical situation.

I chose to use Elzetta’s Complete Shotgun Illumination Kit, which includes their ZFL-M60 light with a flood lens, and their lightweight polymer ZSM light mount for shotguns.

If the ZFL-M60 isn’t in your budget, the ZSM mount can be had separately and will fit a number of different lights with the included adapters.

The important thing about the ZSM mount is that it positions the light far enough forward so that the barrel doesn’t create a significant shadow. I have mine mounted approximately 1.5 inches behind the barrel, which puts it well within reach of my support hand’s thumb, and just far forward enough to avoid an unwelcome shadow.

But what about a red dot sight?

You may have noticed the small optic mounted in the very first picture of this article. As something of an experiment, I’ve mounted a Burris SpeedBead (http://www.burrisoptics.com/speedbead.html) on my SuperNova, which is simply a Burris FastFire II reflex sight that comes with a special mount for your shotgun.

While I would normally be against the idea of mounting an electronic optic on a home defense weapon, this particular optic avoids many of the pitfalls of doing so. Many optics can add a significant amount of weight. Additionally, optics generally obscure the iron sight arrangement when mounted on shotguns, and most electronic optics need to be turned on before they’re really useful. The SpeedBead is marketed towards wing shooters, but I find it to be a fantastic optic for use on a home defense weapon. The mount is sandwiched between the receiver and stock, and this allows the tiny optic to be dropped down behind the receiver for absolute co-witness with the iron sight arrangement, be it bead, open rifle, or ghost ring. This means that you can use the iron sights by looking through the window of the SpeedBead, since the two different sight systems are on the same plane. Additionally, the FastFire II optic that is used in the SpeedBead product is so light that it can be mounted on a handgun slide, so you aren’t adding a significant amount of weight to your weapon.

The reason I’ve broken my general rule of keeping the shotgun handy (by adding an electronic optic with an on/off switch) is that I haven’t introduced the usual major disadvantage of doing so. If I’m unable to turn on the optic, I can still use the iron sights effectively. If I can find the time to turn on the optic, however, I’m able to keep both eyes open while maintaining an excellent sight picture, which is a huge advantage and provides additional situational awareness. Additionally, a glowing red dot can often be easier to pick up than iron sights in low light environments.

Conclusion

My Benelli SuperNova Tactical started life weighing 7.2 pounds, and I’ve added less than a pound of accessories and zero linear feet of picatinny rails to it all while satisfying my needs. I’ve tested the setup with a couple hundred rounds of target loads, as well as a few magnum rounds and even a couple 3.5” magnum slugs, which honestly generate too much muzzle energy to shoot repeatedly out of a 7.9 pound gun. They do make for an excellent test of the durability of the installed accessories, however. While I could have added a lot more to a shotgun like this, doing so would most likely detract from the base function of a weapon with a singular purpose: to be quickly at hand when something goes bump in the night.

[ About the Author: James has been serving in the Army Reserve as a mechanic for the past six years. At his unit, he has taught marksmanship as well as team-level urban warfare tactics. James spends most of his time at his civilian job repairing laser printers so he can afford to buy more guns and argue about them with people on AR15.com all day. ]

[ This guest post was written by Doug from Iowa ]

Twelve years ago, I bought a MAK-90 with a thumbhole stock. I enjoyed the rifle as did my friends, but as time moved along so did my gun collection. The MAK-90 sat in the safe for longer and longer periods of time. Recently, I’ve begun to take interest in the 7.62×39 cartridge. I noticed a lot of aftermarket parts being offered to update the AK style rifles so I began to look into dressing up my MAK-90 to wear a standard pistol grip and stock. I also looked into what else I wanted to outfit it with to make it a good home defense weapon, since I live in a rural area. I would have to exchange five parts to U.S. manufacture to be 922 compliant.

One of the features I wanted my rifle to have was a modified safety. I wanted to modify it in a way that would hold the bolt open to the rear and allow my trigger finger to manipulate the safety. Much the way this would work:

Kreb Custom modified safety

Although I’ve never heard anything bad about Kreb Custom’s products, I knew that $65 was much more than I could afford. Being on a public servant’s salary does not lend one’s self to dropping loads of money on one’s hobby. I knew I would have to modify my existing piece and I really didn’t want to mess up, but spending $24 on a replacement standard safety lever was much more affordable.

After measuring where the cutout should go, I got out the dremel tool and went to work cutting the safety. The cut doesn’t look the most professionally done, but I works. I may go back later and make the lines a little straighter.

The next part I was worried would be a little more difficult. Finding the correct spare part laying round and affixing it could be a challenge. I grabbed some extra brackets I had lying about and started bending them with pliers to find the right fit. I settled on some shelving brackets that seemed to bend right into the perfect shape. After bending the piece, I cut it to a more ascetically pleasing sight, and also so it wouldn’t get caught on things. Once I had it the way I wanted, I mixed up some JB Weld and put the extension in the best placement for my trigger finger to reach.

JB Welded part with unaltered bracket

After spray painting a flat finish on the modified safety, the result is a very functional safety lever that allows my trigger hand to stay on the grip.