The two updated guns. Check below for the originals. At first glance, they’re almost identical.
Read more at Henry: https://www.henryrifles.com/henry-rifles/
The
Henry Repeating Arms Company has listened to customer suggestions,
complaints and issues to address a few problem areas on a couple of
their rifles. I reviewed the two rifles in question last year. That
complete first review is below should you want to see what my originals
thoughts where on the guns.
The .45-70 is easy to identify from the front end.
The .30-30 is a bit more modest.
Large Caliber Rifles
These
rifles are part of the collection of guns that Henry calls Large
Caliber Rifles. The original Henry’s (the 19th century ones) and the
first offerings from the new Henry Repeating Arms Company were all in
rimfire or pistol calibers. It wasn’t until a couple of years ago that
Henry came out with rifles chambered in more traditional rifle calibers.
They chose two of the most classic and capable American rifle
cartridges–.30-30 and .45-70.
Henry sent us one of each of these
rifles in the blued steel frame version. They also offer these in brass
and color case hardened. The guns sent for this review are identical to
the ones sent before save for the changes listed below.
The Updates and Issues
First,
some users experienced the original ghost ring sights running out of
elevation adjustment before being zeroed. I did not experience this
particular issue, but I did not like the huge rear rings on these guns. I
like peep style sights and have them on some of my personal long guns,
but these were just way too big for shooting tight groups, especially
with how wide the front blade was. See below for examples of how big
these were and what were able to wring out of them at the range. Now,
shooting tight groups on paper is not exactly what these rifles were
made to do. These are guns to be used on the field and would be at home
behind the seat of your truck. They also make great whitetail and big
game hunting rifles. The ghost rings do make for fast target acquisition
and are about as good as it gets for quick
throw-it-on-your-shoulder-and-pull-the-trigger type work. But it’s not
too often I find myself needing to shoot like that in the field.
The new rear sight.
The original .45-70 rear sight.
Henry
completely redid the sights on these. The ghost rings are gone and so
is the wide front sight. Now we have the classic, and traditional,
semi-buckhorn sights and a brass bead style front. I worked both guns
out at 50 and 100 yards with much more acceptable results. One string
from the .30-30 was well under an inch at 50 yards. Does the updated
rifle get on target as fast as the older version? No, but its not that
much slower and I have a lot more confidence I could actually hit the
target with the new version.
The new front sight. Taller, and with a nice brass bead.
The front blade on the older version.
The
second issue that Henry addressed was one I did not experience on the
original rifles. According to Henry, the .45-70 had a tendency for the
magazine tube to expand when shooting hotter loads which would cause the
magazine locking mechanism to fail. The original design had a barrel
band that went around the tube to hold it in place. This band also held
the front sight. To fix this issue, Henry scrapped the barrel band and
instead made a beefier mag tube and attached it to the barrel with a
dovetail joint. This also necessitated the use of the new front sight.
The .30-30 version did not have any of these issues reported but Henry
went ahead and made the changes to this rifle as well.
Note how the new sight and magazine tube connect with dovetails.
The front sight on the earlier version was built into a barrel band.
The
3rd and final issue was one that I did have happen to me on the
original, but I thought it was a fluke. Henry had numerous reports of
levers popping open with a loaded chamber. I recall this happening to me
at the range when doing some walking/shoulder firing. I remember
thinking that I must have either not closed it all the way, and since it
only happened the one time. Either way–if it was my fault or Henry’s,
they have corrected the issue was a slight redesign of the action.
Thoughts
I
think the changes to these rifles and how Henry has handled them speak
volumes about this company. They listened to customer issues and
addressed them with changes to their designs. Not only that, if you have
one of the older rifles and have had the above issues Henry will make
the updated changes to your rifle at no cost. That is some good customer
service right there folks. If you are looking for a new lever gun Henry
should be at the top of your list.
The .45-70 from 50 yards.
The .30-30 from 50 yards.
At 100, the shots open up a bit.
the .45-70 from 100.
Testing out accuracy with iron sights at 100 yards tests your skills more than the gun’s abilities.
But
the new sight system works very well and we found it easier to use than
the ghost rings, even though we didn’t have too much difficulty with
those, either.
Rock solid performance in a package that looks great from a company that stands up for their work? Not bad.
