Again, new video format. Will supplant, not replace, older style videos if it is well received. The goal is to create a descriptive 1 to 2 minute video on a firearm or accessory.
Category Archives: Firearms
Bushmaster 308 ORC Followup
After changing a number of components, the rifle appears to be working properly again. The items that were changed include:
Swap from AR-15 collapsible stock tube to Vltor AR-10 collapsible stock tube
Replacement of cutdown aluminum buffer body containing two tungsten weights (weighing 3.8oz) with steel buffer body containing two tungsten and one steel weights, resulting in a weight of 7oz.
Replacement of stock short action spring with Tubb CS flat wire spring
Addition of o-ring on extractor spring.
Individually, these changes only reduced the number of malfunctions; all were required to (seemingly) eliminate them.
Very observant viewers may notice a little bolt bounce; this may be reduced with the replacement of the one steel weight with yet another tungsten weight, but I’ll be doing more testing to see how reliable it is before I say for sure that that’s the setup I want to use. I’m more concerned with consistent extraction and ejection at the moment, and high speed video seems to show that the weapon is working properly in that regard.
The video is pretty boring, but here it is:
Filed under Firearms
Bushmaster .308 ORC 1 Minute Review
Normally, when I do a review, I talk, or type…you know, describe the weapon or component that I’m reviewing.
In this case, though, I think this video (and very little text) does a pretty good job of describing how the weapon has performed so far. I’m not giving up on it, mind you.
The third video clip is what I’d like people who say “if it works, it works” to pay special attention to…
Filed under Firearms
Sionics Carbine Followup
I’ve been working on a lot of stuff lately, and will post some of that “stuff” soon, but I need to take care of a number of reviews or comments that I should have posted months or weeks ago first. One of those items is a followup to the Sionics carbine “initial look.”
Basically, the Sionics carbine is built with Daniel Defense components on non-DD upper and lower receivers that are selected to have a tight fit and nice appearance. I was loaned one for T&E last month.
I filmed a decent amount of video while shooting it (including some comparisons between various stances and “holds” using high speed video), but am still having issues with my computer overheating when processing video. I’ll have to post that on Youtube later.
Until then, the bottom line is that the Sionics carbine worked without a hitch, though the total round count was just under 200. I used Wolf, Silver Bear, my own handloads, and some Federal XM193. The weapon was already sighted in, so I spent all of my time and ammunition shooting at a steel plate about 180 yards away. “Sub-MOA” accuracy isn’t required for that, but consistently hitting the plate was a very easy task.
As I’ve mentioned in other reviews, I like weapons that have appropriately sized gas ports. The general perception of how a midlength shoots versus how a carbine shoots (that is, the perception of less recoil with the midlength) approaches the region of splitting hairs when you’re working with a carbine that has a properly sized gas port and a heavy buffer. The Sionics carbine was no exception, and I found it to stay on target between shots just as well as any other similar M4-type carbine.
I am mostly concerned with how well a weapon is able to put rounds on target, but I do know that a significant number of AR-15 owners (perhaps better referred to as a “vocal minority”) value fit and finish as highly as they do function. I don’t have any complaints about how the carbine worked – and I don’t think there would be many complaints from the “vocal minority” about how it looked, either.
Filed under Firearms
Sig P226 X-Five Tactical
I had originally intended to make a video about this pistol, but my CPU is now overheating whenever I ask it to process video. Until I can get that sorted out, here’s a (fairly) brief article.
The P226 X-Five Tactical can be looked at in one of two ways. First, you could say that it’s a P226 on steroids – and that’d be true. Second, you could say that it’s a “regular” X-Five that’s been “watered down” a little – and that would also be fairly true. But is that a bad thing? In my opinion, no, it isn’t.
The biggest differences between the X-Five Tactical and a regular P226R are the 5″ barrel and slide (hence the X-Five name) and the external safety which sends a loud and clear message that this is no “regular” P226. Instead, it’s designed to be carried cocked and locked, just like a 1911.
The biggest differences between the X-Five Tactical and its earlier (and more expensive) brother, the X-Five Competition, are the aluminum frame, night sights, accessory rail, lack of an extended magwell, and magazines.
Are these negatives? Well, more weight is fine for competition use, most IDPA/IPSC matches occur in broad daylight and do not require or even allow the use of weaponlights, extended/flared magwells aren’t a necessity on a double stack handgun, and while the higher capacity X-Five magazines are nice, they’re also hard to find and expensive. The X-Five Tactical, on the other hand, can easily use standard P226 magazines – definitely a bonus from a cost and availability standpoint.
