Short Story Project

So, I’ve been working on a MHI fan story the last couple days. It’s not something I plan to publish. In fact outside of posting it here I’m not doing anything with it. As some of you know the author of Monster Hunter International, Larry Correia, is a friend of mine. I wouldn’t want to step on his toes. I just wanted to throw my two cents in and bring in some Gundoc perspective.

I’m about half done and will make it live ASAP.

1 Comment

Filed under Because Gundoc Says so, Just for giggles

Breaking News

This just in, Gun Rights Radio Network calls it quits. Crusader Podcast Network still standing.

That is all?

Leave a comment

Filed under Gear

The Big Move

Well, the big move is over. For those who didn’t know Crusader, and the family with it, just made a huge relocation. We left Utah leaving behind the “conservative” politics that never really reaches the mark of actual conservatism, high state taxes, taxes on anything they can think of just to find another way into your pocket, and feeling stuck in the city. Although Utah did have great gun and knife laws.

But then I’m loosing Mike Lee…but gaining Ted Cruz. Loosing Goveror Herbert (hippie with an R behind his name) and gaining Rick Perry. Something tells me we’ll be alright.

21613 Texas Star 24 x 24 x 15 oil on canvasCrusader is now in the great state of Texas. No state taxes, no expensive licensing a much larger gun culture and a better education system for the kids. An all around win.

I’m really looking forward to being an active part of the shooting sports industry here. Competition, hunting, and just teaching the kids to shoot better are all on the table. Of course first comes getting unpacked and setting the shop back up. It’s getting there but as usual family comes first. Kids are finally registered and in school (these schools don’t mess around here. everything is ultra serious and at times uppity.) It will take me a few days but I’ll have the shop rolling in no time. Stand by for awesomeness.

6 Comments

Filed under Gear

Big CCW Win

We’ve had one of the most significant advances in self defense law in a long time. Having this one come from California…shocking. Read the full story here.

So we have a judge in California telling us that their CCW law is in direct violation of the Construction, specifically the 2nd Amendment. To be asked to give a good reason to need a CCW is in violation of their natural right to self defense. When it comes to 2A rulings is there any sweeter sound?

Other states will be able to use this, sure. But think of what this ruling could mean on a national scale.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gear

Milspec vs. Commercial

Today I had the best comment/question I’ve ever had on Gundoc’s Doctrine. So Jake, here’s your answers brother.

The original remarks were:

“My rifles are far better than the ones being currently issued to our war fighters.”

This recently came into a discussion with myself and a friend, a lot of civilian rifles seem to be generally superior to what’s being issued. In your opinion, why would you say that is? For example, free float hand guards, would you say this is a cost issue, or do they lack something the standard hand guards have?

Thanks.

Lets start off with what is a currently issued rifle? Yes there’s a lot of testing involved. They have to meet certain standards of durability and reliability. The stuff that meets those minimum standards are basically is defined as milspec. I.E. minimum Military Specifications. This tells you that they are seeking the equipment costing the least that meets the minimum standard.

So what’s missing? Billet receivers for one thing. They’re stronger and take much more abuse than the standard http://si-defense.com/si-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_6673.jpgforged (fancy word for cast then finish milled) receivers. Commercial receivers often have reenforced walls in high stress areas. This ensures that even under the harshest conditions, areas that would have broken on a milspec receiver will still be going strong. It’s the mark of quality that costs more than the military cares to issue.

Barrels, can’t forget about the pipe stabilizing the bullet. The GAP-10 uses cut rifled blanks that they chamber. Cut rifling far exceeds normal rifling methods and is the reason custom bolt action rifles are so famous for being accurate. It doesn’t exceed the polygonal rifling that Crusader uses but it’s still good stuff.

Flash hiders. The aftermarket flash hiders actually work. I’ve seen the Vortex at night under sustained fire until the barrels glowed. Even with night vision I could barely tell the rifles were being fired there was so little flash. The Battlecomp completely does away with muzzle flip. Completely. So once again the minimum standard is struck down by something that costs more than $5 each.

Stocks. You go with something like Magpul  CTR with it’s locking lever or the ACS with it’s enhanced cheek weld (like the one they copied, the Vltor) and you have a much more stable shoulder platform to shoot from. Pick any aftermarket stock. I guarantee more thought has gone into the design but also costs more.

Bolt carrier groups. We have access to better than the minimum allowed quality. We have Aerospace companies taking the same standards they use for the space shuttle and are putting that into BCG’s. How freaking awesome is that? The military doesn’t even consider that because they probably get these parts for about $50 each where we would pay over $100 for a better quality part.

Handguards. Yes, the military is using some quad rails. They’re two piece, generally, and still have all the disadvantages of having too many things touching the barrel. Our free floating handguards make for better accuracy, are very ridged, and models like the Yankee Hill with the end cap will more than meet the quality standards of the military. Once again…they cost more than $5 so that’s just too much.

