Astute readers will notice that the many of the dates on the documents are fairly recent, and the certification fuss originally arose prior to that time. Some might then say that the certifications were only acquired after the initial claim regarding testing, materials, etc. However, I was told by Tom Miller of Spike’s Tactical that while he had certification documents dating to 2008 and prior, he wanted to show certifications relating to the actual components used in the LE line of weapons, so random samples of those components were submitted for destructive testing.

Here’s a link to the documents.

Well, they did in March of 1982, that is.

While reading about the SIG/ATF handgun trial debacle, I decided to check out other GAO cases involving firearms manufacturers. That’s when I came across this report, detailing the GAO’s objections to the DOD program to replace the 1911A1 and various .38 revolvers as the sidearm(s) of the military. The GAO report can be summed up in one quote – “Our review indicates that the 9mm pistol program is questionable.”

Now, the DOD definitely had something to complain about on the revolver issue: there were several dozen different types of .38 revolvers in various inventories. But as the GAO pointed out, .38 purchases should have been handled collectively. Instead, each service simply purchased commercially available revolvers whenever and wherever it suited them.

So the DOD plan was to replace the 45s and the 38s with a 9mm handgun. They had other options – stick with what they had and fix the weapons as they broke, just use revolvers, just use 1911s, or go with a new 9mm handgun. For a number of reasons, DOD wanted the 9mm. I’ll run through them as briefly as possible. I encourage everyone to read the 30 page report when they have the time.

Who wanted the new handgun?

The Marines and the Coast Guard. Not surprisingly, these were the two services that had the hardest time getting spare parts for their current handguns – up to a three year wait, in some cases.

Why did DOD want a new handgun?

DOD also said that that the new pistol would be more accurate, that 9mm ball would have greater terminal effectiveness than 45 ball, and that it would be safer.

Ambidextrous operation, reduced weight and bulk, acceptability by female users, and the ability to be silenced were also important. Interestingly, the Army and the Navy said these features didn’t matter very much to them. The Air Force didn’t claim to care, but much of the testing cited that was favorable to the 9mm came from the Air Force.

How did DOD justify the accuracy claim?

The accuracy claim was based on testing a 9mm handgun at 50 yards alongside a military 1911 and .38 revolver. While the fixed sights of the .45 were effective at 25 yards, they did not prove effective at 50 yards.

What was GAO’s response?

GAO said that in its research, it found that most handgun engagements occured within 20 feet (or 21, depending on the source). Therefore, a 50 yard accuracy requirement was questionable.

How did DOD justify the terminal effectiveness claim?

DOD used the “Relative Incapacitation Index” to make this claim, stating that the 9mm was 1.6 times more lethal than the .45. It would also be more effective against body armor.

What was GAO’s response?

GAO found a quote by the author of the study used by DOD. The author said “Within the caliber range tested (9mm, .38, and .45), the stopping power increases with caliber, that is the .45 caliber ranks highest.”

On the subject of armor, GAO stated that armor-piercing rounds for both calibers were being developed.

It also stated that significant improvements could be made over the issued ammunition in both calibers. “If stopping power needs to be increased, DOD can explore improvements in the bullets rather than buying a new pistol.”

How did DOD justify the safety claim?

DOD stated that there was no safe way to remove a loaded round from the chamber of a 1911. It cited clearing barrels with bullet holes in them as proof that the 1911 was unsafe. At the time, clearing procedure involved pulling the trigger of the weapon after removing the magazine and racking the slide. In addition, the declining intellectual capabilities of recruits necessitated a safer firearm.

What was GAO’s response?

GAO stated that safety depends on how the weapon is used.”Safety features are only as effective as the user makes them.”

On the topic of a safer firearm – “No firearm is absolutely safe, and any attempt to design an absolutely safe weapon could result in a relatively inert weapon.”

On the topic of intellectual capabilities – “It would seem more appropriate to correct any intellectual deficiencies through recruit screening or improved training rather than procurement for a new weapon.”

What was DOD’s concern with female users?

DOD stated that females could not shoot the .45 effectively, and would need to use a smaller caliber.

What was GAO’s response?

Female users, in a study, shot better with a .38 revolver than a .45 1911 or a 9mm handgun. Weapons that were currently in inventory would satisfy this need.

What was DOD’s final justification for the new handgun?

Public Law 94-361 required standardization with NATO countries.

What was GAO’s response?

The law also required cost, function, quality, and availability considerations, and was not a mandate to discard satisfactory weapons in order to procure new standardized weapons.