And the components of these guns are built for longevity. These are solid working guns.
Last month I conned the nice guys over at Silencer Shop
to lend me three different 9mm suppressors at the same time. I’ve been
Jonesing for one to buy and the opportunity to test three side by side
was too good to pass up. Earlier, we took a look at the AAC Illusion 9mm. This time, let’s take a closer look at the Gemtech GM-9 silencer.
As
the name implies, it’s a dedicated 9mm can but it’s perfectly happy
taming smaller calibers too. It’s rated to handle 9mm in full auto
operation and also 300 Blackout subsonic rounds. Since the GM-9
is completely user serviceable, I wouldn’t hesitate to shoot .22LR
through it either. Even though .22LR is filthy dirty and leaves carbon
and lead deposits everywhere, there’s no harm done as long as you clean
the silencer guts every few hundred rounds. For jacketed 9mm ammo, you
don’t need to be nearly so persnickety with the cleaning regimen.
Top to bottom: AAC Illusion 9, Gemtech GM-9 and Surefire Ryder 9Ti.
The
GM-9 is an evolution from the earlier Tundra and Multimount models so
the mounts remain compatible with Multimount adapters. With the
available Multimount gear, you can use the standard L.I.D. Inertial
Decoupler (booster) for normal pistol operation, a fixed thread mount
for barrel guns, the three-lug mounting system for SMGs, Uzi, and CZ
Scorpion mounts. The unit ships with the booster and a 1/2×28 TPI
piston, which is standard for most pistols.
The GM-9, like many
Gemtech models, is made to be light. As the unit is made primarily of
7075 T6 aluminum, weight is about 25% less than the AAC Illusion and
maybe 15% lighter than the Surefire Ryder 9 that we’re going to check out next week. Depending on the mount, weight will be about 8.5 ounces.
the flat-sided section is the G-Core. Unscrew that and the monocore baffle stack comes out the back.
The
GM-9 suppressor disassembles from the rear. The outermost ring unscrews
to remove the piston and booster assembly. Just in front of the piston
mount, you see a flat-sided section of the tube. That unscrews from the
body and comes out with the one-piece G-Core baffle system. The front
cap is integral with the baffle stack and pulls out the rear also as a
result. It’s a really simple system to disassemble. It’s also apparently
really strong compared to systems that use a stack of separate baffles.
The only thing I would recommend is having a couple of strap wrenches.
As you shoot, the interior gets all carbon welded (as does any pistol
suppressor) and the G-Core baffle stack can be difficult to unscrew. You
don’t want to be taking Vise Grips to the suppressor body to get things
unstuck.
Shooting the GM-9
I shot the GM-9 on a Beretta
92FS with a barrel threaded by Tornado Technologies. Actually, I bought a
second factory barrel that they had already threaded. On the Beretta
92FS, there’s enough barrel exposed in front of the slide to do a decent
threading job without any adapters and such.
Adding a little wire pulling gel to the blast chamber was way too much fun…
For
ammo, I used mostly American Eagle’s new 9mm Suppressor 124-grain 9mm.
Not only is it subsonic, but it’s also designed to generate less powder
filth and muzzle blast. As a result, there was a noticeable lack of
suppressor facial when shooting the Beretta silenced. This was a really
pleasant surprise as normally the Beretta with its open-top slide give
you a face full of grit each time you pull the trigger.
The GM-9 comes with a standard 1/2×28 booster.
The
GM-9 was slightly louder than either the AAC Illusion and the Surefire
Ryder 9-Ti, at least according to my untrained ear. The factory specs
call for a 27 – 30 dB sound reduction, which is a little less than some
other vendors claim. Then again, the big plus of the GM-9 is light
weight.
I also noticed a bit more first round pop – a louder noise
from the first shot fired after the suppressor had been sitting for a
while. That’s because of the ambient air temperature in the can. As the
suppressor warms up with repeated shots, it gets a little quieter.
Note the single piece G-Core baffle stack.
I
also shot this suppressor “wet” by adding about a thimbleful of wire
pulling gel. Available at most hardware and building supply stores, this
stuff has the added benefit over water of sticking to the insides of
the suppressor so you don’t have to shoot it immediately for fear of it
draining out or evaporating. Oh, and the benefit over using oil? An oily
powder blast to the face is much nastier than a relatively dry powder
blast. 4 out of 5 shooters agree.
