August 8th, 2016 by jhines

There are many ways to carry your concealed handguns, which brings up the argument of appendix carry vs the four o’clock, small of back or under the armpit position, etc. Appendix carry has grown in popularity, whether that’s by watching too many Hollywood movies or experimenting with the different position. Another thing that’s talked about is the carrier body composition as a factor. Seems like the thinner folks have an easier time concealing the handguns versus another who’s a little on the heavier side.

Appendix carry’s concept is straight forward: The handgun is holstered at the front of the body where the hands are at most of the time. The advantages are many: a fast, intuitive, and easy to draw from nearly any body position; provides excellent retention and some comfort. So how effective is the carry? One way is to implement it through a course of fire, but is that adequate for a gun fight? Maybe, run the test while going through a force on force test with air guns. The results may vary based on your training and experience level.


Here are some sentiments on the subject from Reddit, USACarry and Glock Talk:

Nodpete: I prefer the appendix carry. It just feels better with my body shape and I think that you get less printing at this position. It’s also comfortable when your sitting/driving and doesn’t show when you bend forward. I use an Aliengear Tuck 2.0 and love it. It comes stock with a 15 degree FBI carry but I modified it to the straight up position.

bofh: I carry a Glock 26 (and sometimes a Glock 19 or Glock 20) at 4 o’clock, but that shouldn’t influence your decision at all. There are pros and cons for both. You need to try it out. In any case, a good belt and holster make the difference.

mudshark100: I find 4:00 more comfortable, especially when sitting. But more importantly, consider where the barrel is pointing in both positions. An accidental discharge at 4:00, you maybe loose a little of your backside. At appendix, particularly while sitting, an accidental discharge means major damage into the upper thigh, possibly hitting an artery……or worse yet, the family jewels. Just my thoughts.

grantar2: the answer will be based on feel. I personally carry at 3 0’clock, but I carry a full size M&P. It’s also the position I carry when I compete in IDPA. Appendix position is the stronger position If you are attacked your arms, movement and hands will work best close to center of body. You can bring the gun straight up, roll the wrist for a shot from retention. If the bad guy is driving on you, having your primary weapon behind you even slightly puts your arm in a weaker position. This is true even if your blading into the threat.

At the 4 0’clock position clearing a garment may be harder as well. Practice is what you normally wear will help you decide. The appendix position is easy, grasp and lift shirt, draw weapons. The act of lifting the shirt keeps the free hand out of the way until you drive the gun our and the hand joins up. If you clawing one hand well engaging with the other, being up front is easier as well.

tcox4freedom: I’ve personally seen a close family member shoot himself; severing his femoral artery and almost all the other blood vessels in his upper mangled leg. It took us over 4hr to get him to the hospital because we were so far out in the boonies. He never lost consciousness. (Known other people that have had similar damage and survived as well.) I carry appendix because it’s more comfortable, provides the fastest access (even while sitting & buckled up) and it affords you better retention should you ever find your self in a grappling match with a drunk MMA fighter.

SR9: I carry with more of a 5:00 O’clock position and with the cant of my holster, I see not major problem. If my gun should accidently fire, and considering my age, and build, I don’t have a lot of butt to lose, if any.

Appendix carry with Glock19

Damn_Yankee: Very comfortable even while seated and driving. I am 5′ 7″ and 160 lbs and I can conceal my G19 in just about anything I want to wear.

F14Scott: This $16 holster is thin and perfect. I wear it with a leather gun belt, and it keeps the G19 tight against my belly. It is very comfortable.

ken grant: Tried several different AIWB holsters but then decided on a trigger guard type and it hit the sweet spot for me.
I tried several different lanyard lengths and found one that lets the pistol ride where wanted and also lets it float a little with my movements.
The guard is pulled off as soon as the pistol clears the belt and pointed forward away from my body.

OutWest: I carry a G19 AIWB. My preference is for a low carry. On my body this conceals the best. I’ve tried several kydex holsters and they tend to carry the gun higher than I like. This results in obvious and goofy printing from the grip frame. What I’ve found to work best for me is a cheap Uncle Mike’s cloth holster. It rides low and disappears.
The disadvantage of the low ride is getting a good grip when drawing. As with any holster, practice makes perfect.

Some complaints with carry at small of back

MichaelsPerHour: My issue with SOB is that you’re placing a hard metal object in a place where your body has basically no padding of your spine, which means if you slip and fall on your back, bad things can happen. There are other advantages to AIWB like draw speed, retention, easier to see if your shirt is riding up, etc. But the fear of slipping on ice and making myself a paraplegic is number one.

