In the future, I'll try to be more on top of this. The correct email is andrew@vuurwapenconcepts.com, and that is the best way to receive a quick response if you have a specific question. Thanks.

Of note is the "Premium" front sight, on the left in the photo, which allows elevation adjustments for 0-200, 300, 400, 500 and 600 yards with the twist of a knob, and also allows you to estimate range to the target. When I showed this front sight to a friend of mine who is a President's Hundred shooter, he said, "Well, isn't that neat. How about that." I tend to agree.

Although I hate the phrase "my new AR build," they might find their way on to a semi-new "build," as none of my current rifles have provisions for rail-mounted front sights. A full review will follow.

In fact, a few days ago, I met with a group of highly professional individuals who have been paid to attend courses taught by various instructors, and those courses taught by Mike Pannone were literally the standard by which the other instructors and courses were judged.

I made a short video promoting Mike and his company. Because it's a bit more advertising-oriented than my normal videos, I'll just be putting it on the blog, the readers of which I have found to be more professional, experienced, and reasonable than the general audience found on YouTube. If you'd be turned off by a bit of a "sales pitch," I won't be offended if you skip the video - but if you get the chance to take a course taught by Mike, you'll find that the info in the "sales pitch" is more of an understatement than an embellishment.

Damn.

If you're unfamiliar with this story, read this.

After Wanat, COP Keating, and Ganjgal, two things are very clear to me:

1. The United States Army needs to clear out some field and staff grade officers.
2. The United States Army has completely failed at #1.

Yesterday, The Firearm Blog published a press release from MKS Distributing, which apparently imports Chiappa firearms to the United States. This press release was, shall we say, condescending. I was, however, amused by the remark that ridiculed the accuracy of "blogger reporting" - then confirmed what the bloggers had reported.

The Chiappa press release was written by Cinzia Pinzoni. She took time away from her busy schedule to give me a tour of the Chiappa factory in Italy back in March. She's knowledgeable, professional, courteous, and very kind. Frankly, I couldn't think of a better public face for a company. As far as the rest of the Chiappa factory folks go, they were all friendly and polite, even as they continued about their tasks.

I don't know who wrote the MKS press release, but they're not the same type of person that I encountered in Azzano Mella. This fiasco doesn't change my opinion on Chiappa (which is good) or desire to eventually pick up some of their products (I'm eyeing that lever pistol), but there are plenty of companies in the firearms business that are run by smart, professional people. It's important to note that Chiappa and MKS are separate companies - and, hopefully, there will soon be ways to purchase Chiappa firearms that do not involve MKS.

I would especially like input from mobile users.

This event led me to consider another often-ignored ailment: MOLLE disease. There are many symptoms of this disease, and in fact, it's been around for a long time, but the introduction of MOLLE webbing has made the problems more obvious. It's even been mentioned by the excellent USMC-related web comic, Terminal Lance.

Whether MOLLE is involved or not, the issue boils down to this: too much stuff. Sometimes, a lot of stuff is needed; other times, that stuff will go by unused.

One of the biggest offenders when it comes to this is the US military itself. Designing packs that can carry 120lbs of gear, requiring that grunts carry everything they can with them into the field, and in some units, even forcing them to organize their gear in an identical manner, as opposed to what works best for the individual Soldier or Marine. The military has known for a long time that musculoskeletal injuries are a leading cause of servicemembers being unable to perform their assigned tasks.

Ten years ago, an Army Science Board study even recommended that an individual soldier carry no more than 50lbs of gear. That hasn't happened. According to this 2007 report, the average individual Marine combat load varies from 97 to 135 pounds. The old rule of keeping carried weight below one third of body weight would lead us to believe that the lightest Marine weighs in at just under 300 pounds.

Because MOLLE webbing allows unprecedented customization of gear, some think that unused MOLLE space is a big no-no; they figure that if they have an extra pouch, they can attach it there to carry something. On a higher gear-acquisition level, the "customization" potential of MOLLE fools decision makers into thinking that everything they buy is going to become one big system, rather than dozens or hundreds of individual pieces of gear that happen to have the option of being securely attached to one another in any desired location.

I fell victim to this when I first deployed. I couldn't begin to list everything I carried, but take this as an example: I carried ten of the then-new HK magazines for my M4. Unloaded, these magazines weigh 8.9 ounces apiece, or more than 5 pounds total - just for the magazines themselves! Add almost another pound each for 30 rounds of Mk262 or M855 ammunition...you see the problem. Later in the tour, I dropped some stuff, but much weight remained: for extended dismounted patrols, my personal gear load varied from 80 to 100lbs.

It is my opinion that, despite its own studies which reveal mountains of evidence against such practices, the military as a system is in denial about the negative effects that result from "too much gear." It's still stuck in "Well, what if you happen to need this?" mode, rather than "What do you really need?" mode.

Law enforcement officers are unfortunately saddled with many of these same issues - being required to carry a lot of gear that they may or may not use. On the civilian side, issues are similar, although everything becomes optional. Having more gear is always a good thing, it seems, even if most of that gear is of little use. This problem is exacerbated because, outside of a square range where gear is brought by vehicle, most of this equipment is rarely carried for long.