Anyway, shooting the GM-9 wet
made a huge difference in quiet, especially with the first round pop.
That basically disappeared. The gel sucks up a bunch of heat energy as
it evaporates, allowing the first blast of gas out the fiery end to come
out a little cooler, thereby reducing the noise level. I continued to
shoot after adding the gel to see how long the uber quiet benefits would
last. I noticed that around 16 rounds, the noise started to get back to
“normal” dry operating levels.
American Eagle’s new 9mm Suppressor 124-grain load made a great pairing. No muzzle blast and plenty quiet.
When
it comes to choosing a pistol suppressor, you’ve got to decide what you
care about most. Some are heavy, some are light, and some are louder or
quieter than others. Often times, it’s a direct tradeoff. A quieter
suppressor will be heavier and vice versa. In my opinion, the standout
feature of the Gemtech GM-9 is its super light weight. It’s not quite as quiet as others in its class, but on a pistol, the weight savings is a big deal.
Two classic beauties–the Colt Python (top) and the Smith 686.
Buy a Python–https://www.gunsamerica.com/Search.aspx?T=python Buy a S&W 686–https://www.gunsamerica.com/Search.aspx?T=686
I’ve
got a short list of guns I’d like to see brought back to the market.
Most are classic designs from the revolutionary period between the
development of the brass cartridge and the second world war. Most of
these would fulfill some misplaced nostalgia for an era I only know
through literary interpretations and grainy black and white images. But
there is one modern masterpiece that is no longer being made, and I’m
ready to see it brought back: The Colt Python.
Why
did the guns fade away? The answer isn’t too complex. These guns were
among the last of an era. The smiths at Colt had a lot of man hours in
the finish work on their double-action revolvers. The machines that
produced them were run by humans, and not by computers. And these are
material-rich firearms. There is a lot of steel these old guns, which
adds to the expense and the weight. In a world that’s gone all-plastic,
the Colt revolvers seemed antiquated.
So how is it that Smith
& Wesson continues to pull it off with their production revolvers?
The S&W wheel guns are considered to be the industry standard now.
So the question is this: if the expense of producing the Colt Python was
too much, how is Smith pulling it off with the 686? And what, besides the wide gap in prices, is the difference between these two guns?
The visual distinctions
As
is obvious to those of us with a functional sense of sight, the two
guns we’re comparing are almost identical. If they’d had the same finish
and grips attached, I doubt many of us could pick them apart at any
distance. As is, they’re visually distinct. The old Python is blued. The
686 is stainless. Otherwise, they both feature 6″ barrels and
full-sized frames. There’s nothing compact about these brutes.
The 6″ blued Python.
The 686.
The
grips are the other major variation. The Smith has a black rubber grip
that keeps the backstrap covered. The finger swells and recurve of the
back make it ideal for those who like a custom molded grip. And the
rubber is easy to hold onto. The Python’s grip is not the original, but
close. It closes some of the gap behind the trigger guard, but leaves
the steel of the backstrap against your palm.
But grips on common revolvers are as easy to change as your shoes. So let’s get past that.
Form and Function
This
is an Apples-to-Apples comparison. The 6″ barrels deliver the same
velocity. Both guns are capable of gnat’s-ass accuracy. The weights are
equal. Both have solid triggers. They share the same grip angle. Unless
you’re comparing two 1911s (made by two different companies) or two
AR-15s, it is hard to get any more common ground. Yet these aren’t the
same model, like those are.
Specs–686
Model: 686 Plus Caliber: .357 Magnum Capacity: 7 Rounds Barrel Length: 6″ / 15.2 cm Front Sight: Red Ramp Rear Sight: Adjustable White Outline Grip: Synthetic Action: Single/Double Action Frame Size: Medium – Exposed Hammer Finish: Satin Stainless Overall Length: 11.94″ Material: Stainless Steel Weight Empty: 43.9 oz
Specs–Python
Model: Python Caliber: .357 Magnum Capacity: 6 Rounds Barrel Length: 6″ Front Sight: Black Ramp Rear Sight: Adjustable Grip: Walnut Action: Single/Double Action Frame Size: Medium – Exposed Hammer Finish: Blued Overall Length: 11.5″ Material: Carbon Steel Weight Empty: 43. oz
The sights on the Python are completely adjustable, if not as colorful.
