Firearms Training for New Female Shooters
I enjoy teaching folks how to shoot, but in my experience, women make the best students. Besides being a welcome change from the grumpy old men I normally encounter at the range, women approach firearms differently than men. Even though a guy may have no hands-on firearms experience, he's probably seen action movies or gangster TV shows, and has incorrect ideas about weapons safety and handling. A lot of guys are out to show how cool they are at the range. Conversely, women don't have anything to prove. They know their limitations - that is, women are likely seek out advice and instruction without being told or asked to do so. They are excellent listeners. If I do my part and start them off with weapons that don't have a massive amount of recoil, they respond very well to basic instruction and are often shooting very accurate groups within an hour of first picking up a firearm.
If you're a woman and you want to learn how to shoot, there are several ways to do it. One way is to find a local firing range that rents handguns. Almost all such ranges offer instruction, or, at the very least, a safety briefing - and many offer reduced range fees for women. But take a look at the employees first - if you're not comfortable with them, or the weapons they recommend for a first time shooter include the word "Magnum", find another shop. If you are uncomfortable when you are being instructed or when you're shooting, you'll probably walk away from the store and never want to fire a gun again.
There are several women-oriented training courses available, such as the excellent Babes with Bullets. However, their courses are often booked for a year in advance. Don't get discouraged. Once you've had that initial safety training, check online for courses offered by shooting schools or traveling instructors. Do some research and see what others, especially women, have said about the course. Although such courses are often populated by military and law enforcement personnel, most instructors I have dealt with welcome women in their classes, because as I said before, women pay attention to important things like safety rules. Be sure to look for courses that offer loaner firearms.
As for handgun choices, that's another topic entirely, and one that I could go on forever about - so I'll try to keep it brief. Some women gravitate towards smaller guns, believing that they will kick less. This may not be true. A comparably larger weapon of the same caliber may be easier to hold and, due to increased weight, have less perceived recoil. I am a firm believer in the effectiveness of the 9mm round, and most 9mm semi auto pistols are relatively easy to shoot. A lot of folks recommend revolvers, and I think they have their merits. However, a small, lightweight revolver in 357 Magnum is a handful for the beefiest of men to control, and I seriously doubt that the majority of first-time shooters - male and female - would want fire more than one round from such a weapon. If you think a revolver is best for your needs, get one in .38 Special.
Shooting can be a fun and safe sport, and the confidence you gain from being proficient with a weapon that could be useful for self defense is invaluable. Whatever else you might have going on in your life, there's only one thing holding you back, and that's you. If you've thought about learning how to safely use a firearm, don't put it off any longer.
Osprey Defense Scuba Test: Questionable Methods
Okay, if you've read some of my other posts, you'll know that I'm not the biggest fan of piston/op-rod conversions. But hey, if you've got a suppressed full auto rifle, you're getting closer to the zone of performance where the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Some folks may have seen the HK416 OTB test, where it outperforms the Colt M4 - and while that video may also have issues, they aren't as glaring as this one. The whole point of this test is to show that the barrel can be full of water - as the shooter comes out of the water - and fired with water in the barrel without blowing up. A standard AR-15 can be sealed at the muzzle or allowed to drain for a few seconds, and it will pass this test just fine. Again, if the barrel isn't full of water, the test is meaningless.
In this Osprey video, some disheveled guy in a black T shirt says some stuff, then a heroic scuba diver emerges from a mud puddle and engages an imaginary target. I know he was only under for a few seconds, but if you're trying to demonstrate to divers how well your product works underwater, you might want your demonstration diver to properly put on his equipment, to include attaching his low pressure inflator hose (the hose coming over his left shoulder). Otherwise, it just looks very unprofessional to even the most inexperienced divers, such as myself.
First, we're allowed to see the guy go underwater. Now, in the HK test, the protocol calls for the rifle to be submerged until there aren't any more bubbles. Here's the front end of the silencer as it goes underwater. Click on the photos for a larger image.
It's hard for me to say definitively that there aren't any bubbles. It's possible that tiny bubbles are coming out. I'm not seeing any, though. And frankly, with the weapon being submerged at that angle, it's unlikely that a lot of water would get in there (and it's likely that, considering the amount of time at which he he holds the weapon at an up angle as he comes out of the water, any remaining water would drain from the barrel). Here is a screenshot just as that silencer goes underwater.
The lack of bubbles alone isn't definitive enough, but what happens after he starts shooting throws up a huge red flag for me.
See that silver thing hanging off the end of the suppressor? If you watch the video, you can see it flapping as the rifle is fired. That looks suspiciously like some sort of object used to plug the muzzle to me. If there's some sort of innocent explanation, I'm all ears. At this point, though, the lack of bubbles in conjunction with the apparently plugged barrel makes me very suspicious of their claims.
Edit: An AR15.com poster whom I know to be honest reports that he is a friend of the diver in the video, and the end of the suppressor was covered in duct tape. Thus, I feel very confident saying that this test was a sham, and the company should be ashamed for trying to pull the wool over the eyes of potential buyers, who will hopefully find another solution.
Spike TV’s Not So Deadliest Warrior
I've only got a little time here, but I wanted to debunk a portion of this show. I've never watched an episode on TV, but was shown a link to this episode as "proof" that the AK-47 is more reliable than the AR-15. The important stuff starts at around 27:45 or so.
Well, there are a few glaring problems that a lot of people have probably already figured out.
Here, we see both rifles with mud on their sides. Note the mud on the top cover of the AK and near the rear sight. Click on the images for a bigger picture.
And here is the AK as we hear shots being fired. The safety is clearly in the "up" position - the weapon cannot be fired that way. If the safety was off, there'd be a void where the mud hadn't stuck to the rifle, as we can see from the video, the safety was on when it was slapped with mud. No spent cases are ejected. The bolt does not move. He is not wearing ear protection.
Here is the weapon actually being fired - note the complete lack of mud on the top cover and rear sight. The weapon is never shown from the right side with cases being ejected.
As the "muj" comes off the firing line, we see that his shirt and face are perfectly clean - as anyone who's fired a muddy weapon with an open reciprocating bolt like an AK-47 or a Garand knows, that mud will come right back at you.
And finally, here we see him wearing orange earplugs, supposedly just as he's finished firing.
Here is the AR as we hear shots ring out. No cases are ejected, the ejection port cover does not swing open, and we don't see any steam from the muzzle, as one would expect if the barrel was wet.
More shots being fired. Ejection port cover still closed. In case you don't know, that means the weapon still hasn't been fired.
And finally, we see the AR-15 after it "jams" - except that the ejection port cover is STILL closed, and the only way to verify a malfunction is to look through that open ejection port cover.
In conclusion, this test was a complete farce, as is, I assume, the rest of the show. I assume that the impacts we see are just squibs being controlled by the guy on the computer.