The strategy of tension relies upon a fear of threat to control people.
Somethings gotta give and it’s not gonna be me.
The strategy of tension relies upon a fear of threat to control people.
Somethings gotta give and it’s not gonna be me.
A gunman approaches a group of moms picking up their kids from a private school in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
But he didn’t figure on one of the moms being an off-duty military police officer — 42-year-old Katia da Silva Sastre.
Swift as lightning, she shoots the punk who falls to the ground.
The gunman, Elivelton Neves Moreira, 21, was shot three times and died in the hospital, thereby saving taxpayers the expense of a trial and prison.
Paradigm Shift noun UK /ˈpær.ə.daɪm ˌʃɪft/ US /ˈper.ə.daɪm ˌʃɪft/ formal – a time when the usual and accepted way of doing or thinking about something changes completely – Cambridge Dictionary
I need to start this review off by saying, I am no SIG fanboy. But facts are facts, and I always give credit when it is due. The new P365 is a game changer for concealed carry guns, and there are no two ways about that. I have seen and shot a lot of CCW guns in my day, and this one sets a new bar for excellence.
As I write this, I am having trouble figuring out exactly why. On paper, the gun looks impressive, but not that far beyond its peers. It holds 10+1. Big deal. Other guns in this category hold 9+1, which isn’t that far off. It’s tiny. Well, so is a Glock 42. It has legitimate sights. That may be unusual, but it isn’t unique. The trigger breaks at 5.5 pounds, again not that far from the pack, if any. The difference is, the SIG P365 shoots like Wyatt Earp’s ghost is running the trigger, and I can’t tell you with certainty how that is possible. From just looking at the specs of the gun, it makes no sense. But this thing runs like a prairie fire fueled by a tornado. For the moment, let’s just attribute that to magic, which is as plausible an explanation as anything else.
The P365 is tiny. Here you can see what it looks like in the author’s hands.
When I first saw this gun at SHOT Show, I liked what was on offer. At first glance, I would have called it a G-42 double stack, which would still be a pretty neat gun. The secret to SIG having a tiny profile, but managing to cram 10 rounds in the magazine, comes from its tapered design. The magazine is actually a pyramid, with a long taper up to the round that feeds out of the top. SIG could have gotten more capacity by going with a wider body, but they hit the sweet spot of grip size and bullets and stopped. Bravo. The result is that the SIG is 3mm wider than a Glock in the grip, and fits 4 more rounds.
The SIG, for me at least, also hits the grip circumference size where it is extremely comfortable to shoot. At the slide, the SIG is 1mm wider than the Glock, which also makes it nice to tuck in your pants.
The sights on the P365 are big enough to use, with a nice wide rear notch. The front features an oversized bright green ring, which is perfect for daylight use. They are actually hard to miss, at least if you are looking for them. When the lights go out, 3 tritium dots take over, and they are sufficiently bright for any night use as well. The rear sights have a shelf for one-handed manipulation, should the need arise.
The controls are very well laid out, and sized with thought put into them. I like oversized magazine releases on race guns, but not on ones I stick in my pants. The P365 has a magazine release that is almost recessed, you won’t drop a mag without trying. This makes reloads a little more difficult, but it does prevent accidental magazine release in the holster. I have had that happen with carry guns, and it would really suck to start a firefight with just the round in the chamber. Very nice design, I count the SIG work here as a positive. The slide release is exactly the balance needed of big enough to hit, but small enough not to inadvertently lock the slide.
The magazine release is designed for concealed carry. It’s recessed so that it’s not accidentally depressed on holstering, drawing, or during daily activities.
The trigger is the biggest mystery of the pistol. My trigger gauge says it breaks a 5.5 pounds. My finger says it is actually better than my P320X5, which before today was the gold standard in striker fired triggers. That doesn’t make sense, but it reflects in shooting as well. There is a small bit of takeup, then a clean break. The trigger geometry must include unicorn horns, or the SIG Engineers filled it with voodoo. I have no idea why, but the trigger feels a lot lighter than that when you shoot it. I was actually going to call them out for putting a 3 pound trigger in a carry gun before I gauged it. Whatever the reason, it makes the P365 run both extremely fast, and group very accurate.