LumberCockSucker: I never thought of that, I don’t like SOB because you don’t have eyes on the back of your head and it seems like it would be easier for someone to sneak up behind you and snag your firearm.

crazyScott90: I avoid small of back. It’s the slowest draw stroke on the waist, has increased chances of printing/your shirt riding up, and it’s not very comfortable when sitting. Also, if you have to draw while sitting, it’s going to be fairly difficult.

Daraholsters: I carry appendix and 4:30-5 o’clock. I’m female, so I have wider hips than a guy would and these positions are easier to conceal than the hip. I carry with a mid ride & straight draw so I can switch back and forth.

crazyScott90: If you check out our FAQ section, you’ll see I’ve made a point to include some holster options for women. Theres bra holsters and inside thigh holsters to name a couple. Maybe one of those would work.

AnonomyousFemale: I’ve tried the bra holsters but I don’t like looking like I am at Mardi Gras to grab my gun LOL

PincersofPower: It would create a moment of “WTF? Is this woman seriously gonna… Oh shit!” Tactical advantage.

Bottom line is for tactical reason, appendix may rule as the position to carry. For comfort and concealing your print, try a different position. What do you all think?

Video Transcription

[Gunshots] Rich: “Good work Jessica, I noticed you’re running a Springfield XDM today. Is that the type of pistol that you would carry concealed?”

Jessica: “Yes it is. I like the Springfield because for me it’s a lighter gun, being a full-sized gun; it feels good in my hands, and it’s easy to shoot.”

Rich: “Yeah the ergonomics on that are great, that’s why they’re such a popular choice for concealed carry, I think. And I noticed you’re wearing a closed garment right now, in this case you happen to be rocking the Gunsight sweatshirt there, and you’re using that to conceal an outside-the-waistband strong-side carry. and, as you mentioned, with the fullsized XDM. Now, can you walk us through step-by-step how you clear your garment and draw to bring your gun up to the target?”

Jessica: “Yeah, absolutely. First you want to get your garment out of the way of the pistol as much as possible. Get your hand up as far up the backstrap as you can. Then you release from the holster, shoot at your target, then put it back.”

Rich: “And you know, probably there’s a lot of advantages to strong-side hip, which is- we’ll kind of get into that as we talk about different guns, but it’s hot right now, and so you’re probably a little warm in that, but let me walk through first, how to get through an open front garment. You gotta be a little cognizant, because breezes and stuff can expose your gun, and you definitely don’t want that to happen, because then you’re not carrying concealed. But I have an SR-45, which is a forty-five caliber, obviously, it’s a little heavier, it’s a little bigger than the XDM, but it’s a good choice for concealed carry as long as you dress around the gun. Let me demonstrate a draw from this open garment.”

Rich: “So I’m here, I want to get my garment clear of my gun, I’m gonna come up and draw on target-” [gunshots] “-get my shots there, and then also you have to be mindful of your garment when you close so it’s not impeding your ability to holster your gun. So I know you’re from minnesota, and probably something like that feels like a very lightweight thing there, because it’s so darned cold, but we’re not in minnesota now, we’re at Gunsight in Arizona, and I bet it’s probably a little warm in that sweatshirt.”

Jessica: “It is. I’d like to take it off.”

“Well Jessica, thought the idea of taking a break was that so you can get armed.”

Jessica: “Well actually Rich, I am armed. I have the Smith and Wesson Shield, it’s a nine-milimeter, compact pistol, and it’s really lightweight and easy to conceal.”

Rich: “Yeah obviously it’s easy to conceal. You know, the one drawback a lot of people have about that appendix-carry position is that the gun is inside your front waistband like that, is that it’s uncomfortable when you’re sitting down. What’s your thoughts on that?”

Jessica: “Even in a sitting position, it’s still comfortable because it’s so compact.”

Rich: “You’re right, that is a good gun for that appendix-carry position. You know, another benefit to Appendix-carry position that a lot of people overlook is that it keeps the gun oriented in front of your body where it’s easy for you to protect. Imagine carrying a gun in the small of your back, and a breeze blows up, and the thug behind you sees that you’re armed, and you don’t even know he’s there. So this is a real easy way to keep your gun under control. Now, how is the draw stroke from that appendix-carry position different from the draw stroke that you showed us earlier on the outside of the waistband?”

