TSiWRX

Arrrgh! Why can't I quote your posts?! No, I understand that - My beef is just that you lumped a single-stage trigger with a two-stage trigger and thought nothing of it. There's a basic and fundamental difference. Yes, I do understand it's not that easy. But I also understand that just becoming licensed doesn't mean that a person can't do sub-par work. There's plenty of gun-Forums with threads dedicated to the awful things that a certified "gunsmith" manages to mangle. Is that every gunsmith? No, certainly not - even just local to me, there's guys like Dave Laubert ( http://www.recoilweb.com/dave-laubert-defensive-creations-80917.html ) out there, and many who while they may not have attained that level of fame, still perform excellent work. But just because a guy hangs a shingle and shows off his piece of paper doesn't necessarily mean that I want him swapping out my springs with a CTD Rainbow-Brite kit or replacing the bearings inside my USGI/mil-spec trigger. OK, this, I can agree with. ^ Ah, and here's the problem That they *_perform_* the same in your hands doesn't necessarily mean that they will in another shooter's hands. In your previous posts, you suggested that the G2S and ACT are essentially the same because of your subjective perception of them. Here, you're suggesting that they are again equivalent because you see the same performance out of them. But there is an essential and fundamental difference in that one is a two-stage, and the other is a single-stage. If that end-user prefers a single-stage, the recommendation of the G2S fails, right then and there - if that end-user prefers a two-stage, the same failure then comes of the ACT recommendation, right? I might not notice a difference between driving that passenger vehicle on the street or that truck.

It's a non-issue only if someone didn't know the difference between a single-stage and a two-stage trigger! And don't forget to let the "gunsmith" change out the bearings in your stock GI trigger! Why does "a recommendation to a friend" not need to be accurate in its presentation? I'd say that it's even more important that I be accurate about what I'm recommending when that recommendation is for someone who is ostensibly my friend. I've known BDII via this Forum since late 2005. My first logged interaction with him where I wrote his name directly was in 2007. Granted I may not have shaken the man's hand - and that we might have had a disagreement or two in our time (which friendship doesn't?) - but we've even chatted a few times in PMs over the years, so yes, I consider him a friend, too. And as a friend, I wouldn't want him to order a single-stage trigger if he expected a two-stage, or vice-versa. Honestly, did you seriously pull a Geissele G2S - a two-stage trigger - and not notice the difference between it and a single-stage like the ACT ALG? Not that there's two distinct stages in the former? Not that the former only requires half the force to reach the break at its second stage, versus the latter? You started off there by saying that you didn't feel much of a difference, but you ended up by saying that there's a huge difference between a single-stage and a two-stage. Which is it, really?

I know there's been some poo-poo of the more recently produced Colts (including the 6920), but I think that this can be overcome by individual inspection prior to purchase - or, if too late, a detailed inspection (and remediation, if-necessary) now, by its current owner. Completely agreed. My buddy went from out-of-the-box (he purchased his about two years ago, and he definitely was fortunate enough to have gotten a good one - it was "vetted" in a recent armorer's class we took, where it was stripped down to-components and inspected) straight to a few beginner/novice-level classes, and now it's been through several higher-level classes as well. It's definitely grown with him and has been adapted (by him) to his needs. That's my buddy and his stick. It's been through iterations of furniture (Magpul MOE - his came with the standard 2-piece handguard, stock, and A2 grip - now the MI [he went for a lot more rail so that he can add cool-guy stuff later, and he's got A LOT of rail because he's got these ridiculously short arms and fingers ] and BCM), optic (he went from a PRO, which is now on my backup class gun, to the T1), and even forward control elements (the RailScales and Arisaka handguard are all more recent updates, replacing Magpul components, as he has come into his own shooting style). It's definitely a gun that a shooter can grow with, and never having to worry about growing out of. Completely agreed on order as well - the furniture is easy, so it's tempting to do outright, but more often than not this means that it's just going to get changed again downstream, once the shooter figures out what he/she *_really_* wants.