Hindsight

I find it ironic that the different models and types of handguns in inventory was a driving force. Back then, we had one pistol – the 1911A1. Now the majority of the military uses the M9, but pilots and other troops use the M11 (Sig P228), the SEALs have both the Sig P226 and the H&K Mk23 (among others, no doubt), super high speed guys are using Glocks in .40, and so on.

I don’t think I need to say a whole lot here, but the military ended up with a handgun – the M9 – that was bulkier than the .45 it replaced, almost as heavy, and which has gained a (undeserved, in my opinion) negative reputation for reliability and (deserved, if ball ammunition is used) negative reputation for terminal effectiveness. If negligent discharges have declined, it’s due to training – but they definitely still happen. As for being suppressed, 9mm ball is supersonic, and 45 is subsonic. Yes, you can use subsonic 9mm ammunition – but reducing the number of ammunition stock numbers was another goal of the program.

It’s pretty clear to me that some folks in the DOD wanted a new toy, and would say anything to justify the purchase. The GAO made a lot of great points that have turned out to be quite prescient. In fact, they’re quite applicable today. Despite pushes to return to .45, the best way for DOD to increase the lethality of the M9 would be to select more capable ammunition – “land warfare legal” be damned.

Despite my personal affection for the M9, I can’t find a single good thing to say about this procurement program. The actions of a few people were downright stupid, and in terms of sidearms, have left the majority of the military no better off now than it was in 1980.

If you’ve had Fox News on in the past few days, or cruised right- or left-leaning blogs or websites in the same timeframe, you’ve probably come across reports that the Department of Justice has dropped portions of a voter intimidation case. Nightstick-wielding New Black Panther Party members stood 5 feet away from a Philadelphia polling place during the November 2008 election, verbally threatening voters and calling a black Republican poll watcher a “race traitor”. You’ve probably also seen video of one of the men involved making incredibly racist statements. I won’t cover that subject very much.

What you may or may not have seen – perhaps you have, if you saw Fox News’ Megyn Kelly verbally destroy Kirsten Powers during a debate on the subject – is that in addition to feverishly attempting to perform a character assassination of the DOJ attorney/whistleblower who resigned as a result of the DOJ decision, left-wing folks brought up an alleged case of voter intimidation in Pima County, Arizona, during the November 2006 election, a case which was not pursued by the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush. This is another “Bush’s fault” attack.

In this case, three men, one openly carrying a Glock handgun, were outside a polling place, allegedly to intimidate Latino voters. Two men are repeatedly identified by name – Russ Dove and Roy Warden, and they have histories of making, shall we say, inflammatory statements. Both have been arrested for various public confrontations with illegal immigration activists. Both, in my opinion, are an embarrassment to true conservatives, just like that moronic neo-nazi, JT Ready. But that’s not relevant.

In this case, they were supposedly photographing voters who didn’t speak English well enough in an attempt to dissuade voting by illegal aliens. Media Matters boldly asserts that the circumstances were “nearly identical” to the 2008 incident.

If you read the last article cited by Media Matters, though, you’ll notice that a Pima County election official makes a reference to events occurring outside the 75 foot barrier between polling places and those who are not voting or assisting those who are voting (among other allowed persons). In other words, the three men were not inside that 75 foot barrier. Many references are made to the fact that Warden was carrying a firearm, although under Arizona law, it is only illegal to carry a weapon into a polling place. It is legal to stand, armed, 75 feet away from one, even if you are not there to vote.

Section 11(b) of the federal Voting Rights Act, however, does not specify that anyone in particular has to be intimidated, only that intent to intimidate is illegal. Thus, anyone (like Kirsten Powers) who says that the NBPP thugs in Philadelphia “didn’t really intimidate anyone” – even though they did – has not read the law and does not know what they are talking about.

Still, isn’t standing 75 feet away from a polling place, armed, taking photographs and distributing a petition to require a perfect understanding of English in order to vote intimidating? That’s the case Media Matters and Kirsten Powers and everyone else on the left is making. They’re also saying that because the DOJ (under “Evil Overlord Bush”) declined to pursue any action, civil or criminal, against the men in Arizona, it is okay for the DOJ under President Obama to essentially drop the Philadelphia case, and stupid for anyone else to talk about it. “Where were you then?!” they cry. The real question, as you will see, is “where did all the lefties go in 2006?”

Clearly, though, the Bush DOJ “acted stupidly.” The whistleblower, Christian Adams, who resigned over the Philadelphia case, must have thrown the Arizona case into the trash because he is a fat white Republican, which is everything that is wrong with America. Again, this is what Media Matters is pushing.

Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case. They do not seem to be willing to dig any deeper than citing the May 2010 testimony of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez, in which the Arizona case is referenced, and news articles about the incident immediately following the November 2006 election. If they did, they might find something…in fact, it’s what you don’t find that is most enlightening.

- The ACLU had been chomping at the bit to attack Ohio over its then-new voter ID law (Arizona had just passed a similar law), which the ACLU said would result in voter intimidation; it was also concerned about voter intimidation in general.

- MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund) is cited by name in most articles, as is the name of one of its’ lawyers, Diego Bernal. The organization seems enraged by the account and states that it has contacted the FBI. They seem to want an investigation.

- The story was posted on the Daily Kos and other such websites.

- The Southern Poverty Law Center already had public “files” on Dove and Warden, one of which specifically mentioned a previous alleged case of voter intimidation.

After that, though – that is, a few days after the election – nothing. Absolutely no reference to the incident in any newspaper in the United States, that I could find, although the local story was picked up by several out of state papers, including the New York Times. One blog provided a link to a MALDEF press release about the incident, which has since disappeared – although other press releases from the same time frame are still online. Sure, there are obscure Youtube references and blog references in 2009 and 2010, not to mention the recent flareup, but these only cite old information. Why were all of those apparently concerned parties no longer concerned?

Because what the men did in Arizona wasn’t voter intimidation. Even according to a blogger who seemed disgusted by their actions and was on scene that day, “nothing happened”. Dove managed to get four people to sign the petition – this is not illegal or a form of intimidation – and Warden apparently did not directly interact with any potential voters. According to the SPLC, “Warden may come off like a raving lunatic, but he is well versed in free-speech and self-defense laws, and he exercises his rights to the limit.”

Presumably, Warden might also be familiar with Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, relating to voter intimidation.

According to AAG Perez, “the standard for proof (for 11(b) violations) is high”. In fact, only three 11(b) violations have ever been prosecuted since its inception. Also according to AAG Perez, “reasonable minds can differ and can look at the same set of facts but draw different conclusions regarding whether the burden of proof has been met.” He apparently liked that line, because he said it several times during his testimony.

Still convinced that this is all Bush’s fault? Well, the individual heading the criminal section of the Voting Rights Division today is the same person that led it back in 2006 – Mark Kappelhoff, who contributed over $2000 to Obama’s campaign in 2008 and over $1000 to Kerry’s in 2004. Thus, he would have had a lot of say regarding whether to proceed with criminal charges in both cases.

As to the supposed failure to investigate the 2006 incident:

“The Voting Section sent lawyers to Arizona to investigate these allegations. They were told that the people in question (who were apparently there with some sort of English-only petition) did not enter the polling place and stayed outside the state-imposed limit around polling places where campaigning is forbidden. No one (including Democratic poll watchers) saw them talking to any voters while they were there — nor could the lawyers find any evidence that they prevented or discouraged anyone from entering the polling place (which is directly contrary to the witnesses in the NBPP case, who testified that they saw voters approaching the polls turn around and leave when they saw the Panthers blocking the entrance to the polling place).”

Thus, Media Matters’ claim that the two cases are “nearly identical” is laughably false, and they would have found that out if they had bothered to do a few hours’ worth of research. Then again, this is the same group that cited fake Research 2000 polls, right along with the Daily Kos (which is now suing Research 2000), because they fit their preconceived notions about the right. The same thing happened here. “It looks good for our side, so don’t dig any further.”

The full decision can be read here.

My favorite quotes from Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion, followed by my translation:

“…a rule limiting the federal constitutional right to keep and bear arms to the home would be less intrusive on state prerogatives and easier to administer.”

Translation: It’s too difficult to protect this right. Additionally, the Framers got it wrong when they made the Second Amendment so broad.

Never mind the fact that the First Amendment states in part “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”, and yet, it has been discussed by the courts for generations and will continue to be discussed as long as the Republic is alive. If only Justice Stevens could stand in front of the Constitutional Convention and explain that defending liberty was just too difficult and confusing.

“Your interest in keeping and bearing a certain firearm may diminish my interest in being and feeling safe from armed violence.”

Translation: Although the Chicago handgun ban has completely failed to prevent handgun violence, it still makes sense in the recesses of my mind.

This is the essence of the dissent: ignoring logic and historical precedent, we personally feel that you should not have this right. Stevens’ first-person description is, in my opinion, telling.

“…although it may be true that Americans’ interest in firearm possession and state-law recognition of that interest are “deeply rooted” in some important senses… it is equally true that the States have a long and unbroken history of regulating firearms.”