Jessica: “Actually, both of them are quite similar. You get the garment out of the way, Get your hand up as high up on the backstrap as possible, release, shoot-” [Gunfire] “-and then simply safely put it back into your holster.”

Rich: “Good work. And obviously that gun is going to be a little more difficult to shoot, than the XDM that you had earlier, which was a full-sized nine-milimeter. Now this is a compact, a very tiny nine-milimeter, so it’s inherently gonna kick more. I have a gun that’s even much smaller than that, and it’s in my pocket here, it’s a Smith and Wesson Bodyguard, which is a three-eighty. Now, pocket carrying, like anything else, has its pros and cons. You’re not gonna win a quick-draw contest coming out of your pocket, but I could pre-stage my hand on my gun if I’m aware of a threat, I could draw it out-” [Gunshot] “-And get-” [gunshot] “-My rounds on-target just like that. You always have to be careful when you’re re-holstering as well. So, there I go. It’s a convenient way to carry. I have kinda baggy jeans on, it wouldn’t work so well in those jeans, right?”

Jessica: “No”

Rich: “I just don’t have the body to rock skinny-jeans like that, you know?”

[Jessica laughs]

Rich: “But, what is your favorite carry position? I mean we’ve talked about nine-milimeters, we’ve talked about forty-five calibers, we’ve talked about a three-eighty, and carrying them at different locations. What’s your favorite?”

Jessica: “It’s gotta– It’s the Springfield XDM. Nine-milimeter on my hip.”

Rich: “And you know, I can’t argue with that, because if I knew that trouble was gonna come, I would wanna be able to access my gun in a hurry, just like that. Good stuff Jessica, thanks for your help.”

Jessica: “Thank you so much.”

Source: Reddit, USACarry, GlockTalk, GunsandAmmo Video
Photos from Google Image

Posted in Handguns Tagged with: , , , ,

July 31st, 2016 by Sam Morstan

Magpul Expands Into Traditional Rifle Stock Offerings, Including A Model For The Remington 700


Magpul Industries has long been known for manufacturing superior rifle (and now pistol) magazines, as well as improved stocks for ARs. The company is now expanding into more traditional rifle stocks and is taking them to new levels.

I was recently sent a Magpul “Hunter” stock for the Remington 700 series rifles to test. Now, admittedly, I’m not much of a hunter. I choose to spend my shooting time a bit more tactically, but with that said, I really do like this stock.

The version I received was in basic black, but other available colors include flat dark earth, stealth gray and olive drab green. This stock features reinforced polymer construction, and includes such unique features as a spacer adjustable length of pull with a range of adjustment from 13 to 15 inches in half-inch increments. That is a wonderful addition to any stock, in my opinion. I think of myself as an average-sized guy (5-foot-9, 170 pounds), but I’ve yet to find a stock that fits me out of the box. The ability to simply add or remove spacers to get the gun to fit me the way I like it is an excellent improvement over a “standard” stock.

Another unique addition is the ability to adjust the height of the cheek piece. A high cheek riser kit is available that enables users to modify the height of the stock comb and allow a proper cheek weld behind a scope. Most “hunter” stocks seem to be set for iron sight use, and adding even a low mounted scope forces the shooter to compromise a good cheek weld to use the scope. This leads to less accuracy and a slower shot, as the shooter has to find the eye box behind the scope. Not with this set-up. Simply mount the gun to your shoulder, get a solid cheek weld and the crosshairs are right in front of your eye. Nice!

The stock comes out of the box it set up to use both the OEM bottom metal and the blind magazine standard on the Remington 700 series rifles. There is, however, an option to replace that with detachable AICS-pattern magazines. A section of M-LOK compatible slots in the forend make attaching accessories easy and fast. This is a “drop-in” product. No fitting or inletting is required.

The Magpul Hunter stock makes an excellent after-market addition to a Remington 700 short-action series rifle.

Here’s some sentiments on the Magpul Hunter 700 stock from Reddit and AR15 Forum:
heathenyak: picked up an older 700 bdl the other day in .338 win mag because why not. The action is smooth as glass. I’ll be taking it out to the range next weekend or the following

nomadicbohunk: It shoots sub moa no problem. We’re actually pretty impressed with it. The only work I’ve done to it was to stiffen the stock and bed it. He wishes he’d have bought a few of them.

tomj762: Yeah I thought it was the Remington 770 that gets a lot of hate. The 700 gets accreditation for being a rifle you can buy for under $1,000 and get out of the box 1,000 yard precision.