The sight picture on the 686 is very easy to see.
The 686 is my go-to wheel gun.
I’ve written about this before in several posts, but it bears
repeating. I’ve carried this gun for three years or more. It goes with
me when I’m out on the farm, or in the woods, or hunting… I even carry
it when I’m at the range. How many times have you blown through a mag at
the range and left yourself completely naked, so to speak. I’ve got a
cross-draw holster that allows me to wear this while I’m wearing a
strong side holster, which means I’ve always got this option as a
back-up.
And I can shoot it really well in the single-action mode.
I’ve not modified the trigger at all. I haven’t monkeyed with either of
the guns. The Python’s double-action pull breaks at 8 pounds. The
single-action is closer to 3 pounds. The Smith is a bit heavier than
that for the double-action–tripping at 10 pounds, and 2.5 pounds for the
single action pull.
I still shoot the 686 better in single action mode.
The 686 is dead on accurate, even in double action. This is my best group from 25 yards.
One
thing I’ve noticed is that two shooters can engage the same gun
differently. Sam Trisler, who writes a lot of our revolver reviews, can
do respectable work with the single-action on the 686, but his groups
are better with the double-action pull.
I can get all six inside the trigger guard–shooting double-action.
I’m
exactly the opposite with the Colt. While I don’t have anywhere near
the same time behind the trigger on the Python, I’ve shot it enough to
know that I’m better with it in the double-action mode.
So how
would I make a direct comparison when it boiled down to accuracy? Easy.
Both of these guns are capable of superb accuracy. I can shoot ragged
one-hole groups from 25 yards with the 686, and I can do it with the
Colt. Both guns function flawlessly. The balance provided by their long,
fully lugged barrels makes them easy to hold on target. The consistency
of their factory triggers will make you hate your GLOCK.
The
Python has a lot of potential. I can’t imagine a world where the gun
isn’t in production, and where a solid working gun becomes a collector’s
item. But we’re there.
In the end, what is the difference?
Let’s
look at this comparison from a different angle. What if you had these
two guns, side-by-side, with the same finish and grips, but with no
branding? You didn’t know which gun was made by which company. And let’s
also assume that your knowledge of the basic shape of the trigger guard
wouldn’t give one away. Then you got to shoot them. Which one would
win?
For me, it would all come down to how I shoot a revolver. I
like to have the predictability of the double-action accuracy. But a big
revolver (at least for me) isn’t a tool for immediate-action. I’d still
prefer my GLOCK for that. I can still envision a scenario that requires
me to clear leather and put a shot or two on target fast, and I do that
better with the with the single-action mode of the S&W than I do
with the Python. So there–a winner. The 686 comes out on top–for me.
Maybe. They both shoot so well that I’m really hard pressed to choose
one over the other.
It is easy to understand the appeal both of these have for Hollywood.
There
are other considerations, though. The rules of our economy can’t be
ignored. And the 686 is still being produced. Supply and demand are
somewhat equal, which keeps the price competitive. The Python is no
longer in production, which means the supply line exists only as long as
there are used Pythons for sale. This drives up price considerably.
In
short, the 686 is a workhorse (if you’ll pardon the equine metaphor
we’d typically reserve for Colt’s marketing strategies). And the Python
is a safe-queen.
If you are looking for a revolver to take out of
the safe, shoot occasionally–and one that will surely increase in value
the longer you own it, you need a Python.
Proof
that I’m not concerned about preserving the reputation of this
not-a-safe-queen? I had the whole thing coated by WMD. Now she’s even
easier to keep clean.
If you want a revolver that you
can shoot endlessly without worrying about what’s happening to your
investment, test drive a 686. You won’t regret it.
If you are made
of money, and you don’t give a rat’s ass how much a snake sells for,
than you will have a tougher decision. Both of these guns are incredible
examples of old-school American craftsmanship.
I know full well,
though, that almost everyone reading this is very protective of their
hard-earned cash. We can’t afford Pythons. Most of us can’t afford a
686, at least not on a whim.