^ I get it - but that perspective needs to be presented in an accurate way. Is it OK to say that a single-stage trigger is "the same" as a two-stage? I really don't think so, because objectively, they are fundamentally different. It's no a matter of opinion, but fact. Is a passenger car the same thing as a truck? They are both four-wheeled road-legal conveyances and they may well feel the same to the typical daily city-to-suburban commuter, but there's some very fundamental differences, right? Is a light-duty truck the same as a heavy-duty truck? Now we are getting into some refinements, but still, there's a pretty big difference. However, is it OK to suggest that a good single-stage trigger will serve a shooter in the same manner that a good two-stage trigger will as an upgraded trigger? I think that's perfectly acceptable - to let the buyer/shopper know that they've got two different choices - but that we also must help them understand what is different with those choices, particularly where there are such clear and fundamental differences. In helping a shooter select a trigger, I think it is less important to guide them to a particular and specific choice, versus helping them understand what it is exactly that they are looking for - and that difference starts with the very first branch in the decision tree: do they want a single-stage trigger, or a two-stage? From there, we then dissect the *_purpose_* of the planned purchase. There are triggers that are more suited for competition (here, the precise type of competition matters, too - a "3-gun" trigger won't likely do well for benchrest/bullseye), and there are those that are more suited for duty/hunting, and there are those which may be acceptable only in a recreational sense. Can we say that an ALG ACT is a great single-stage trigger? We sure can, particularly if the end-purpose for the gun is one of defense/duty-use. Can we say that the Geissele G2S is a great two-stage trigger? Again, same as above. But to equate the ACT with the G2S? That passenger car ain't the same as that truck.

^ No, I get what you said, it's just that even as a matter of end-user opinion, I'm having a really hard time wrapping my head around it. I just guess maybe if you worded it differently, I would be better able to swallow it, I'm not sure? Or maybe more specific/details (i.e. that despite the single-stage/two-stage difference, maybe if you focused in-detail on creep/break? I don't know)? I don't consider myself a trigger snob, either. I can feel the difference between the SSA-E and the SSA, but I'm stone blind between the SSA and the G2S, and I have friends who can take that blind taste test and call Pepsi versus Coke each and every time. Similarly, while I know that I have a distinct preference between the Larue MBT and the Geissele SSA/SSA-E, but honestly I don't know that if you put me on a clock and with enough pressure/stress that I can no longer discern the difference in trigger-face feel with the MBT and the two Geissle's, that my objective performance would necessarily reflect my subjective biases between the three.

^ Yup, that was my understanding as well. Which is why I cringe when one of the bubbas open their lowers, complaining of light-strikes, and I see unicorn-puke spring colors. Necessarily, though, this means that there's likely a bunch of bubba upgrades that actually work well (or well enough, maybe they just learned which ammo to buy by trial-and-error). Like you wrote, there's a spectrum. Out of curiosity, what does a lighter disconnect spring do? I've heard a couple of different "theories, but I'd never really researched it, as it wasn't applicable to me (I'm a "Geissele-and-go" guy on my serious guns, and I've tried a couple of others [MBT for two-stage, and a ALG and a BCM for single], so I've never messed with the individual components). A friend had one of those Larue action cut-away shells, and we had some fun in the garage one day. That's a great video that I somehow missed. I've gotta save that one. Thanks.

^ And I should clarify - that's "changing a bearing" on a USGI/mil-spec trigger.

^ You're right, you didn't say that folks should tweak their factory trigger assemblies - I suggested that one: because, in-reality, how many "gunsmiths" out there do absolutely hack jobs? Why? Because when you combined that gunsmith statement with "different bearings" as you did, that raised a red-flag with me: If they're charging you $50 for "different bearings" and some lighter springs, then that really is a hack of a job. Might as well leave your car with them, and have them change out your blinker fluid, too. No, you're missing the point - you originally wrote the following: To which I questioned how the ALG ACT, a single-stage trigger, can be cross-compared with the Geissele G2S as a two-stage. At which point you still maintained that the two are cross-comparable - ^ which I then expressed again that I just can't wrap my head around that...not only in having both triggers right here to play with right now, but also having shot thousands of rounds through each. But then you hinted that you were instead speaking of a new, as-yet unreleased ALG trigger: Which, of-course, was not apparent when you began the conversation. So, to-clarify, are you comparing the Geissele G2S with a new, as-yet-not-released ALG two-stage? or are you comparing the G2S with the ALG ACT? I understand that it's about trying to give advice to a friend - I just want that advice to be accurate.