Chowley_1: Or spend $650 for a Tikka and have a vastly superior rifle.

wags_01: Bolt gun mags aren’t cheap. AICS .308 mags run ~$70 too.

Isenwod: Considering it’s been the platform for every military sniper rifle since the 70s, I would say not.

morehousemusicplease: grip angle is excessive for my liking price isnt bad at 260 which puts it in line with the b&c.

The_Eternal_Badger: Admittedly no one has really handled or used the Magpul stock yet, but if it’s up to their current standards I can’t see how it wouldn’t be a better deal with equal or better performance out of the box.

THellURider: Honestly – I’ve wondered why they hadn’t released this many years ago. And then I remember that they’re more a marketing and design company than a manufacturer of anything with more than 1 moving part.

Hunting rifle: Going to be tough to beat a B&C Alaskan (I or II) or if you’re going to go spendy, McMillan Edge.

KC45: I’ve never been much of an aftermarket stock guy. I bet for 99% of shooters here a decent factory stock will do just as well and the money they save would be better spent getting some good precision shooting training/instructions and on ammo (or components). It’s the indian…not the arrow

JohnBurns: Mid-priced platform for bench shooting? Sure. That style of hunting, that guy’s set up is all wrong. Ultra light hunters want small, light, compact rifles with small, light scopes. Leupold VX6 2.5-10, McMillan Edge, on a light profile 260 rem – yes.

Lost_River: Great video quality. However it pretty much showed nothing in regards to technical information.

Bubbatheredneck: What does it offer vs the AICS? And no mountain hunter is gonna lug that beast around very long if it is as heavy as it looks..

Dash_ISpy: I like my Magpul 870 stock. Id probably get one of these as well. I wonder if itll be easier to integrate a mag. Im not excited to spend $300 extra just for a mag.

bulldog1967: it doesn’t do anything my Tikka T3 in .270 WSM doesn’t do.

Foxtrot08: That set up will be my next rifle. My current rifle is an older M700 long action, in 300WM on a B&C Alaskan II stock. Barrel has been blue printed, and bolt has been fitted. Not 100% light weight, but I haven’t needed it yet, as I only do day hunts on the western slope of Colorado.

LuvBUSHmaster: My .300 WinMag 700 BDL could use some MAGpul love but I need specs and a Long Action Model.

RePp: I don’t need another stock but for that price it will be very hard to beat. Now those magazines I will buy a shitload of. A polymer AICS mag like that will be a huge hit.

If you are looking to upgrade your Remington 700 stock, be that of your favorite deer rifle in .308 Win, a suppressed 700 SD in 300 Blackout or any other short- or long-action 700, you should give this option a good long look. ASJ

Posted in Long Guns Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

July 27th, 2016 by jhines

Depending on what the AR’s or Mini’s are used for, we can all agree that the AR’s is better for most situations. (SHTF, home defense, hunting, etc..) But, if we talk talk about the costs to have either a low end or tricked out piece of hardware, I guess the discussions can go on almost forever with the die hard AR’s and Mini-14 folks. Or, better yet which one is most accurate?

Let’s hear what some are saying at AR15Forum and Reddit:

Poison_Tequila: the truth is a little different. An AR can be picky or reliable, a mini is probably more accurate than 95% of shooters. Comparing an AR to a mini is a little like comparing an iPhone to some Android device. There are plenty of great android devices but with a million manufacturers and so forth it can be hard to decide who is good and who is bad.

I like wooden stocks so I have a mini. I love it, it throws brass a long way. It throws steel a long way. I can hit a paper plate at 200 yards. That said the AR is cheaper (maybe) more fun to build (really) and just about as much fun as you can have with a gun.
If you want an out the door cheapish shooting gun, go mini. If you want a great experience the, you want to be one with the rifle, (if your range time is limited) go AR. Though I don’t think you can really go wrong either way.

LCDJosh: Unbiased appreciator and user of Ak,AR15,Mini14 platforms here: The new Mini 14’s have a different, heavier barrel and are significantly more accurate. This change was made around 2005.

The newer Minis are also not as finicky about mags as the older models. I like Ruger factory mags the most, but I’ve never had a faliure to feed from the cheap plastic eagle mags(not the greatest feed lips though), the polymer thermolds(though I do not recommend thermolds because I couldn’t insert the mag with the bolt closed), or even the pro mags.