Hardly a week goes by that I don’t hear about people I know getting their license to carry a firearm. Just
as often, we hear news of a similar sort announcing another area
relaxing restrictions or of a court victory enforcing our Second
Amendment rights enshrined in the United States Constitution. Each of
these little victories makes us each a little safer, but it also carries
a reminder of the responsibilities shouldered by people who have made
the decision to take charge of their own safety.
It’s
not just others that such a kit can help. Simply having a trauma kit,
on your person or nearby, could allow a bystander Good Samaritan to
render aid to you.
What I am about to say next is just my own opinion, but I feel
very strongly about it, so I will be blunt: If you carry a firearm and
you don’t have at least a rudimentary trauma kit that is quickly
accessible, you’re wrong.
Let that sink in for a minute.
Difference Between Life or Death
If you have made the decision to carry a pistol, it only follows that
you prepare to deal with the aftermath should you ever be forced to use
it. Most people have heard the saying “when seconds count, the police
are only minutes away.” The same thing can be said of emergency medical
services. Without prompt action, it is possible to bleed out from a
major arterial wound in only a few minutes. By taking a few basic
life-saving measures, especially with the assistance of a trauma kit,
bleeding can be slowed enough to allow time for advanced medical support
to arrive.
Now, I’m not going to tell you to chase down and try to administer first aid
to some bad guy you just shot out of self-defense. In a violent
encounter it is rare to find only one side injured. Whether you are
providing care to yourself or to an innocent injured bystander, your
actions could make the difference between life or death while you wait
for help to arrive.
It’s not just others that such a kit can help. Simply having a trauma
kit, on your person or nearby, could allow a bystander Good Samaritan
to render aid to you. Some commercial kits even have easy to understand
instructions printed on laminated cards so that an untrained individual
can adequately render aid if necessary.
There
are a few different levels of trauma kits, also referred to as “blowout
kits,” ranging from a full fledged corpsman’s kit down to the most bare
bones trauma kit with only the most basic tools to stop bleeding.
Self-defense incidents aren’t the only time a trauma kit
can come become a lifesaver. Accidental (and negligent) discharges at
the gun range can be just as deadly. Other more common accidents happen
all the time, both on the highways, at work, and at home. A person
doesn’t have to be suffering from a gunshot wound to require life-saving
measures. Trauma can come in the form of major lacerations from an auto
accident or a slip with a knife while preparing a meal. Whatever the
cause of the trauma, it’s important to be prepared to respond quickly
and assertively.
My point in all of this is that you have already made the decision to
be prepared by becoming licensed to carry a firearm. This is not a
responsibility to be taken lightly. You should also be prepared for the
aftermath of the much more common household or auto accidents that turns
deadly.
Not All Kits Are Created Equal
There are a few different levels of trauma kits, also referred to as
“blowout kits,” ranging from a full-fledged corpsman’s kit down to the
most bare-bones trauma kit with only the most basic tools to stop
bleeding. The larger and more advanced kits are great for keeping at
home, at the range, or in your vehicle. The smaller kits are easily
concealed in a purse, briefcase, or even a cargo pocket.
Tools,
whether a firearm or a basic life-saving kit, are only as good as the
person wielding them. You should pursue training on the use of these
kits.
Don’t discount the small compact kits. Having a basic kit that fits
in your cargo pocket is better than a fully fleshed-out kit that you
tend to leave in the house or vehicle. An example of this would be the IPOK (Individual Patrol Officer Kit)
which fits conveniently and compactly into a plastic pouch. The
components of a slightly better, but still very basic kit such as our IFAK (individual first aid kit)
usually consist of the following—nitrile gloves, gauze and bandages, a
few yards of duct tape, and a blood stopper such as QuickClot or some
other brand. The Adventure Medical trauma pack is a good step up from the IFAK with the addition of a tourniquet. More advanced kits than this, such as the EMI Deluxe Gunshot Kit may also have shears, a dedicated chest seal and a tourniquet of some sort.
Of course, you might want a much more advanced kit like the STOMP mobile hospital
that has virtually everything you could need. It’s perfect for your
house or for a remote gun range where medical assistance may be some
time in coming. The point here is that it’s worth it to diversify. Have a
good full-sized kit for the home and range, a moderately-sized kit for
your vehicle and a smaller and easily portable pocket-sized kit that you
can carry around on a daily basis.