Reliability wise, the P365 has that in spades too. I ran 500 rounds through the gun with no hiccups. And for most of that, I was also running my thumb on the side of the slide. It ate hollow points and ball, as fast as I could shoot them. I heard some rumors about reliability, so I actually took the P365 further than I needed to. I also fed it a box of Tula steel case, the worst ammo I have ever seen outside of the third world. The bangs might not have all sounded the same, but every round went off and ejected.
Recoil is extremely manageable in this gun as well. Using full power 9mm, I can barely tell the difference between the P365 and a full sized gun. That is also without explanation. If you watch my video, you will see the gun stays very flat throughout shooting. The grip has enough texture to help, but not enough to explain this alone. The recoil system is a dual spring design, but the slide feels no harder to manually rack than any other CCW gun. The bore axis is low, but not the lowest in class. That has the side benefit of not giving you slide bite as well.
I have long advocated using a CCW gun that is big enough to hang onto, and at first glance, this would not have fit the bill. But somehow, in use, it does. The gun points well, like an extension of your arm. The only odd part for me now is the draw, as I am looking for a tiny grip to lock up on. With training time, that will go away too. I never thought I would say this, but the P365 isn’t just a good carry gun. It is a good do anything gun. With the capacity on board and a potential of 12+1 with extended mags, there is no reason it can’t. This gun is literally good enough to run 6 plate racks or compete in IDPA, and still be your gas station carry piece. I have never seen a pistol more worthy of fitting the EVERYTHING GUN description.
Let us not forget, a CCW gun is part of a system. The other parts of that system are holsters, magazines, and other daily carry items. Holsters can be a bear to find for a new gun, and we are always looking for the next great thing. With the P365 coming up, I made a discovery of excellent holsters that I can highly recommend. I put in a call to Detroit Holster, and I was very happy with the results. I opted to order two models, the 8 Mile, and the Dix.
The Detroit Holster 8 mile is an IWB holster, kydex, with a belt clip. The cant is optional for 15 degrees forward, 30 degrees forward, or straight up and down.
The Dix is a minimalist holster, that covers pretty much just the trigger guard. A loop of 550 secures the holster to your belt, and a simple pull frees your weapon.
Both showed attention to detail that is way above par, such as kydex wings to cover the mag release, keeping it from dropping free in your pants. It is apparent from examination and use, Detroit Holster is run by people that carry guns. Thought has gone into every detail, and the holsters are amazingly comfortable.
8 Mile and Dex.
The fit is perfect for the gun, a sign of excellent craftsmen. I am very surprised I haven’t heard of Detroit Holster before, and I thought about keeping this to myself to keep my wait times down. Whatever your carry gun, this shop is one you want to check out.
The holster partially covers the mag release to help prevent the mag from getting dropped during carry.
The front sight features an oversized bright green ring, which is perfect for daylight use.
The rear sights have a shelf for one-handed manipulation, should the need arise.
Following the February 14th mass shooting at the Stoneman Douglas School in Parkland, Florida, a newly impassioned debate has erupted, as follows every mass shooting in the US, about how to prevent such events from reoccurring.
One side focuses on easy civilian access to military-style guns, such as the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. The other focuses on the individuals who perpetrate these acts, in particular their mental health.
We wanted to contribute to the conversation by analyzing the gun manufacturers, to understand: how many such guns are being produced, how much revenue and profit is generated from their sale.
We found there are currently at least 23 different models of AR-15 available for civilian purchase in the US, from 18 different manufacturers. Of these, 15 are private companies, while 3 are publicly-traded. We found no clear correlation between mass shootings and changes in the gun manufacturers’ share price. Two of the three companies have diversified into outdoor products, and changed their corporate names to deemphasize their firearm brands.
In the most deadly 12 mass shootings in the US in the past decade, a total of 270 people were killed. In 8 of these shootings, an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle was used.
The most commonly used AR-15 was the Smith & Wesson M&P15, manufactured by American Outdoor Brands Corporation, used in 3 of the shootings. The next most commonly used AR-15 was the Bushmaster XM-15, manufactured by Remington Outdoor Company used in 2 of the shootings.
We examined financial filings of the public gun manufacturers to understand how many such rifles are produced and how much money is generated from their sale.
Public Firearms Manufacturers – Key Data
The table shows that all 3 of the public gun manufacturers have a stock market value less than $1 Billion, and all three have experienced declining stock market value, sales and profits during the past year.