Translation: The Court has allowed this injustice to stand for so long that we must simply continue to allow it to stand.

Sounds like squatters’ rights to me. States have squatted atop the Second Amendment long enough that it doesn’t belong to the people any more.

From Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion:

“In my view, (the historical record) is insufficient to say that the right to bear arms for private self-defense, as explicated by Heller, is fundamental in the sense relevant to the incorporation inquiry.”

Translation: Citizens do not have the right to defend themselves in their homes with firearms if their state or local government says they don’t have that right.

I don’t think I need to expand on that point.

“There is… every reason to believe that the fundamental concern of the Reconstruction Congress was the eradication of discrimination, not the provision of a new substantive right to bear arms free from reasonable state police power regulation.”

Translation: As long as everyone’s rights are deprived equally, there’s nothing to see here. Move along, subject.

This (and similar opinions) ignores the historical precedent of gun control legislation being enacted to deprive minorities of the right to keep and bear arms.

“…our society has historically made mistakes—for example, when considering certain 18th- and 19th-century property rights to be fundamental.”

Translation: That private firearm ownership is allowed under current property law is just as bad as when slavery was legal – when one human being had the right to “own” another human being.

“…the Amendment’s militia-related purpose is primarily to protect States from federal regulation…”

No translation is really needed here, though I suppose Justice Breyer is eagerly awaiting a court challenge to the 1916 National Defense Act, which allowed the President to “federalize” the state militias (National Guard).

Perhaps Arizona Governor Jan Brewer could activate the Arizona National Guard to conduct armed patrols on the US/Mexico border in Arizona, with orders to locate, close with, and destroy armed drug smugglers entering the United States, and provide humanitarian aid to illegal immigrants while detaining them for the Border Patrol. Naturally, President Obama would federalize the National Guard troops and order them to conduct useless unarmed patrols. Governer Brewer could then claim that the state’s Second Amendment rights had been violated by the National Defense Act, and Justice Breyer would write the majority opinion which would return control of the state militias to their respective governors. Actually, that probably wouldn’t happen.

“Moreover, the Civil War Amendments, the electoral process, the courts, and numerous other institutions today help to safeguard the States and the people from any serious threat of federal tyranny.”

Translation: Subject, the federal government is here to provide a safe and secure environment for you. You don’t need a weapon to protect yourself against criminals or a tyrannical government!

That’s pretty much what Pol Pot’s troops told the Cambodian people during their disarmament, which preceded genocide. It’s happened elsewhere, too.

I’ll be updating the blog throughout the day as I read more of the opinion(s) of the Court. Make no mistake, all of this adds up to one thing: “reasonable restrictions” aren’t the goal of anti-gunners. Only the complete disarmament of law-abiding citizens will satisfy them. These comments expose their extreme goals.

Understanding Extractor Lift

Alternate link to presentation

This presentation was initially shown in May of 2003; the “other comments” page would seem to be especially prescient in light of all the “improvements” that have been made to the AR platform in the years since. Some I fully support, such as midlength gas systems (especially for 16″ barrels), while others (such as poorly engineered “piston conversions”) I do not.

The following sentence is also quite interesting:

“Case extraction and ejection successfully occur as long as the case is held against the bolt face by the residual chamber pressure while the extractor lifts and returns to position.”

Although it is easy to put together an AR-15 from an amalgamation of random components, it seems lost on many that the AR-15 is a system that must work in harmony. The AR-15 is more than the sum of its parts. Many commercial manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to “improve” the system in order to make it work with cheap ammo, or be cheaper to manufacture, or simply because they do not understand why something was done a certain way. Such actions can reduce the service life of the weapon and compromise reliability.

I say it’s great because I agree with a lot of what it has to say, but it really does have some good info, whether you are a proponent of 5.56 or not.

I’ll let the presentation do the talking.

“Is there a problem with the lethality of the 5.56mm NATO caliber?”

One of the most interesting parts of the file is page 21, which lists muzzle velocities at various barrel lengths, from 8.3″ to 20″.

Feel free, however, to stand a few feet away from the border with them.

The enormity of the vital task entrusted to (perhaps foisted upon would be more descriptive) an inadequate number of Border Patrol agents is not truly apparent until you’re standing on the border. I thanked all of the agents I encountered today. Without exception, every agent was very polite and professional.

The “big fence” becomes a series of welded-together “vehicle barriers”, which gives way to a simple barbed wire fence a few miles later. This is what separates the United States from Mexico. This photo was taken at the border, looking towards the east, from 31.450788,-111.44285 (Lat/long provided for easy Google Maps reference).