Training and Instruction
Needless to say, it would be foolish to simply purchase a trauma kit
and just assume that you are good to go. By the same token, you wouldn’t
buy a pistol and get your license to carry without having had at least
some very basic instruction. Tools, whether a firearm or a basic
life-saving kit, are only as good as the person wielding them. You
should pursue training on the use of these kits.
Having
a basic kit that fits in your cargo pocket is better than a fully
fleshed out kit that you tend to leave in the house or in a vehicle.
Additional training should be sought out every few years after that,
not just to keep your skills sharp, but because medical doctrines change
often with advancing technology and deeper understanding of the human
body. The techniques and skills you learned years ago may no longer be
considered “best practice” for basic life saving or first aid. The
medical use of a tourniquet
has gone from a lifesaver, to anathema as a “guaranteed amputation,”
only to eventually find favor again as one of the most effective ways to
prevent rapid blood loss in an extremity and thus preserve life. Even
basic CPR (cardio pulmonary resuscitation) has gone through numerous
evolutions in just the past few decades.
Preparedness isn’t necessarily stockpiling food, owning a bunch of
ammunition, carrying a licensed pistol, or even just having a first aid
kit. It’s the combination of training, skills development, tools and
gear, and mindset. If you’re of the mind that a firearm is something you
should responsibly carry as a method of being prepared, a trauma pack
should be right next to it on your list.
This only takes about two minutes to protect your privacy and keeps
prying eyes from knowing what’s in front of your house or in your
garage. In other words, it’s one less tool people can use to stalk you
or that criminals can use to case a neighborhood.
It looks like you can get a view of just about any house on Google—even 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
I got a call the other day from a friend who was looking to do some
major renovations on his house. He was talking to different companies in
the Las Vegas area and got a recommendation from someone for a builder.
Supposedly, the builder was a great guy, did excellent work, and was
incredibly wealthy because of his successful business. The friend I was
talking to was going to meet this builder at the builder’s house so he
could decide if he wanted to hire him.
As we were talking on the phone this friend said to me, “I have the
builder’s address and just went to Google Maps to see a picture of his
home. The home looks kind of run down and doesn’t look like the guy has
any money.” Of course, just because someone doesn’t live in what society
considers a “nice house” doesn’t mean the person doesn’t have money.
I’m all about living below your means and not going into debt. However,
the point of this story is how easy it was for my friend to go to Google
Maps and check out this guy’s home.
The fact is, you can type in almost any address in the country and
see the person’s house, what cars are in the driveway, and, if their
garage was open when the picture was taken, you can see any valuables
that were inside the garage. Since I’m all about protecting my privacy
any way I can I personally had my home blurred out on Google Maps and I
would encourage you do the same. “Hiding” your home on Google is very
easy and here’s exactly what you do:
First, go to Google Maps and type in your home address. Once you see
the picture of your home, click on the picture and it will enlarge and
take up the entire screen. In the bottom, right corner of this screen
you will see the words “report a problem.” Click on “report a problem”
and you’ll be taken to a page where you can request to have your home
blurred out. After you’ve submitted your information, you’ll get an
email that says, “Thanks for submitting your Street View report.
We’re reviewing the image you reported and will email you when your
request is resolved.”
When I did this, my home was blurred out within 48-hours. However, if
you don’t hear back from Google I would check their maps in a couple of
days to make sure they took care of it.
Again, this only takes about two minutes to protect your privacy and
keeps prying eyes from knowing what’s in front of your house or in your
garage. In other words, it’s one less tool people can use to stalk you
or that criminals can use to case a neighborhood.
During most of my
shooting life, I’ve trusted Colt handguns, and the very few AR-15 rifles
I’ve deployed have been Colt AR-15s. From the HBAR to the SOCOM
carbine, these rifles have given excellent service.
I’ve watched the AR-15
platform as it’s been modified and improved for tactical use.
Improvements included a removable carrying handle, flattop receiver and
first a quadrail, then Keymod rail
handguards. These improvements, along with modern adjustable tactical
stocks, have improved the efficiency of what was, after all, originally
designed as a rifle for close-quarters combat. I’ve also seen the
average AR-15 rifle exhibit improvements in accuracy.
The Colt Expanse is one of the best things to come from the company in some time. It’s an affordable, Colt-quality AR-15.