Since the launch of the March for our Lives movement, it will be interesting to see if demand for firearms increases, stoked by fears among gun enthusiasts that stricter regulation may be ahead.
The largest US gun manufacturers
Previously named Smith & Wesson Holding Corp, the company rebranded as American Outdoor Brands in 2017.
American Outdoor Brands Corporation, Net Sales, 2015-17 ($ millions)
AOBC’s Long Guns revenue doubled from 2015 to 2017. In 2017, AOBC shipped 420,000 Long guns, of which 93% were to Consumers and 7% to the Professional channel such as law enforcement. From these figures, we calculated that AOBC generated an average of $428 per long gun shipped. The company employed 2,204 people as of May 2017, an increase of 19% from May 2016.
Vista Outdoor was incorporated in 2014 as a combination of Alliant Techsystems and other brands and businesses, which were combined into two business lines — Shooting Sports and Outdoor Products.
Vista Outdoors, Net Sales, 2015-17 ($ millions)
In Outdoor Products, Vista has 35 brands including Camelbak, Serengeti, Bollé and Eagle. In Shooting Sports, it has 12 brands including Savage Arms, which makes the MSR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Approximately 54% of its 2017 sales were in Firearms.
Sturm Ruger was founded in 1949 and manufactures rifles, pistols, revolvers, accessories and castings, including the SR-556 semi-automatic rifle. Unlike AOBC and Vista who have diversified into Outdoor Products, Ruger is a pure-play firearms manufacturer.
The company had 1,838 employees as at December 2017, a reduction of 13% from the previous year.
While not public, Remington publishes financial filings because it has publicly issued debt. Remington was founded in 1816 and manufacturers Modern Sport Rifles under the Remington, Bushmaster and DPMS brands, as well as Ammunition, and Outdoor Products.
Remington; Net Sales, 2014-16 ($ millions)
On March 25th, 2018, Remington filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, allowing it to restructure its $700 million debt while continuing its operations. Its owner Cerberus Capital Management reportedly plans to cease ownership of the company following the restructuring. As at March 30, 2017, Remington had approximately 3,500 employees, and is headquartered in Madison, North Carolina.
Shareholders in the leading gun manufacturers
This table aggregates the largest 5 shareholders in each of the 3 public gun manufacturers.
From this we see, there is a very high concentration of ownership in a small number of shareholders. For example, the top 5 shareholders in Vista Outdoors own 53% of the company. In Ruger, the top 5 hold 47%, and in AOBC the Top 5 hold over one third of the company. Across all 3, BlackRock, the largest asset manager in the world, holds 13% of the combined shares of these 3 companies, while Vanguard holds 9%, and Fidelity 7%. The 10 shareholders above hold 45% of the entire sector.
Share Price Movements Following Mass Shootings
We looked to see if there was any discernible pattern in gun manufacturer share price following the 12 most deadly mass shooting incidents of the past decade. We compared each company’s share price 1 day prior to the mass shooting to its share price 5 trading days after.
Across the periods, the median 5 day share price change was +6% for AOBC, +3% for Ruger and -1% for Vista. In total, 19 of the movements were positive and 11 were negative, roughly a 2:1 ratio of positive share price movements to negative. One possible theory is that high profile shootings spur consumer demand for guns, due to fears that the events may lead to stricter gun controls, and increased future demand then results in higher share prices.
The gun manufacturers’ view
Following the Stoneman Douglas shooting, the largest shareholder in American Outdoor Brands Corporation, BlackRock, sent written questions asking about AOBC’s response to the shooting, in which one of AOBC firearms, the Smith & Wesson M&P15 was used.
AOBC published a response reaffirming its role in preserving the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and emphasizing that it is a fully law-abiding organization, which obeys each of the hundreds of regulations that apply to it at the Federal, State and Local levels. AOBC wrote:
“While the vast majority of our products are used lawfully, we are aware that sometimes people engage in horrible, criminal acts with our products. However, calls for us to monitor the illegal use of our firearms are misguided, since doing so would be ineffective in preventing such misuse. In addition, such monitoring by us is not realistic or feasible. As a practical matter, it is no more realistic or feasible for us to monitor whether our legal firearms are used in criminal ways, than it is for a car manufacturer to monitor how often a drunken driver causes a tragic accident with one of their vehicles, or for a mobile phone company to monitor whether its mobile devices are used in terrorist activities.”