In other words, the X-Five Tactical retains the features that would interest me, while discarding those which are of limited value outside the competition arena – with a corresponding reduction in price. Good deal? I think so.
The weapon offers an ambidextrous safety with very positive engagement/disengagement “clicks”. My only complaint is that its location is close enough to the slide release (yes, I just called it a slide release!!!) that resting your thumb atop the safety could cause the slide to not lock back when the last round is fired. This is a training issue to be aware of, not a serious problem with the weapon.
Notice the holes in front of and below the trigger guard – those are for pull weight and overtravel adjustments (which, apparently, do not apply to the Tactical). Even if they weren’t dummy holes, I’d leave them alone – first, it’s not my firearm, and second, the trigger is quite amazing as-is.
The best way to describe the X-Five’s trigger would be to say that it feels like clicking a mouse button – to include the incredibly short reset. This, of course, lends itself to very precise, accurate, and rapid fire. There are no excuses to be made when you’re shooting this handgun – if you miss, it’s not the fault of the weapon.
Speaking of accuracy and precision, here’s the test target. The outer blue circle (of the stamp) is 2″ – which is apparently the maximum allowable group size. Center to center, the 5 shot group is 1.6″. Considering that it was probably shot with standard ammunition, at 25 meters, that’s very impressive. Wikipedia says that X-Fives shoot 1″ at 25 yards before they leave the factory – this is clearly not true, but the weapon is still capable of great results in the right hands.
In terms of “shootability” – this is a fantastic handgun. I’m big on weight and balance for cars, airplanes and AR-15s, but I don’t always think about it with handguns. Sig clearly gave thought to weight and balance when they designed this weapon (All of the engineers who were supposed to pay attention to how the 229R balanced worked on this project instead). Combined with the phenomenal trigger, this makes the X-Five Tactical a handgun that you could, with very little instruction, have most new shooters proficient with in a very short period of time. There’s nothing about the way the weapon handles, shoots, or operates that “fights” with the shooter.
I’ll briefly touch on quality control – this firearm is made entirely in Germany, but even if it wasn’t stamped on the slide and laser engraved on the frame, you’d probably be able to tell. This is a big step up from the half German/half American pistols that have earned Sig a few black marks in recent years.
Hopefully, I’ll be able to make a video pretty soon – if not, I’ll just write articles for a while. Thanks for your time.
Filed under Firearms
Sionics SAR-15
It’s that day of the week again – another AR-15 review on Vuurwapen Blog.
This time, the rifle comes from a new company with an old name – Sionics Weapon Systems.
Without going into too much detail, an unrelated company named SIONICS (Studies In the Operational Negation of Insurgents and Counter-Subversion) was founded in the ’60s by, as the Los Angeles Times described him, a “flamboyant soldier of fortune.” The company made sound suppressors for several weapons before drifting into oblivion as its founder was eventually arrested for allegedly being hired by Larry Flynt to kill Frank Sinatra.
The company of today shares nothing but the name with the company of old; Sionics Weapons Systems (no longer using the acronym SIONICS) focuses on the assembly and sale of AR-15 pattern weapons, not suppressors and celebrity assassinations.
The owner of the company wanted to produce an AR with specific design criteria:
– Utilize quality components
– Ensure tight upper/lower receiver fit and matching anodized finish
– Eliminate as many logos as possible
The result is the SAR-15. I was loaned a T&E sample for the purposes of this review, but had a chance to examine several other SAR-15s as well. This particular model sells for $1,049 with the MBUS rear sight, but without the RVG vertical grip.
In terms of upper and lower fit, the SAR-15s ranged from “tight” to “where’s my hammer and punch?” I prefer a looser upper/lower fit for easy disassembly without tools, but a sizable portion of the AR market does put upper/lower fit high on their list of desired attributes.
The owner stated that the logo was chosen to be “neutral” in the event a police officer equipped with a Sionics rifle used it in an on-duty shooting; more aggressive logos, he felt, would not be beneficial in this instance.
Speaking of logos, other than the one seen above and the logos on the Magpul accessories, there are none to be found on the weapon. As with upper/lower fit, a number of people prefer ARs that do not have obvious manufacturer logos. Those two groups often overlap, so some might be pretty interested in the weapon on that basis alone.