Speaking of Crusader rifles, since all of mine are built by the same smith, from start to finish, I have a much better handle on quality control than a company that has one guy put in the trigger, another puts on the barrel, and by the time it’s done has too many people have their mitts on the rifle and who knows if they’re having a bad day or not.

So I guess what I’m saying is….it’s not difficult to have a better rifle than what the military is issued. You just have to know what you’re putting into it. Hope that helped Jake. Thanks again for the awesome question.

2 Comments

Filed under Gear

Unofficial Answer

The podcast network had a comment on an episode of one of the shows, Modern Rifleman Radio. I have the quote here but left out the name to protect the privacy of it’s author.

I am new to your podcast and have enjoyed what I have listened to very much.

I just listened to the episode that you defined what a modern rifle is. I feel I have to disagree.

Your arguments have mostly to do with what is on the rifle and almost nothing to do with the purpose and use of the rifle. We aren’t fighting the same way we did in the world wars. We no longer entrench and bayonet charge as a tactic for war.

The type of rifle that was used in the past was based on combat tactics entirely different than today. I wouldn’t want to take a bolt action rifle while kicking in doors. Nor would I want to use a modern plastic rifle in a trench war, even if it comes in tacticool black.

What about a Thompson or MP5? Does being cambered in a pistols cartridge make them less of a battle field rifle? Both can be equipped and deployed to the same effect as a m4.

If you look at your listed rifles all of them could be used with the modern tactics on the modern battle field. I would also include some of the bolt guns of the battle field marksman as a modern rifle.
Very few listed would be effective after a few days of the trench warfare of the previous century. I believe that is the biggest distinction for modern rifles.

Keep up the good work. It keeps this truck drivers hours entertained.

R. T.

If you decide to read on aire it is pretty lengthy so you may want to sum it up.
Also, no last name please R. T. Is fine.

I forwarded this over to the show hosts so they can decide if they want to do and on air follow up. We’ll just have to wait and see on that. I did, however, want to take a minute to give a response.

I am absolutely fine with people disagreeing with me. It is the doorway to further discussion. I’ll come right out and say that you’re wrong.

The definition of an assault rifle, as we discussed, has nothing to do with intended purpose. We discussed the legal differences between and assault rifle and a modern sporting rifle. The difference between the two is whether or not it has full auto capability or not. Besides, if you want to talk purpose, the AR-15 was never meant to be a war fighting rifle or it would have full auto or burst capabilities. End of story. With out that the AR pattern rifle is no different than the Browning BAR. Yes, one version was a full auto .30-06 badass rifle. All modern versions are semi auto hunting rifles. It’s the same for the AR-15. Sure there is a war rifle version currently used by the military. There is also a civilian version that is a separate animal with a separate purpose. So in this regard you debunked y0ur own statement.

We can actually agree on not wanting to kick in doors with a bolt action. However, modern snipers issued a bolt action do just that when looking for a sniper’s hide. Also, the last time I checked there were no plastic rifles under the name “assault rifle”. None of such rifles would be cleared by the Pentagon. That being said, I think a 12″ barreled AR in 5.56 or 7.62 would be well placed in the trenches. Short, fast…exactly what they looked for.

Okay, the Thompson or MP5…not assault rifles because, technically, they are SMG’s (Sub Machine Guns). They are of a completely different category. They have their place on the battlefield. They don’t meet the definition of an assault rifle though. Yes, even these have civilian versions. They are, once again, semi auto being re-purposed to be something fun and not a war arm.

Yes, all of these would work well on a battlefield semi auto or not. Frankly I would have second thoughts going to war with a rifle I didn’t build, all of which are semi auto. Crusader rifles are just that freak’n awesome. My rifles are far better than the ones being currently issued to our war fighters. They still don’t make the legal definition of an assault rifle. They don’t have the ability to be full auto without adding working parts. I prefer not having that ability.

Also, tactics the rifle is used with has nothing to do with the definition of the rifle.

This one deserves special attention, “I would also include some of the bolt guns of the battle field marksman as a modern rifle.” You do realize that every bolt action made today has it’s design copied from the 1898 Mauser….don’t you? We may have updated things for the battlefield but companies like Ruger still use the old Mauser trigger. All the design concepts are the same. Just say’n.

Actually short barreled AR’s would do well in the trenches. 7075-T6 Billet receivers, dust covers closed until needed, it will do just fine.

Feel free to continue to disagree. You wouldn’t be the first. I do hope you take these comments in friendship.

3 Comments

Filed under Firearms, Gundoc Says So, Rifles

I’m Using This One

image

Leave a comment

January 27, 2014 · 6:01 pm