1 week, 6 days ago
These videos came out several months ago. Unfortunately, the first one can’t be embedded, only linked. The second one is below.
4 months, 1 week ago
The sky-high cost of ammunition during the Covid pandemic shortages have mercifully declined. While ammunition probably feels a lot more expensive than it used to, many prices really have dropped from the all-time, eye-popping peak during the ammo shortage in 2021 and 2022.
That’s the good news. The bad news, as most hunters and shooters have already noticed, is that ammo remains pricier than we’re used to paying. That’s for a few reasons. First, the price of raw materials to make ammunition have generally increased. We’re also several years into a global propellant shortage. While tariffs haven’t yet contributed to high prices for most American-made ammo, they’ve caused price spikes in some segments of the market.
The war in Ukraine has had an awful effect on powder availability and pricing. I don’t expect this to go away. Plan accordingly. Actually, I planned a long time ago.
4 months, 1 week ago
An Army infantry officer has made a series of criticisms of the Army’s Next Generation Squad Weapon rifle, which is meant to replace the M4A1 carbine.
The Army introduced the XM7 rifle and XM250 light machine gun — both of which chamber a 6.8mm round — partly due to concerns that modern body armor could stop the 5.56mm rounds fired by the M4A1 and M249. The bigger round is also meant to give the XM7 an increased range based on lessons from Afghanistan.
But Army Capt. Braden Trent presented his research into the XM7 at the Modern Day Marine exhibition in Washington, D.C. — research he claims shows that the rifle is inferior to the M4A1.
As part of his research, Trent said he visited the 1st Brigade Combat Team “Bastogne,” 101st Airborne Division, which was the first active-duty Army unit to receive the XM7. Trent said he interviewed more than 150 soldiers and disassembled 23 XM7 rifles.
His 52-page report on the subject, which included testing with experts, ballistic research, and input from soldiers, concluded that the XM7 is “unfit for use as a modern service rifle,” Trent said on April 29 during his presentation at Modern Day Marine.
Trent said his research has shown that soldiers equipped with the XM7 in a live-fire exercise quickly run out of ammunition because its magazine only holds 20 rounds. He also said that gouges and scratches can form in the barrel after firing more than 2,000 rounds, the rifle’s weight makes it hard for soldiers to maneuver.
[ … ]
“The XM7 is a tactically outdated service rifle that would be better classified as a designated marksman rifle, if that,” Trent said during his presentation. “This rifle is a mechanically unsound design that will not hold up to sustained combat on a peer-on-peer conflict.”
Designated marksman rifles come in all sizes and calibers, including 5.56mm, .308, etc. The round isn’t relevant for consideration of a DM rifle (although barrel length is).
We discussed the solution to this problem many times: the 6mm ARC, which would involve a change of barrels, a change of BCGs, and a change of magazines.
The 6mm ARC would easily let shooters reach out and touch targets 600 meters away or further, while letting the DMs use other rifles.
But some general or group of generals got wealthy “consulting” to Sig on this boondoggle, not to mention the cash flowing into Sig.
4 months, 4 weeks ago
Tim Sundles.
I’m still waiting for Tim to acknowledge the 450 SMC (which he may not since that cartridge is made by Double Tap).
5 months, 1 week ago
Always informative, always educational. Always fun.
5 months, 1 week ago
Hmm …
I wonder if sticky fired casings is one challenge with making a 500 S&W lever action rifle? I don’t care. I still want one, Smith & Wesson.
5 months, 1 week ago
At American Hunter.
While I profess to know a lot about firearms, I didn’t know there was a 10mm magnum round, which is different from the 10mm round. I would probably spring for this wheel gun, except for the price: $3,309.
That’s enough for a nice custom 1911, or two thirds of that will get you a Springfield Armory TRP full size 1911. To me, after looking at the tested results for the ammunition, I just don’t see that much to be gained over the .45 ACP+P, and in fact, I don’t see anything at all to be gained over the 450 SMC from Double Tap.
To each his own. If you like 10mm and are willing to spend the money, this may be a nice field option for dangerous game defense.
5 months, 3 weeks ago
This isn’t meant to start yet another debate about 9mm versus .45 ACP, or any other cartridge. Lord knows, we have enough of those over these pages. To each his own, and YMMV. Choose what you want to shoot, and get good at it.
But I thought it would be an interesting question, how many rounds of .45 ACP were supplied to OEF? What did the logistics look like?
My oldest son helped me out with that. Here is the answer.
How many rounds of .45 ACP were supplied in Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan)?
ChatGPT said:
To help find accurate information, could you clarify if you’re looking for the total number of .45 ACP rounds supplied throughout the entire duration of Operation Enduring Freedom (2001–2014), or a specific year or branch (e.g., Army, Special Forces)? Also, are you looking for official U.S. military data or third-party sources as well?