Ah, but a production trigger isn't the same as some guy who is supposedly a "gunsmith" - or even an end-user hobbyist - hacking away at things. That production LWRC has undergone a lot of development, not to even mention QC/QA, before it shipped out of the factory. That's a world different from a guy popping in various trigger/hammer/disconnect springs. It's like saying that taking some paper or stones to the factory trigger is equivalent to the manufacturing of the ALG/Geissele offerings. The two just aren't equal. Virtually every range-day and at most beginner/novice-level classes, I hear/see some bubba complaining of light-strikes and then observe some kind of multi-colored spring set in their lower when I crack it open. Heck, I almost forgot, even ALG notes with their really pretty awesome "Purple Spring" that some may note light strikes. [ I don't have a lot of know-how with the large-frame ARs, but my understanding is that light-strikes due to hard primer is actually *more* of a problem with the .223/5.56 ARs versus the AR-10 platform and its typical ammo., that aftermarket spring combos are actually less problematic with the AR-10. ] Ah - so you're comparing the G2S to a not-yet-on-the-market ALG two-stage? You didn't clarify that in your original post above. Regardless, you insist that you are speaking of the ACT, and I honestly don't see how you can compare that to the G2S. There's a disparity in price (nominally a $50 difference, but I've seen G2S pricing dip just south of $100 [DPMS contact overrun from a while back, I don't think they have any more stock, though] on some really, really good sales) and a clear disparity in function. It's like people popping up on Forums asking if they should get a G2S or an ACT. It just doesn't make sense - one is a two-stage, and the other, a single: and it is this base differentiation that should drive the decision tree, which splits off right then and there. A single-stage should be compared to a single-stage - a two-stage, to a two-stage. Or at the very least have the two on near-equal dollar-scale...but even then, come on. I haven't had my hands on a DI LWRC in a few weeks, so I really can't say that I remember what that was like - but IIRC, it's a single-stage at about 5.5 to 6 lbs, right? If so, maybe you're confused and wanted to write that the DI LWRC's OE trigger is much like the ALG? ^ The reason for this question is because I just pulled out both my hobby gun and my HD gun, and not only is the trigger take up and break completely different and totally discernible between the two (ALG ACT and Geissele SSA, respectively) but everything from the reset to even just the feel of the trigger face against my finger was also completely different - there's no way I could even remotely mix up the two. I mean, I'll strip down to just the lower and buffer tube after I get home from picking up my daughter from school, just to be sure (as my hobby gun currently uses a Magpul K2, so it's possible to cheat, that way - once I pop the ALG in my backup class gun, though, I won't be able to cheat at all)....I'm honestly not that sensitive of a trigger guy, but still, there's a world of difference.

Ah, I see what you mean, now. I thought you'd meant with your original wording that a gunsmith would polish-up the bearings in the factory trigger, which, I was, like, are they going to change my blinker fluid, too? I disagree. This is one of those areas where "should" does not nearly always plan out in-reality: it's where many of the "bubba triggers" I see in classes and on the range have problems. I really think that folks who decide to tweak the trigger by replacing the trigger/hammer (and potentially also the disconnect) spring(s) really need to first iron out what they intend for their gun: if the potential of that light-strike is worth the gain in trigger refinement. [quote\ For $50 you can tweak a mil-spec trigger. For $65-120 you can get an ALG defense trigger which is just Geissele without the name and a little more “generic”. I might have mentioned I got to tour the Geissele factory 3 weeks ago and they explained to me the differences between both lines. I've got an ACT in my hobby gun. I didn't know their prices went up that high for the AR-15 platform, though? Isn't the ACT around $70, and the QMS around $50? Or are you talking about their full LPK options? Wait - you're going to directly cross compare the ALG ACT, a single-stage (at no less than 5.5 lbs as-spec'ed), with the G2S, which is a two-stage (2.5/2.0, total ~4.5 as-spec'ed)? I can't feel the difference between my G2S and my SSA on a blind taste-test (but I can feel the difference between the SSA versus the SSA-E), but even single-stage/two-stage aside, I can definitely feel the difference between the ACT and the G2S, blind.