“We firmly believe that the best way to stop the criminal use of firearms and the violence associated with it, is to enforce the laws that already exist, and to focus stronger efforts on prosecuting those who break them.”
The vision of firearm manufacturers focuses on the fully legal use of their products for hunting, sport shooting and self-defense. When it comes to criminal usage, the manufacturers believe deeply that they are not responsible.
Following the Stoneman Douglas massacre, the March for our Lives movement has renewed calls for two laws in particular: to ban weapons designated “assault weapons” including AR-15 style rifles, and large capacity magazines. While media attention has focused most heavily on the NRA on one hand and gun control advocates on the other, we hope it has been helpful to examine the commercial organizations relevant to the debate, namely the companies that manufacture these firearms.
In this video I demonstrate how a box stock cheap .22 single action revolver can fire faster than a semi automatic pistol and perform the “two shots as one” trick.
Those on the left end of the political spectrum are constantly attempting to push the “Smart Gun” as if it’s some sort of magical device that will end all violence. It isn’t, of course, and you can easily fire any locked smart gun and it’ll only cost you $15.
Much to the chagrin of gun control activists everywhere, for the first time, a skilled hacker has taken a deep look into the security mechanisms of one leading example of a “smart gun.” A smart gun is one of those authenticated firearms, meaning only its owner may actually fire the weapon. The argument for the smart gun has been in the pockets of hoplophobes for years. But now, one hacker has found that if smart guns are going to become a reality, they’ll need to be much smarter than the one he hacked.
At the Defcon hacker conference later this week, a hacker who goes by the pseudonym Plore plans to show off a series of critical vulnerabilities he found in the Armatix IP1, a smart gun whose German manufacturer Armatix has claimed its electronic security measures will “usher in a new era of gun safety.” Plore discovered, and demonstrated to WIRED at a remote Colorado firing range, that he could hack the gun with a disturbing variety of techniques, all captured in the video. –WIRED
The IP1 purports to limit who can fire it by requiring that the shooter wears a special Armatix watch. If the gun and the watch can’t connect via a short-range radio signal that extends just a few inches, the gun won’t fire. But Plore shows how anyone can get around the simple technology. Plore showed that he can extend the range of the watch’s radio signal, allowing anyone to fire the gun when it’s more than ten feet away. But that’s not all.
Plore was able to jam the gun’s radio signals to prevent its owner from firing it even when the watch is inches away and connected. He also showed that he can mechanically disable the gun’s locking mechanism by placing some cheap magnets alongside its barrel, firing the gun at will even when the watch is completely absent.
Plore says that the politicized debate over smart guns hasn’t examined the far more basic question of whether they actually provide the security they promise. “If you buy one of these weapons thinking it’ll be safer, it should be,” Plore says. “In this case, it was so easily defeated, in so many ways, that it really failed to live up to its side of that bargain…Misplaced trust is worse than no trust at all.”
But what does one expect when those who hate guns and seek violent government policies to control those who own them get involved in things they know little about? It stands to reason that the market will continue to find ways around the left’s insistence on more laws.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
“Any person who from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2016 inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine as defined in Penal Code … including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool (commonly referred to as a bullet-button weapon) must register the firearm before January 1, 2018,” the State of California mandated in a May regulation notice.
It’s grand of them to finally share that with us, particularly after an earlier notice advised “The draft regulations are not open for public comment due to the exemption set forth in [the] Penal Code … Per the stated exemption, the Department is not required to provide further clarification.”
It would not have been surprising had they added “So there.”
Still, as the antis often ask us about guns, how many so-called “assault weapon” bans does “the Golden State” need?
They already had a 1989 ban on specific firearm models. A follow-up ban 10 years later on cosmetic characteristics inspired The New York Times to proclaim, “California enacts the toughest ban on assault guns.”
“This is a prototype for reasonable gun-control legislation,” the measure’s sponsor, State Senator Don Perata (holder of an elite “may issue” concealed carry permit), said at the time. “And if it can be done in California, I would argue that it can be done in the United States as a whole.”
That, of course, is one of the goals, along with promoting rabid gun-grabbers as the arbiters of what is “reasonable.”