From my observations, people who don’t like excess logos generally don’t like HK-type bullet pictogram markings, especially those with markings in the full auto position, and on the right side of the lower. However, a lot of people do like them, and you can’t please everyone. I doubt that alone will cost Sionics many sales.
Other than the upper and lower receiver, and the Magpul accessories, all of the components used come from Daniel Defense. The owner of the company wanted to source as many parts as he could from just one company, and Daniel Defense was able to provide what he needed. All SAR-15s have hammer forged barrels, M16 carriers, and mil-spec diameter receiver extension tubes, among other features. We’ll get to those in a second.
One of the first things I look at when I pick up an AR is how it was assembled. Certain things are pretty easy to see – whether the receiver extension tube, for example, was held from rotating while the castle nut was torqued. It doesn’t affect function, but it shows how much attention the assembler paid to the task at hand.
Another easily identifiable item is the muzzle device. Of the 4 SAR-15s I examined, 3 were perfectly timed; the one I received for T&E was off by just few degrees. However, as it had been used by other people before me, I can’t say that it was assembled that way. It’s possible that someone removed and reinstalled the device while using a sound suppressor that required a unique mount.
The front sight base is F height and attached with taper pins.
As mentioned previously, the barrel is a DD hammer forged unit, which means that it’s 4150 steel, 1/7 twist, chrome lined, with a 5.56 chamber and leade.
M4 feedramps were machined prior to anodizing and heat treating. The chrome plating is easily visible in this photo.
As stated previously, the weapon uses an M16 pattern carrier group sourced from Daniel Defense. The key was properly staked, and although the bolt was unmarked, DD states that they HP and MP test all their bolts and barrels. Although a notched hammer is used, the carrier is of the shrouded firing pin design.
The BCG does not feature a logo.
I do like the MOE grip and handguards, but am not convinced that the stock is a worthy upgrade over the standard M4 type, for I like both the friction lock and the QD sockets offered by the Magpul CTR, and the MOE offers neither. Other than a decent rubber buttpad, I just don’t see what it does that an M4 stock doesn’t do – beyond not look like an M4 stock.
The ubiquitous PMag is an excellent choice for an OEM magazine, and one that more and more manufacturers are choosing on what seems like a daily basis.
Moving on to the lower… I should mention that the receivers are 7075-T6 aluminum and Type III hard anodized, as per usual. As those who’ve seen the DD LAV video know, it’s also important that the lower is “nicely engraved, not rollmarked” and features a “nice beveled magwell.”
Those who seek perfect fit and finish might be disappointed by the little ding next to the bolt catch roll pin hole. It’s possible that this lower was chosen for T&E and not retail sale because of the ding – a similar mark is the reason one of my Bravo Company lowers was considered a “blem” and sold at a discount. I did not see similar dings on the other SAR-15s, but then again, I did not have as much time to look over them as I have had to look over this one.
I would prefer a little more staking on the receiver endplate, but was pleased to see that an effort had been made. High volume manufacturers use machinery to ensure consistent and forceful staking on this and other areas, but smaller manufacturers may not have the capital or space for this.
The receiver extension tube is mil-spec in diameter and offers six adjustment notches.
All Sionics carbines come with H buffers. I’m glad to see that they made this choice over the carbine buffer.
I’m not a huge fan of notched hammers, but all Daniel Defense lower parts kits come with their peculiar hammer design, so there wasn’t much of a choice to be made.
I also like to see grease on the fire control group contact points, and was disappointed to not see it here, but it’s possible that whoever used the weapon before me removed the grease during a cleaning session.
Conclusion
I will have a range report shortly, but based on my initial observations, the owner of the company appears to have done exactly what he set out to do: build a quality carbine, devoid of logos or markings, with a focus on tight upper and lower fit. The quibbles I have with the assembly of the weapon are easily rectified and often self-correcting as the company matures – note the low serial number of this T&E weapon. Both the owner and the gunsmith expressed a willingness to change their practices as necessary.
I do think that Sionics faces a tough road ahead – there’s no shortage of competition offering cosmetically identical weapons, and new companies often face skepticism from potential customers. However, those who value the concept of matched upper and lower receivers for a tight fit but still want features such as 1/7 twist and a chrome lined, hammer forged barrel might wish to investigate what Sionics has to offer.
Filed under Firearms
PlumCrazy C15 Lower Receiver
Though prices have dropped recently, paying $100 for a stripped AR-15 lower receiver was considered a pretty fair deal for quite some time.