My understanding is that most tweaking to the OE/"USGI Mil-Spec" setup is polishing of the sear/hammer/disconnector mating surfaces (and maybe even the pins, although this gets a bit tricky), and that changing to lighter springs can cause issues with some ammo.... In terms of bearings, aren't those only in some select aftermarket triggers?

^ Mad Max?

^ I really don't have anything else to say to that. My cheeks are too fat to lay consistently correctly on any of the sloping stocks. I figured this out the hard way . I love how they feel, but I just can't get consistent with it. Probably if I *really* devoted the time to it, but it's a lower return for me as a civilian. It's fun to watch someone like my daughter go through her "grip evolution." She started out on the A2 because she liked how slender it was - she was 9 at the time, I think. Now that her hands have gotten bigger and her fingers longer, she's migrated over to the K2+. I'm just glad there's all these furniture options.

Nah, I doubt that I know that much - the problem with my "pool" of knowledge is that it's rather like a kiddie pool: it's shallow (but with a few deep holes in places), and small. And please don't think of it as me being combative/disagreeable - I just want things to be plain and accurate to anyone who may be reading. Those few deep spots do exist, but I doubt they're even deep enough to drown a kid. There's a couple of spots where it actually dives pretty deep, but those only exist because I feel the true need to know. The AR market is a cesspool for us average-Joes/Janes, so it really was a matter of need, as I started to take more training classes and spent time and the range really putting in the work. Miles accrue, and parts will break...so I figured it was worth investing the time and effort to really get to understand things. The agency armorer is a weird position to be in, from what I understand of a few instructors of mine who have been in that position for whatever reason - be it military or LE service. What I really envy you guys for is just the crazy crap you see, as I think that can add a lot to anyone's breadth of knowledge. One of the really awesome things to be in my area is that I get "the legacy of Pat," with the years he's spent on this platform and the know-how he's passed down to his disciples. I think a lot of times these manufacturers look at the bigger picture, and realize that it's more than likely that the end-user will replace those components, anyway, so they shave cost where they can. Furniture is a lot of times an aesthetic selection for some, and for others, it is one of extreme preference issues, to the point where it's almost OCD (i.e. guys who run the same grip or stock on -EVERY- last one of their rifles). The A2 grip does have something favorable going for it, though, in that it is really very slim. Some guys with smaller hands prefer it, particularly if they need to also glove-up. Dan Brokos, IIRC, stipples his, and I also know other guys who like it that way (typically after hump removal).