You said:
I’m interested in the duration of the campaign. Find any source you can.
ChatGPT said:
Got it. I’ll look into how many rounds of .45 ACP ammunition were supplied over the full duration of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, using any publicly available sources including government records, military procurement data, and defense industry reporting. I’ll let you know what I find.
Use of .45 ACP Ammunition in Operation Enduring Freedom (2001–2014)
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF, 2001–2014) saw U.S. forces in Afghanistan primarily armed with rifles and 9×19 mm sidearms. The .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) cartridge was not a standard-issue caliber for most troops during this period. Instead, .45 ACP ammunition was used in limited quantities by specialized units, such as certain U.S. special operations forces and elite Marine Corps units
. As a result, the number of .45 ACP rounds supplied or expended in Afghanistan was only a small fraction of overall ammunition usage in OEF.
Special Operations Forces and .45 ACP Use
A Colt M45A1 .45 ACP pistol as used by USMC special operations units in Afghanistan (tan Cerakote finish worn from field use)
. U.S. special operations forces and the USMC’s elite units continued to favor .45 caliber pistols for their greater stopping power, even after the rest of the military switched to 9 mm in the 1980s
. During OEF, .45 ACP was carried by units such as:
Army Special Forces and Delta Force – These units historically used customized M1911A1 pistols and other .45 caliber handguns. Delta Force, for example, was a proponent of the .45 ACP round, valuing its performance in close-quarters scenarios
. Many Delta operators in the 2000s deployed with match-grade M1911-type pistols before later transitioning to other platforms (e.g. Glock)
.
Marine Corps Force Recon and MARSOC – The USMC issued .45 caliber pistols (designated M45 or M45A1 Close-Quarters Battle Pistols) to Force Reconnaissance and Marine Raider units
. Early in OEF, these were hand-built M45 MEU(SOC) .45 pistols; by 2012 a new Colt M45A1 was adopted under a $22.5 million contract for up to 10,000 pistols
. Each Marine special operator carried this .45 sidearm in Afghanistan, reflecting the continued preference for .45 ACP among elite Marines.
Navy Special Warfare – Some Navy SEALs also used .45 caliber sidearms. Notably, the SEALs had adopted the Mk23 Mod 0 SOCOM pistol (a large H&K .45 ACP handgun) in the 1990s, and later variants like the HK45C. While many SEALs in OEF carried 9 mm Sig P226s or, later, Glock 19s, certain missions (requiring suppressed fire or extra stopping power) still saw .45 ACP pistols in use
.
Outside of special operations, most U.S. personnel in Afghanistan did not use .45 ACP. The standard sidearm for Army and conventional Marine units was the 9 mm M9 pistol, and even crew-served or vehicle weapons did not use .45 (they used 5.56 mm, 7.62 mm, .50 BMG, etc.). An Army House Armed Services Committee hearing in 2004 highlighted that 5.56 mm, 7.62 mm, and .50 BMG rounds made up over 95% of small-arms expenditures, leaving all other calibers (including 9 mm and .45) to share less than 5%
. This underscores that .45 ACP was a niche ammunition type in the Afghan theater compared to the billions of rifle and machine gun rounds expended.
Procurement and Supply Data for .45 ACP (2001–2014)
Because .45 ACP was used by a limited subset of forces, it was procured in modest quantities relative to other ammunition. The Department of Defense did not publicly break out exact .45 ACP consumption for Afghanistan, but available procurement records and reports give some insight:
Annual DoD Ammo Procurement: The U.S. military’s overall demand for small-caliber ammunition (all types under .50) skyrocketed during the war on terror, rising from ~730 million rounds in FY2000 to nearly 1.8 billion rounds by FY2005
. Within this huge increase, most were 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm rounds for rifles and machine guns. By contrast, .45 ACP constituted a very small portion. For example, if ~1.8 billion small-caliber rounds were needed in 2005, under 5% of that (~90 million) covers all other calibers beyond the main three
– and .45 ACP would be only a fraction of that figure (since 9 mm pistol ammo needs for regular forces were larger than .45 needs). Thus, the scale of .45 usage was in the low millions of rounds, not hundreds of millions, over the entire conflict.
U.S. Army and Joint Ammunition Purchases: The Army’s Program Executive Office for Ammunition handled most ammo procurement for all services during OEF
. The Army’s budget documents generally lump .45 ACP under generic “small arms ammo” lines, but special orders were placed to support units needing .45. Notably, ammunition contracts via Army Contracting Command included .45 ACP as a line item alongside 9 mm. (For instance, a 2016 Army contract to Olin-Winchester covered 9 mm, .38, and .45 caliber pistol ammunition in one package
, reflecting how these pistol calibers are grouped for procurement). During OEF, DoD often sourced .45 ACP from commercial manufacturers (such as Federal Cartridge/ATK or Olin Winchester) since the primary government-owned ammo plant focused on NATO calibers
.