Environmental conditions are a major factor, as well. Several months ago, I covered 12 miles while carrying 75lbs of gear. This was on a cool evening, but I still wasn't able to move as fast as I would have with less stuff. As temperatures rise, I have no option but to shed gear until I am carrying 20lbs at most during the day. As this happens, I consider the possibility that perhaps the other 55lbs of gear wasn't as necessary as I first thought.

The same goes for the weight of the gear itself. Unnecessarily heavy rifles or radios are an obvious problem, but what about the weight of the pack on your shoulders? I have an HSGI T.R.A.S.H. pack, which uses an ALICE frame and is constructed entirely of 1000D Cordura. Empty, it weighs over twelve pounds. As a result, it's rarely used on longer hiking trips. For those, I use ~2lb Kelty, North Face, or Gregory packs, which are often more than sufficient.

One must start with absolutely essential gear - a rifle, for example, or water. Work from there in order to choose what to bring, and how much. If you don't have a truly valid reason to lug a lot of something around, ditch it, or carry less of it. Chances are that you'll be able to do whatever you set out to accomplish just as well, and you might even be able to do it faster and with less wear and tear on your body.

Manufactured by VirTra Systems, the simulators available at the Threat Dynamics facility included a 100 degree - one screen - system, and a 300 degree system, which utilized five screens and projectors. Hundreds of scenarios could be played out on either system, including responding to a school or workplace shooting, high-risk traffic stops, or simply a random encounter with bad guys in a dark place. In addition, virtual ranges can be set up - from single bullseye targets to a full duplicate of the Army's rifle qualification course. Up to four shooters can use the program at once.

Steel "poppers," green "Ivans," paper bullseyes - the system could put the shooter on any sort of range he desired. It was pretty much like being in the Matrix.

The weapons used are real and remain functional, although certain parts are changed out - the barrel of a Glock pistol, for example, or the bolt carrier of an AR-15. In other words, your own pistol or rifle could be used for this training, and they'd "shoot" laser beams instead of bullets. Magazines are supplied which have CO2 cartridges inside, providing about 100 "shots" before running out, while simulating the weight of a full magazine. To maintain realism, though, the program running the scenario can be set up to limit the number of shots that will be recognized before a magazine change is required.

Recoil was stated to be 90% of actual firearm recoil, but I found it to be somewhat less. Also, the slides/bolts don't lock to the rear. Those are my only two complaints about the system, which was simply phenomenal.

Rifles and pistols could be used by both shooters, which increased the training options available.

In the FATS system I used, video scenarios could be played through, but the "bad guys" wouldn't react when shot - the video just kept playing, and you'd find out afterwards if you scored any hits. With the VirTra setup, though, if a bad guy was hurt or killed, the program would seamlessly switch to a "death video" for him - while everything else continued on. So if you were facing three bad guys and killed two, they'd fall down while the third one kept shooting.

In addition, the shooter could yell verbal commands, and if the system operator thought they were sufficient/appropriate, he could make the bad guy comply with the command. Thus, the VirTra system is more than just shoot/no-shoot - it's a full-spectrum training simulator for deadly force scenarios.

We were smiling when we put the belts on. We weren't smiling right after they zapped us.

This brings me to my favorite part of the VirTra system - the belt. If the computer determined that a bad guy scored a hit on a human participant, a special belt would zap him or her with 5,000 volts - depending on the person, enough to make them shout in surprise while jumping around, or fall to the floor screaming and laughing. When I screwed up in an ambush scenario on the 300 degree range and was shot in the back, the zap was attention-getting.

Bad guys varied from this obese assailant to men in suits. Behavior, not appearance, was key to the shoot/no-shoot decision.

After the scenario was complete, the whole thing could be played back, and each participant's shots would show up on the screen at the appropriate times. The system was able to differentiate between the different firearms used by each shooter, leaving them with either bragging rights or shame.

Is that a handgun or a cell phone? You have only a split second to decide.

The sheer number of scenarios, and the realism with which many were filmed, makes the VirTra Systems simulators an exceptionally valuable training tool. Being able to shoot at targets appearing anywhere along a 300 degree arc is more than just icing on the cake - unlike virtually all shooting ranges, deadly force encounters do not always elapse entirely in front of the shooter.

Shot in his virtual face with the AR, this bad guy went down without getting a shot off.

Law enforcement and military personnel, as well as armed citizens who are serious about personal defense, would find that even a little time on the VirTra range would sharpen observation and decision-making skills that are as important as actual marksmanship in terms of surviving a shootout.

Even with a partner, 5 doors to cover at one time is challenging.

Beyond the real-world applications, though, the program was simply fun. A competition between friends decided by hits or misses against a bad guy or a zap from the belt? Nothing short of a blast. Threat Dynamics wasn't having any trouble filling its reservation book with requests for time from law enforcement and civilians alike, and after using both "ranges," it was easy for me to see why.