Ah, I see where you're coming from now. But that's the problem with parts that are not truly to-spec (which should include proper QA/QC). It's not that those parts are "universal" that's the problem. Rather, it's that they are not to-spec that's the problem. As a functional shooter, you need the gun to work as a mechanical system. That BCM BCG that is to-spec that drops in "universally" from one mil-spec gun like a DD (cringe) or BCM or SOLGW or FN or Colt or whatever else have you - a quality gun - isn't "crap." But that no-name NiB BCG that's flaking its finish that also drops in "universally" is crap, and it will be a problem. And you're right, a lot of things that claim "Mil-Spec" actually isn't. This is also something that's made clear not only in that P&S Modcast, but is also a point of confusion for much of the masses, particularly as this term is often also co-opted in various ways by many manufacturers to suggest that their product, which falls outside of the specifications, is somehow - be it true or not - "better." To bring this back to car-talk, let's look at our wheels for a moment. If one of us cracks a rim or otherwise catastrophically damages one of our wheels, do we say that it's because the wheel is 5x100? That because universally, 5x100 wheels fit, that it's the problem? Or is this more a fault of the actual make/model of the wheel, itself? It's not because the BCG fits every other rifle that's the problem, it's because of the actual make/model of the BCG that's the issue. "Mil-spec" should mean something: it should mean that you will know the standards to which the item is built, it's materials sourced, it's QA/QC - all of which should in-turn translate to a predictable lifespan which can then be preemptively addressed via a nominal service interval. And if that "mil-spec" claim doesn't foster this kind of capability, then the problem is that somewhere along the line, someone claimed something for which it is not...and more often than not in the AR market, this can be avoided simply by buying from a reputable manufacturer and/or vendor. "Commercial" versus "mil-spec" carries objective meaning, here. "Universal" does not. And this is also where we come to proprietary components/systems in the rifle. Remember, for every KAK/HK, there's also a Ruger (sure, it's just a barrel nut and the FSB, but those are just minor annoyances that really don't need to be there). Just because something is proprietary - or aftermarket - does not make it "better" automatically. And I think you drove this point in an important manner: that those changes should actually make the gun better (more reliable, more durable/robust, more consistent, etc.) and/or should better match the end-user's needs (i.e. ambidextrous controls).

For that much, I really think the DD's should sit out, at least for the time being. I cringe every time someone picks out a problem with one that really should be caught at the factory. "Universal" doesn't convey any meaning. With the AR platform, either you're using mil-spec parts, or you're not. If you're saying that mil-spec parts are having a problem dropping in and playing well with any mil-spec rifle, you're exactly right, something is way, way wrong there. Those parts actually should be "universal" in that sense. In this sense, "universal" should not - and does not - equate with the "crappy" that you'd wrote above, in post 1234 ( http://legacygt.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5777393&postcount=1234 ). The BCM BCG that gets dropped into a Hodge, Sionics, SOLGW, FN, Colt, DD, etc. should work just fine, despite it being "universal" to these other rifles. However, if we are looking at "universal" in the sense that any component that is made to be able to function in that role - but has not passed through the proper QC/QA - can be a suitable drop-in, then "universal" does not imply any guaranty as to its quality, and indeed, may reflect "crappy." For example, in the P&S Modcast I referenced, they took a moment to speak about LPKs - and how some of the smallest parts within the LPK, such as a safety detent or the buffer spring detent, can drastically affect the function of the gun. These are the cases were the "universality" of the component - i.e. that "it fits and functions" - does not necessarily mean that they are either worth their (often reduced) cost or reflect in any way whether this component will actually be as durable or reliable as the one that is produced to proper specs and is made out of the proper raw materials or has undergone the proper QA/QC. [ Typically, these are referred to as "commercial" components. While mil-spec components are nothing special, carrying that designation - provided that the company that makes/brands that component actually is sticking to the specs and have carried out the required QA/QC - at least allows the end-user to be able to rely upon common-knowledge troubleshooting and service intervals as a nominal guide. ] Based on what you wrote above, your take on "universal" seem to only focus on this second interpretation., and that use of the word is simply incomplete, given that good quality mil-spec components drop in just as "universally." Then I really hope you are going to use proper terminology/vocabulary - there's a lot of difference between "universal," which is not a term that's commonly used, versus "mil-spec" and "commercial," both of which are accepted and known descriptions in this sector. I think that'll be a cool test, and I really think that things should play out the way you think that they will - that the three will produce very close (if not the same) results. In training classes, out of the hypothetical (but typical) shooters' line of 10 students, there's typically one or two high-end players, but the majority bring with them the middle-of-the-road guns. Usually, one or two of the newer players will come in with a bare-bones rifle, but as long as those are of good quality (like the 6920), the shooters will do just as well as their more fancy-pants counterparts. You're right, that kind of thinking is pervasive among the masses, and it needs to be overturned. I hope your article will indeed help!