The rifles have also become expensive in quality examples. A few
years ago, it became common to see inexpensive rifles offered in the
AR-15 platform. Fit and finish isn’t the best, sometimes the stocks have
a lot of play, and overall the rifles are not as satisfactory as the
better products. Colt remains the AR-15 rifle by which all others are
judged.
There seemed to be a race to the bottom in price and cutting corners.
Despite the corners cut, cheap rifles sold and sold well. Another
phenomenon I find more interesting is the availability of good quality
rifles at a fair price. CORE15
offers its M4 Scout at a fair price, and the rifle is both tight and
good. It is supplied without sights. Smith & Wesson introduced an
inexpensive version of its popular Military & Police AR-15 rifle.
Smith & Wesson deleted the dustcover and forward assist from the
M&P Sport as a cost-cutting measure.
Colt’s rifles stood at the top of the heap on quality, and the
cheaper rifles stood on cheap. But with the CORE rifles and the Smith
& Wesson, there were good-quality rifles selling for considerably
less than any Colt. These rifles offered a good template for later
customization and accessorizing or were just fine for use as issued.
Colt responded with the Colt M4 Expanse. The Expanse is delivered
without sights, forward assist or dustcover. Unlike the Smith &
Wesson M&P, however, the Colt may be retrofitted with a dustcover
and forward assist if desired.
The forward assist may be added at a later date if desired.
My first impression is positive. The rifle’s fit and finish was good,
the build quality was excellent, and the carrier keys were properly
staked. The bore is chrome lined. The safety, magazine release and
trigger action are crisp and positive in operation. Attention to detail
is evident in the rifle. Trigger compression was 6½ pounds (the norm for
production AR-15 rifles). The trigger breaks clean without creep or
backlash. It isn’t the lightest trigger, but it’s reliable and will be
familiar to many soldiers and Marines who wish to own a good-quality AR
like the one they carried in service.
There is no play in the controls, and the rifle feels like any other
Colt. The 16.1-inch carbine barrel features a fast 1:7-inch twist. This
means the rifle will stabilize the heavier class of bullets including
the 77-grain loads. Since the rifle came without sights, the next step
was to acquire a proper set of optics. There is nothing wrong with iron
or red dot sights, but I was interested in fitting a versatile
all-around scope to explore the accuracy potential of the rifle. I chose
the Truglo Tactical Illuminated riflescope.
Truglo Tactical Illuminated Riflescope
Truglo designed
this scope to offer a combination of clarity, precision and speed. The
scope is designed to offer a bridge between the speed of a red dot and
the precision of riflescope. As such, there are inherent compromises,
but for use at 25 to 125 yards it works well. The tube is 30mm rather
than 1-inch. This makes for increased brightness and also a larger range
of adjustment.
The bolt-carrier keys are properly staked in the Expanse, right, just the same as the Colt SOCOM, left.
The scope is offered in 1-4x24mm and 1-6x24mm. Either will do a good
job. Consider your own needs, and the 1-6X may be your best bet. For my
use, 1×4 power is ideal. The mix of clarity and contrast is good. I find
this scope to be one of the fastest to a rapid hit that I have used.
The scope has a wide field of view that, for some, invites shooting with
both eyes open.
If you are young and can adapt, this is the way to go with red dot
scopes and this scope as well when set at 1X. Sometimes you need 4X, and
the 6X scope allows rapid zooming by virtue of an innovative lever
incorporated into the design. The scope is supplied with a monolithic
one-piece scope mount. This scope has pre-calibrated adjustments turrets
for ranges up to 400 yards. The Truglo scope gives you a lot for the
money.
Firing Tests
Initial firing was accomplished when sighting in the rifle with the
Truglo scope. I carefully lubricated the carrier assembly and did not
expect any malfunctions, and I did not experience any. For initial range
work, I used Hornady #80274 55-grain JHP.
This is a steel-case load offered in a 50-round box for economy. The
rifle is supplied with a single magazine. Additional magazines were also
used.
The TruGlo mounting system is rock solid.
The rifle was sighted in using the box method in which I use the
200-yard zero, with the rifle dead on for combat ranges, a bit high at
100 yards and dead on again at 200 yards. I left the rifle on the 1X
setting and proceeded to address a number of modern tactical targets
from Tactical Target Systems. These targets make training interesting
and serve a real purpose in tactical training.