Marine Corps Ammo Reports: A 2008 DoD Inspector General audit of ammunition funds provides a snapshot of .45 ACP supply. In one USMC supplemental ammunition request for GWOT (FY2007), the Marine Corps ordered approximately 274,000 rounds of .45 caliber ammunition as part of its OEF/OIF needs
. This single order (costing ~$98.6 K) was relatively small – by comparison, the same document shows orders of millions of rounds of 5.56 mm in that year【44†】. The Marine Corps confirmed that the M45 .45 caliber pistol was standard for Recon and MARSOC personnel in OEF
, and they allocated war funding to buy both the new pistols and the ammo to feed them. As MARSOC expanded after 2006, annual .45 ACP procurement for the Marines likely stayed in the few-hundred-thousand range to supply training and deployments.
SOCOM and Other Services: U.S. Special Operations Command units (Army SF, Navy SOF, etc.) draw ammo from service channels, so their .45 ACP needs were fulfilled through Army and Navy ordnance logistics. While detailed breakdowns are not public, it’s known that SOCOM kept .45 ACP in inventory for units fielding weapons like the MK23 pistol or HK UMP45 submachine gun. These specialty ammo requirements were relatively small and often satisfied by contracts with major ammo suppliers. For example, Winchester Ammunition has been a key supplier for military pistol ammo; it received multi-year contracts to produce .45 ACP for the Army both during and after OEF
. This ensured that deployed special operators in Afghanistan had a steady supply of .45 ACP for their sidearms, even though the caliber’s usage was limited.
Estimates of .45 ACP Rounds Used in Afghanistan (2001–2014)
No precise public figure exists for the total .45 ACP rounds expended in OEF, but given the above information we can outline the best estimates and context:
Magnitude: Over 13 years of war, U.S. forces in Afghanistan probably used on the order of a few million rounds of .45 ACP in total. This is tiny compared to rifle ammunition – for perspective, U.S. forces expended billions of 5.56 mm rounds in Iraq/Afghanistan. Even 9 mm pistol ammo (standard for most troops) vastly outweighed .45 usage. One military estimate noted that pistol and other small calibers (aside from 5.56/7.62/.50) accounted for under 5% of rounds fired
, and .45 was only a subset of that category. Thus, if 5.56 and other main rounds numbered in the billions, .45 ACP likely numbered in the low single-digit millions at most across the entire conflict.
Annual Usage Patterns: In the early years of OEF (2001–2005), .45 ACP use was minimal – only certain special ops (like Army Delta or some SEALs) were deployed with .45 pistols, since the Marine Force Recon teams (users of .45 MEU(SOC) pistols) were relatively few. After 2006, the formation of MARSOC and continued deployments of Army Special Forces increased the number of .45-caliber weapons in theater. By the peak war years (2009–2012), the Marine MARSOC and Recon teams, Army SF ODAs, and a portion of Navy SOF were each deploying with .45 sidearms. If we assume a few hundred operators carrying .45 pistols at any given time, each might fire a few hundred rounds in theater per year for proficiency or combat – that yields maybe tens of thousands of rounds per year in-country. Much larger quantities would be used in pre-deployment workups and training back in the US (which wouldn’t count as OEF consumption but drove procurement). For example, an entire MARSOC company workup can consume tens of thousands of .45 rounds in training, ensuring operators are proficient with their pistols.
Supply vs. Combat Expenditure: It’s important to distinguish ammunition supplied to Afghanistan from rounds actually fired in combat. Ammunition supply often exceeds expenditure to ensure ample reserve. The U.S. likely shipped hundreds of thousands of .45 ACP rounds to Afghanistan over the course of OEF to equip special ops units and security details. Not all of this would be shot; some would be used for range practice on bases, some carried on missions, and any surplus eventually redeployed or disposed of. Toward the war’s end, efforts like “Operation Ammunition Clean Sweep” collected unused munitions for retrograde
– it’s plausible that leftover .45 ammo was among recovered stocks, given its limited use. In short, the rounds fired in combat were likely a subset of those delivered. (For context, direct firefights involving pistols were rare; most troops, even special ops, relied on primary weapons first. The .45’s role was often as a secondary weapon or for close-quarter scenarios.)