The term "universal?" If so, how? Please elaborate? A true mil-spec LPK is different from a commercial LPK. Anyone who does not think so can invest the time to listen to the P&S Modcast and learn from the SMEs, directly. There is no "universal LPK." To suggest that "universal" parts are somehow automatically "crappy" just does not make sense. A mil-spec BCG will pop in to any mil-spec DI AR and work just fine. Is that your definition of "universal?" Does it make that BCG automatically "crappy?" Isn't it a bit more nuanced than that? I don't disagree with this statement, at all, but a gun isn't just about its price-tag. A bare-bones basic Colt, Sionics, SOLGW, or BCM isn't the cheapest out there by far, but at the same time, one could go out there and buy some really rather crappy guns for prices that either match or even exceed these proven pieces of hardware. Even in light of the current political environment and daily events, the AR market still remains very favorable to the buyer. It is only smart for folks looking to either get their first gun or who want to enrich their collections to take the time and effort to understand what they are buying, before spending the money. Like you said, buy once, cry once. I still love my DD - I retired it to a pure HD role after having beat on it in a few classes and putting enough of a round-count on it to insure that it is truly reliable...... And earlier this year, I very disappointingly missed a private tour of their facility. I still think that their C/S is among the best in the business. So don't get me wrong when I say this, but in all honesty, if it's with my money, right now and today, I'd drop DD from your list of potentials. Why? Because recently, their QC/QA sees to be a bit inconsistent. Will Larsen posted pictures last year of several guns with missed castle-nut staking (I am in agreement with many that although this isn't a big deal, it, much like muzzle device timing, really shows whether or not a manufacturer/assembler cares about the product they ship out) - and I don't know if it is just the usual "Way of the Errornet," but there was a rash of problems popping up on a couple of DD-fan-based FB Groups, too. And while their CS will certainly rectify any issues (Mrs. Daniels occasionally pops in on various social media threads and offers to correct the issue ), my personal feeling is that if the end-user is spending this much for an AR, that AR really should not need a trip back to the factory so soon. It breaks my heart to write that.....

^ The ones you mentioned area all among the top tier of the ARs available, and that's not what I'm addressig. They are different beasts than, say, a Ruger or other commercial rifles built using proprietary or other "special" parts that frankly are solutions to problems that simply do not exist. The difference is that your saying, and I quote, "crappy universal parts" makes it read as though all rifles that utilize "universal parts" are "crappy," and that just simply isn't the case,. When those parts are built to mil-spec, using quality materials and with the appropriate QA/QC at each step, from sourcing to manufacture to assembly of the final rifle with said components, the "universality" of such components implies nothing to its quality. A DD, BCM, Colt, or standard LMT BCG isn't an exception. It's simply what it should be. The same goes for the rifles that are built-up from those components. Just because a "non special" component can drop-in to any other "non-special" gun and function the machine in nominal manner logically does not make that component inferior than proprietary kit. "Universal parts" isn't bad nor are they problematic when those universal parts are properly made, and there isn't anything wrong with a mil-spec build when framed in that context. For example, a quality LPK as noted by the SMEs in the P&S Modcast contains parts that are by far -NOT- the equivalent of a commercial kit from Joe Boob's Parts Source. "Universal" has no meaning here - a part that fits is not necessarily the part that you should use - and you should know that, given your experience with the AR.