Of course, stripped lowers need a few extra parts before they’d be ready for use with an upper – so another $100, at a bare minimum, would be spent on a lower parts kit and a stock assembly.
Several months ago, however, a very affordable complete AR-15 lower became available – one that can currently be found for about $120 online.
“There has to be a catch,” you say. Well, yes, there is. It’s a composite lower.
Called the PlumCrazy C15 (but referred to by most as the “plum crazy lower”), it weighs 1lb, 11 ounces with an M4 type stock that weighs 7.5 ounces. For comparison purposes, an assembled aluminum lower with a lower parts kit and receiver extension tube installed – using a carbine buffer and spring – weighs 1lb, 11 ounces. In other words, the C15 assembly is about 7.5 ounces lighter than a standard lower assembly.
As if having the lower made from a composite material wasn’t enough, the fire control group is also polymer. The receiver has also been thickened – slightly – in certain areas.
Certain components, however, remain standard metal fare – the bolt catch, for example, and the castle nut.
The receiver extension tube, too, is not polymer. It appears to be a “regular” commercial spec, 6 position, slant back tube – and it was indexed properly, which impressed me. It’s worth noting that the slant back tubes can be an ounce or two heavier than mil spec tubes – and Colt/BCM type M4 stocks are also about an ounce lighter than the C15 stock – so if weight reduction is the ultimate goal, ditch the stock and RET for lighter milspec components.
The supplied buffer was anodized black (I would hazard a guess that the anodizing was not Type III, due to some wear patterns – but I could be wrong) and weighed 2.8 ounces.
The receiver endplate is unstaked, but this is probably not a huge deal to the average purchaser of the C15.
The magwell features a nice flare, and the trigger guard is molded as part of the receiver. It’s straight – not bowed like the “enhanced” trigger guards out there. The finishing work – removal of flashing and so on, which is done by hand – appeared, to me, to be well done.
Fit with a variety of upper receivers was extremely tight, even after repeated “mating” cycles. In addition, the pivot pin is flush with the surface of the receiver, requiring more than just finger pressure to pop out. I found this to be fairly annoying.
In actual use, I found the trigger to be quite nice, with negligible creep and a fairly light pull weight. I attempted to use it with the Spike’s 5.45 upper – polymer components would be ideal for low-maintenance use with corrosive ammunition – but after doubling on the first trigger pull, the hammer spring wasn’t powerful enough to reliably fire the hard primers of the surplus ammunition.
With a 5.56 upper, I experienced no further issues with the fire control group, and a cursory inspection left me puzzled as to the exact cause of the double.
I then used the C15 lower with a .22 conversion, and believe that I found its true calling. While most of my shooting revolves around the defensive use of semi-automatic firearms, an afternoon with a brick of cheap .22 is undeniably fun. Using the C15 in conjunction with a light upper – say, a 16″ A1 profile barrel with a Troy TRX 9″ handguard – would allow an for an exceptionally light firearm that I would consider to be ideal for introducing new shooters to the AR15 platform, especially in .22LR guise. With a heavier upper, however, the removal of 8 ounces resulted in a forward CG shift that I didn’t particularly like. Of course, those seeking a lightweight AR are not likely to stop their weight removal efforts at the lower, so this is probably not a huge issue.
Although “torture testing” the lower would seem to be right up my alley, the lower was a loaner, and I had no intention of breaking it. I may, in the future, purchase one with the intentions of finding its breaking point, but spending $120 on something that I intend to break isn’t exactly an attractive option at this point, when I could spend the same money on items that would provide more “testing value.”
One possible use that was suggested to me was as a “bury in the backyard” weapon, or weapons – buy half a dozen C15s and low-cost uppers, bury them in some sort of container, and forget about them until the zombie uprising. I’d counter with the opinion that without knowing exactly how many anti-zombie squad members needed to be equipped, 4 slightly more expensive (or higher quality) ARs might be better than 6 lower cost ones – or that cheap AKs might be a better solution altogether.
Though I am not afraid of polymer weapon components, I have to say that I’m not entirely sold on the C15 concept. Yes, it’s cheap. Yes, it works. No, it’s not likely to break under the conditions that the majority of civilian-owned ARs find themselves in. Yes, the trigger is very good, especially considering the price.
But with cheap lowers for $60 and LPKs for $50 – and cheap stock assemblies for $30 or so – if cost is the driving factor, the additional $20 one would spend on an aluminum lower would seem, to me, to be cheap insurance.
Filed under Firearms
Vuurwapen Blog 