In summary, while exact figures are unavailable, .45 ACP ammunition played a very limited role in OEF. It was primarily used by special operations and elite Marine units, with yearly procurement in the low hundreds of thousands of rounds and aggregate usage on the order of only a few million rounds over 13 years. This is negligible next to the standard rifle and machine-gun ammo expenditures
. Nonetheless, the military ensured that those who needed .45 ACP – from Delta Force operators to Marine Raiders – were reliably supplied throughout the conflict, via dedicated contracts and logistics channels
. The continued procurement of .45 ACP (even beyond OEF’s end) underscores that this cartridge remained an important niche capability for U.S. forces, valued for its proven effectiveness in the close-quarters and special mission contexts encountered in Afghanistan.
Sources: Military ammunition supply audits and budgets
; U.S. Congressional testimony on small-caliber ammo in GWOT
; Department of Defense contract records
; defense industry reporting on special operations weapons
; and official USMC statements on .45 pistol fielding
So there you have it. Logistics supported the supply of a couple of million rounds of .45 ACP to OEF.
6 months, 2 weeks ago
Remington Ammunition is expanding its Core-Lokt Tipped ammunition line to cover lever-action rifles and carbines with the new Remington Core-Lokt Tipped Lever Gun product line.
“Big Green is excited to be bringing the Core-Lokt Tipped family into the world of lever guns,” said Jon Langenfeld, research and development engineer at Remington Ammunition. “The resurgence of the lever gun was a welcome sight within Remington. We knew it would only be right to allow every lever-gun shooter, whether novice or expert, the ability to utilize the trusted performance of Remington’s Core-Lokt Tipped in a variety of lever-gun calibers.”
Most lever-action firearms use a tubular magazine, which places cartridges in front and behind each other in the magazine. For safety reasons, lever gun calibers are not loaded with pointed, spitzer-type bullets due to potential danger of a bullet’s point sitting right behind the next round’s primer, which may result in an accidental discharge. Blunt-nosed bullets are used in these magazines to prevent this, but the trade-off has always been less efficient ballistic performance, especially at longer distances.
All Remington Core-Lokt Tipped Lever Gun bullets use a green polymer ballistic tip which reduces each bullet’s “blunt” profile to boost its ballistic performance in a way that’s safe for the inside a lever-action firearm’s tubular magazine. However, the Core-Lokt bullets still expand into their classic “mushroom” shape to stop game.
It’s about time. I’m surprised it took them this long. Here is list of bullet weights and muzzle velocities.
This is a little disappointing. To be quite honest, I’m not sure why they’re not loading them hotter than this. Picking up a box of .444 Marlin jacketed flat nose by Hornady, I see it has a bullet weight of 265 grains with a muzzle velocity of 2400 FPS. That’s a heavier bullet moving slightly faster than the Remington bullet. But then, the Core-Lokt cartridges have always been a bit slower than the competition. It’s the expansion guys love, and too much velocity can actually hurt the ballistics by “penciling” through the game. We’d have to see a gel test to quantify the difference between these manufacturers.
There’s also the issue of sighting in your rifle. The sight-in procedure is good for only a single bullet weight, and so if you’re testing ammunition from a different manufacturer, while the point of impact during testing won’t matter, the final ammunition choice will require sighting in the rifle with whatever you choose.
As to the issue brought up a few days ago by a reader, I still see very high usefulness and viability of the lever action rifle. As I’ve said, this .444 Marlin round will easily put down hogs with a single shot without any movement at all after impact (I’ve seen lesser rounds take longer to accomplish the job).
Also, there’s the issue of cool factor. Lever action guns are just cool to own and shoot, and a .444 Marlin or 45-70 doesn’t exactly go into an AR pattern rifle (it’s short action, including the AR-10s).
I think the lever gun will be around long after I’m gone, as it should be. Every American boy should own a lever gun, or several.
7 months, 1 week ago
He does a good job in this video of answering the obvious questions concerning what happens in a shotgun when a Sabot slug is shot through a smooth bore barrel, what happens when a rifled slug is shot through a smooth barrel, and what happens when a rifled slug is shot through a rifled barrel.
I found the results less than impressive. I’m embedding another video below concerning the use of a rifled choke which are quite impressive.
Frankly I find this whole conversation a bit awkward and oddball. First, it seems to me that shotgun-only deer hunting states, by encouraging the use of a less than accurate weapon, are actually encouraging unethical shots and potential pain and suffering of the game animal. To me, that’s an awful outcome. I think the regulators in those states should grow up and do the right thing.
Then again, this also makes me wonder why someone would take a shotgun shooting slugs into the bush as personal defense against dangerous game. Why not just carry a 45-70? The bullets begin at over 300 grains and go up to 400 grains. Why would it be better to shot shotgun slugs than a round from a 45-70? The rifle will be more accurate.
Perhaps loyal readers like TheAlaskan who live the life of dangerous game defense can educate us. I respect his views.
First, the generalized video on different kinds of slugs from different shotguns.
Second, the video on use of the rifled choke. Once again, his results are extremely impressive.