As for the new edict, assuming a firearm was ‘legally acquired on or before December 31, 2016” and other qualifiers are met, there are all kinds of other hoops gun owners will be required to jump through. That includes typical and expected registration stuff, like name and identifying information for both the owner and the gun. They have to know who you are, what you’ve got and where they can find it (and you). “Common sense gun safety” and all.
Not content with just that, the gun-haters in Sacramento are also requiring “joint registration,” and I’m not talking about for legalized weed (see “A Mess of Pottage,” October 2016 issue). This decree applies if you want to be able to share enjoyment of your property with qualifying family members, and requires a “primary registrant” along with “acceptable forms” of “proof of address for each joint registrant.”
As an aside, compare that to “progressives” objecting to Voter ID laws because they claim proving you are eligible to vote “disenfranchises minorities.” You’ll note they never pull that argument when it comes to gun ownership requirements.
Imagine the cow they’d have if those voters were also required to have Internet access, because that’s also a mandate.
“Assault weapon registrations must be filed electronically using the Department’s California Firearms Application Reporting System (CFARS)” the order specifies.
That shows nothing if not bureaucratic zeal, and the motivation appears to be gloating, in-your-face harassment. Because half-a-year in, California gun owners are still unable to comply with the new “law’s” requirements. The utility to register isn’t working yet. At this writing, this language still appears on the California Department of Justice website in bold red letters:
“UPDATE AS OF Thu Jun 01 2017 15:10:35 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) : The ability to register an Assault Weapon … is not yet available… Assault Weapon registration regulations must be effective before any registrations can take place. At this time, the regulations are still pending, however they should be effective in the very near future. Please continue to check the Bureau of Firearms website for updates.”
But wait, there’s more!
Because now imagine those “disenfranchised voters” also being required to own a digital camera. Gun owners are required to provide “Clear digital photos of firearms listed on the application.
“One photo shall depict the bullet button-style magazine release installed on the firearm,” the regulations order. “One photo shall depict the firearm from the end of the barrel to the end of the stock if it is a long gun or the point furthest from the end of the barrel if it is a pistol. The other two photos shall show the left side of the receiver/frame and right side of the receiver/frame.
“These locations are typically where firearms are marked when manufacturing is complete,” the instructions elaborate. “At the discretion of the Department the last two photos shall be substituted for photos of identification markings at some other locations on the firearm.”
“Discretion”? How? When? It’s like they’re trying to create compliance violations based on applicants not knowing what the … uh … heck they want.
For a “Firearm Manufactured By Unlicensed Subject (FMBUS),” there’s a department-issued serial number that needs to be taken in to a “Federal Firearms Licensed Manufacturer (type 07),” who is “under no obligation to perform this work.” Alternatively, “Persons who have manufactured their own firearm may also use non-licensed parties to apply the serial number and other required markings, however, the owner of the weapon must not leave the firearm unattended with an unlicensed party in violation of firearms transfer and/or lending laws.”
Then there are the fees, “$15.00 per person per transaction.” If you want “a copy of the original registration disposition letter,” that’ll be another 5 bucks. And they’ll only accept payment via credit or debit card.
Again, think of those “disenfranchised” voters.
Then think of something else. Think of the Second Amendment. Think of “shall not be infringed.” Think of the Founders who envisioned an armed citizenry capable of meeting “enemies foreign and domestic” with equivalent weaponry.
Here’s what it boils down to: Those of us who believe government exists to serve the people believe we have a right to keep and bear arms. Those who believe people exist to serve the government believe we do not.
The California Rifle and Pistol Association, with the backing of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, filed a lawsuit in April challenging the new ban. It will go through the courts for years. When it reaches the “liberal” Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, expect them to cite precedent and side with the state. When that’s appealed to the Supreme Court, all they need do for the law to stand is… nothing. If they decline hearing the case, the law will stand. And even if they hear it, there are no outcome guarantees.
In the mean time, gun owners have been dictated the terms of their unconditional surrender. Obey or be declared a criminal, and suffer all the penalties the state can bring down on your head to make an example of you to everyone else. Or flee to another state; one of those Don Perata envisioned exporting his “reasonable” disarmament to.
Let’s work toward reclaiming our right to keep and bear arms, heeding Patrick Henry’s warning to “guard with jealous attention the public liberty.” And let’s hope the Supreme Court ends up doing the right thing.
If they don’t, you’re going to have to ask yourself “What would Captain John Parker do?” If you don’t know who he was, you probably ought to make it a point to find out.