Articles by Herschel Smith

Via David Codrea.

Hi great reset. Thanks for reminding us as to why the founding fathers included the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights https://t.co/Xf7yYQeK3P

— President Non_Fudd (@Non_Fudd) May 9, 2022

They want to control not only your health, your guns, your financial dealings, and your children, they want to control your food supply as well.

Take careful note.  Don’t slip past this example without doing some planning of your own.

This is warfare as surely as artillery strikes.

News from Texas.

A Texas mother of three shot and killed a man who broke into her home while her children were asleep — but police say she won’t face any charges.

The woman was at her home with her kids on Kashmuir Place in San Antonio about 10 p.m. Thursday when she heard the man trying to enter the main door from the laundry room, News 4 San Antonio reported.

She opened fire and struck the man, identified as 41-year-old Roman Rodriguez, twice in the chest, according to KSAT. It is unclear if the intruder was armed.

When police arrived, they found the bloodied Rodriguez sitting on a chair in the backyard. He died on the way to the hospital, police said.

No one else was physically hurt in the incident.

The probe continues, but the unidentified homeowner is not facing charges because of the so-called Castle Doctrine, which allows a person to use force against an intruder who breaks into their home, News 4 San Antonio reported.

As I’ve said before, “Wait.  Something must be wrong with this report.

I thought guns magically turned and killed the owners rather than home invaders?  I thought that no one except the “only ones” (LEOs) were able to use weapons for self defense?  I thought that fine motor skills totally collapse when confronted by danger?  I thought that people had to go through tacticool training with former JSOC guys to be able to defend their life?  I thought you were supposed to “run, hide and fight?”  I thought that you were supposed to call 911, lay on the floor and grovel, and wait for help to arrive after they got through eating their sandwich?  I thought only former military understood enough about firearms to use them?  I hear that all the time when I read articles that begin with “I’m pro-2A and I shot guns in the military, but … blah, blah, blah, you’re not good enough … blah, blah, blah … I know what I’m talking about because I was in the military or a LEO, you’re in danger, don’t buy a gun … blah, blah, blah.”

And not only all of that, you’re just going to shoot up innocent people around you.  Only the cops and tacticool operators with classes from former SEALs are good enough to kill the bad guy.  “I guess we’re all going to have to recalibrate after this.

The narrative is busted once again.”

AF.mil.

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. —  The 422nd and 59th Test and Evaluation Squadrons proved that modern-day armored vehicles equipped with Explosive Reactive Armor are vulnerable to the A-10C Thunderbolt II’s GAU-8 Avenger. This first-ever test was conducted at the Nevada Test and Training Range, February 14-25, 2022.

Each test mission included a two-ship of A-10Cs employing armor piercing incendiary rounds against two surrogate main battle tanks equipped with ERA. The pilots varied attack parameters and direction in order to evaluate weapons effects against the up-armored targets.

Through post-shot analysis of video, photo imagery, and visual inspection of the targets, analysts were able to ascertain the battle damage inflicted upon the tanks and determine that the tanks were rendered inoperative.

“A typical A-10 gun employment uses 120 rounds, which means an A-10 is capable of employing fires on nine to ten targets before exhausting its gun munitions,” said Maj. Kyle Adkison, 422nd TES A-10C division commander. “Against large fielded forces, A-10 formations are capable of engaging nearly 40 armored vehicles with 30 millimeter munitions. That’s a significant amount of firepower.”

In addition to 30mm gun rounds, the test also collected data on AGM-65L Maverick and AGR-20E Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System effectiveness against armored vehicles.

“This has been an ongoing test effort since the idea originated in 2020,” said 1st Lt. Christopher Earle, 59th TES A-10C operations test analyst. “Now that it’s come to fruition and proven successful, we will work towards testing other types of anti-armor munitions in the Air Force inventory against ERA and collect more data.”

The A-10 is well suited for Agile Combat Employment roles, and this test proves the A-10 can continue to deliver massive rapid firepower with devastating effects on enemy vehicles in a contested environment.

For all the folks who say that sexy-jet so-and-so is better, there is no jet in the USAF that can do what the A-10 does.  For its purposes, it rules the skies.

Via WiscoDave.

And in high winds.

At Outdoor Life.

The only one that holds any interest for me is the CZ.

It was more accurate than a number of rifles costing twice as much (or more). The average 5-shot group from the Alpha measured .814 inches, with a number of groups measuring less than .75 inches.

The best part is the price point: $749.

Tell me this isn’t the coolest thing you’ve ever seen. In another life and another possible world I might have been an A-10 pilot.

Oh, and by the way, only fools want to retire the A-10. It’s the coolest aircraft flown by the USAF. I would request this job over any other.

Our buddy Andy at Practical Accuracy has some thoughts on the M4 replacement (Next Gen Squad Weapon) we’ve recently discussed.

Make sure to watch it all, and some of the comments are interesting too.

David Petzal has some thoughts on the use of backup iron sights for the user of optics.

This is a breezy read-through on a number of related things like how to mount scopes in order to get them off quickly if you really want to be able to use iron sights, various types of iron sights and how to protect them in the field, and so on.

I think being flip-up sights on an AR style rifle suits that particular need very well.

I found it informative.

Military.com.

The new guns and ammunition the Army just married and is expected to issue to combat arms units within the next decade will require soldiers to carry an even heavier load.

But information on how those weapons should outperform the guns they’re replacing — the justification for troops to shoulder extra weight on top of mountains of gear already injuring soldiers — is classified.

In April, the Army announced that Sig Sauer will produce replacements for the M4 rifle and M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, or SAW, starting with a trial run of about 40 new guns late next year. Production is expected to ramp up when the Army opens a new ammo plant to produce the new 6.8mm rounds for those weapons around 2026.

Army officials have touted that the new XM5, the M4’s replacement, and XM250, set to replace the SAW, pack a much harder punch and will improve the combat performance of ground troops. But thus far, the service has declined to disclose evidence that those weapons outperform the M4 and SAW, including how far they can shoot accurately. And it’s unclear whether the Army has verified the ranges at which those new weapons can engage an enemy before committing to a multimillion-dollar contract.

[ … ]

The M4, the Army’s current standard-issue rifle used in the post-9/11 wars, can effectively engage targets at 500 meters. The SAW can suppress targets at around 800 meters.

For comparison, the standard-issue rifle for the Chinese military is the QBZ-95, which has a maximum effective range of 400 meters for a target.

Carrying weightier ammunition and less of it is a defeater for the notion of an area suppression weapon to begin with.  It verges on having another medium machine gun (the M240 as opposed to the light machine gun, the M249).

I suppose I should modify the statements above with the observation that the light machine gun is usually used by a single infantry fighter regardless of the fact that it is considered a “crew served weapon,” and the medium machine gun is in actual fact a crew served weapon.

I predict this won’t change a thing regarding the lethality of the armed forces, and that they should have focused on military and physical training rather than diversity.

They’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

If they really wanted to return to increased lethality, perhaps they should consider a legitimate role for grenadier in each squad again using the M79 rather than the shorter under-the-barrel design.

Via WiscoDave.

I could probably watch him dig a ditch and make it interesting.  On top of that, I learned something.