The scope proved to be true to its claim. At moderate ranges—25 to 50
yards—the rifle and scope combination proved fast and effective. The
trigger is controllable, and the rifle is well balanced. When using the
preferred hand-forward method of firing the rifle, control is excellent.
If you are used to the Keymod rail, you may touch the gas block of the
standard M4 rifle. This isn’t something you wish to do.
Absolutes
I fired 150 rounds in initial range testing. It doesn’t take long,
but I do not like to overheat a barrel, so there was an interval between
firing strings. I cleaned the barrel and chamber and addressed 100-yard
accuracy. I used three loads, the Hornady #8026 60-grain Interlock and #80268 75-grain TAP
and the aforementioned steel-case load. I fired three three-shot groups
at a long 100 yards with each cartridge, using the 4X setting. Results
were good.
The forward assist may be added at a later date if desired.
The steel-case load averaged 1.6 inches, excellent for an economical
training load, while the 60-grain JSP averaged 1.25 inches.
Interestingly, this load averages .9-inch in the much more expensive
Colt SOCOM, which also has high-end optics. The TAP load is a highly
developed load intended for critical use. This load averaged 1.3 inches
with a single 1-inch group. Clearly, the Colt Expanse is accurate enough
for any foreseeable chore.
The Colt has proven reliable and accurate enough for any chore short
of long-range varmint control. America’s first black rifle is still at
the top of the heap.
Bob
Campbell is a former peace officer and published author with over 40
years combined shooting and police and security experience. Bob holds a
degree in Criminal Justice. Bob is the author of the books, The Handgun
in Personal Defense, Holsters for Combat and Concealed Carry, The 1911
Automatic Pistol, The Gun Digest Book of Personal Protection and Home
Defense, The Shooter’s Guide to the 1911, The Hunter and the Hunted, and
The Complete Illustrated Manual of Handgun Skills. His latest book is
Dealing with the Great Ammo Shortage. He is also a regular contributor
to Gun Tests, American Gunsmith, Small Arms Review, Gun Digest,
Concealed Carry Magazine, Knife World, Women and Guns, Handloader and
other publications. Bob is well-known for his firearm testing.
When the recently leaked “Panama Papers”
exposed the existence of thousands of offshore bank accounts of the
politically high and mighty, Hillary Clinton quickly decried them as
“outrageous tax havens” for “the super-rich.”
But it turns out that the Democratic presidential front-runner and
her husband have multiple connections with people named in the papers —
including staffers and major donors, McClatchy Newspapers revealed
Saturday night.
Among those named in the papers as using the Panama-based law firm
Mossack Fonseca to set up offshore entities are Gabrielle Fialkoff, who
served as Clinton’s finance director during her first campaign for the
Senate in New York, according to a report published online at mcclatchydc.com.
Fialkoff is also a senior adviser to Mayor de Blasio and director of the city’s Office of Strategic Partnership.
Another name from the papers is billionaire Frank Giustra, a Canadian
mining magnate and longtime crony of Bill Clinton who has donated $100
million to the Clinton Foundation.
Yet another name from the paper is The Chagoury Group, an
international developer based in West Africa that has pledged $1 billion
in projects to the Clinton Global Initiative.
Additional names include Chinese billionaire Ng Lap Seng, who was at
the center of a Democratic fund-raising scandal during the Clinton
administration, and Marc Rich, the notorious international fugitive
pardoned by Bill Clinton in his final hours as president in 2001,
McClatchy reported.
McClatchy Newspapers and some 350 other reporters under the umbrella
of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists have been
pouring over a massive dump of more than 11.5 million Mossack Fonseca
documents, revealing their first findings earlier this month.
The firm has denied any wrongdoing.
“Now some of this behavior is clearly against the law, and everyone
who violates the law anywhere should be held accountable,” Hillary
Clinton said of the scandal at a recent AFL-CIO convention.
“But it’s also scandalous how much is actually legal,” she added.
The Clintons themselves do not appear to be mentioned in the document dump, McClatchy reported.
But their ties to multiple big-money names that turn up in the
documents as using offshore accounts will be sure to fuel the campaign
rhetoric of Bernie Sanders, Hillary’s Democratic presidential rival.
Sanders has condemned Hillary as a wealthy Washington insider who is in league with Wall Street fat cats.