AdmiralTiberius: Biggest advantage is if you were either living in a place you have to be 21 to purchase a “military style rifle” (i.e. Minnesota et al.) or need a permit to purchase a “military style rifle”. Also, mini is cheaper, and looks more classic, grunt, m1 style badass instead of modern, stealth, badass.
Edit: also I don’t buy the accuracy argument. $100 says 95% of shooters can’t put rounds down accurately enough to matter. If you can, that’s awesome, but I haven’t invested the time to be an expert marksman; I just love guns.
Edit 2: just thought of this. Mini is a simple gun. If it were a “survival” or brush situation or whatnot, I would absolutely pick the mini. Quick and dirty teardown, can get dirty, rugged in my opinion. But… If you plan to oper8, obviously pick ar.
Edit 3: mounts on mini are shit. Biggest weakness imho.

LCDJosh: I neither live in a state that has regarding age or needing a permit. I actually thought the Mini-14 would have been A- cheaper then the because its made with wood furniture or B- More accurate than the AR.

DaSilence: I inherited the Mini-14, and rarely shoot it.
The AR is the barbie doll of guns. You can do literally anything you want to it.
They’re both fine rifles, and either would be a good choice.

white17509: The minis are OK as long as you get a ranch rifle. They are later in production and have a better rear sight and known to be more accurate. You will have a harder time finding mags.
AR-15 style rifles are as good as the parts they are built from. Comparing a cheap poly AR and a ranch rifle, the ranch rifle wins. But generally and decent AR beats a mini in adaptability, parts availability/price, magazine availability, accuracy and ease of use. Your wife may benefit from the adjustable stock. Also, you can swap out uppers intended for different applications.

9millaThrilla: I got a mini due to a local AWB. Every day I wish I could get an AR. I really like the action of the mini, but mag changes and the ergos of the AR are much smoother. Plus the fact that every part you’ll ever need for an AR is readily available locally while mini parts need to be found online makes it a more versatile weapon and easier to maintain in a pinch.

mewarmo990: OP, whichever rifle you pick I don’t think you will regret it. But here’s my two cents:
After some consideration, I went with the AR-15 because I wanted to put it together myself, and learn a thing or two about rifles while I was at it.
Since I parted it together a little bit at a time over most of last year, I was able to build a considerably nicer rifle (maybe $1300?) than I would’ve had if I had bought a complete rifle on an immediate budget of around $800.
That said, I have shot my friend’s Mini-14 a bit and have only good things to say about it. The only thing that could have been better were the “ghost ring” iron sights – if I bought a Mini I would personally put the excellent Tech Sights on it for the (American) service rifle aperture sight picture I am used to.
As others have said, the mechanical accuracy of the Mini-14 is going to be somewhat less than an AR-15 — especially if you’ve built the AR to be more accurate than stock M4 style setup — but unless you are seriously into rifle marksmanship you will never see the difference.

Fozzy: I’d go with the AK. My mini 14 is the least accurate and least reliable gun I own. Granted it is an older model one, so it ‘s expected to be a little inaccurate, but I also have not found any mags that are reliable enough for me to trust the rifle if SHTF. If I were you, I’d tell him to get the AK, or be a good friend and spend some time talking him in to an AR.

PredatorWhacker: I’ve had several minis over the years and currently have one of the newer ones. They are ok rifles if expectations are not that high. They are robust. With my handloads it is pretty accurate. (for a mini) Right at 1 1/2″ groups. With ball ammo it is typical mini accuracy. About 6″….with a scope. I haven’t employed any of the touted accurizing techniques other than retourqing(sp) the gasblock, which did help.

My complaints with the mini –

Spare parts availability.
Mag price and availability (although much better in recent years).
Long term durability.
Hard usage durability, like extended firing. Not designed to be drug around in conflict long term.

At the moment for AK pattern rifles I only have a Norinco 7.62×39, Arsenal 5.45×39 and IMI Galil 5.56. All these will shoot more accurately than the ball ammo fueled mini.

Moondog: Take your friend to the range, and demonstrate the reliability of the AR platform. Also, give him a history lesson about how the AR has been improved in the last 45 or so years, and part of the problem in Vietnam was bad ammo.

The arguments goes on and on, tell us what your experiences with either and what you prefer.

Source: and Reddit/guns/

Posted in Just Plinking Tagged with: , , ,