I think you misunderstand my (and others') praise for the KAC. While it proprietary components have proven both durable and reliable, this is most definitely -NOT- something that can be extended to the rest of the AR-genre. Most of the other proprietary AR setups are more junk than they solve any problem. The DI "Mil-Spec" really has a lot of the systems shortfalls and potential problems worked out - witness the absolute durability and reliability of the basic guns coming out of BCM, Sionics, Hodge, SOLGW, Colt, etc. Not every manufacturer's unique attempt at further improving on the system in a proprietary manner works as-advertised. If anything, guns like the KAC SR-15 are a standout because of the durability and reliability of their proprietary makeup. Overall, if I were to give a complete novice my money and have them buy a gun today for some kind of serious use (duty/defense), unless I have the ability to just throw money at them and get them a KAC , I'm going to be sticking to a good, basic, Mil-Spec DI gun. As someone who is getting deeper and deeper into ARs, THE RZA, I'd recommend that you pull up a comfy chair, draw up a thermos of coffee and have some tasty snacks nearby, and settle in for this marathon chat on the P&S Youtube channel: It really is worth the four-hour listen. And that really wraps back to what you'd written above - "crappy universal parts." It's not that the parts are "universal'' that makes them crappy. The current state of the DI AR is a system that's had its kinks worked out very, very well. Components - "universal" that they are in that they will drop into any AR built to that same spec - that are made properly to those specs using proper materials and which have undergone the proper QC/QA will have a known lifespan and can be expected to perform nominally. It's the crappy parts that are out there that are the actual problem, and that crappiness can exist just as much in the proprietary components that some manufacturers make in an effort to make their product seem "more special" or so that it can meet a certain price-point. ---- Understood. I'm a fan of the Arisaka mounting solutions for the lights, too. I have an E2ST on my backup gun for class. It's really pretty nifty and very similar to the KE2-A Ultra on the current-generation 600-lumens 2-cell Surefires. Mission-wise, the higher-lumen but less-throw E2S should be more suitable for HD/CQB, but of an an all-purpose gun, I'm honestly more inclined to go with the more throwy Super Throw, as in most structures, the E2ST has focused enough light that it makes baseboard and umbrella lighting plenty sufficient for search, but offers not insignificantly more reach, which no matter what you do to the Super model (unless you've got an extra lens you're carrying around ), it just cannot manifest. Regardless of which of these you go with, I'd recommend going with the 16650 option and even then, carrying an extra cell with/on your second-line gear. They're power-hungry options, and you can expect to see even worse run-time in colder weather. I store the gun with CR123 primaries in place, and I keep two of the 2-cell shrink-wrapped spares in the stock.

^ The system is not letting me edit my own post? WTF? Anyway...... You're absolutely right, but if I've gotta load my bulk ammo into the trays before I speed-load them into my mags, exactly how much time am I saving? ---- Why the Arisaka? This is coming from a guy who loves Will's stuff - and also has an Ariska 300 on his range/class-beater. There's no malice, here, just curiosity? I get it, it's light, but so is the current Surefire M300C Scout, which will give you more light downrange both in terms of reach and spill (the Arisaka is spec'ed at 300 lumens and 9K lux @ 1 meter with the E1T head, whereas the current 500 lumens single-CR123 Scout head should also come in at over 13K candela ). The mounting system won't be as streamlined, and you'll pay a bit more for the Surefire, but given that this gun will be your go-to, I think it's worth the spend - or even if you spent some extra dough on an Arisaka mount. That said, I'm not flying off and getting the new KE1F revision as it's really not that much of a jump versus the 300-lumens KE1F in terms of throw (which is what I really wanted). There's more spill, but that's not really what I am looking for. But compared the the E1T, if I were talking to someone who didn't already have the E1T based Arisaka 300, I woudl say that the jump would be worth the dollars difference. For my eyes, the E1T head really runs out of steam at 50 yards. Shooting with it isn't a problem, particularly if you have good glass like you do, but PID becomes questionable, especially if there's particulates in the air. Overpowering a photonic barrier also starts become an issue much closer in. Hold-off for the Cloud Defensive OWL? Or does that not fit your form-factor/weight requirements for this gun?

^ Seriously, damnit, Penguin, stop pointing out the obvious! You are supposed to be susceptible to marketing, like the rest of us red-blooded Americans! For some reason, that honestly never even came up in my thoughts, although, of-course you're so obviously correct! ----- How about just cheer-leading the enabling, instead? I usually think along the lines that firepyro515 does, but the KAC's truly very well thought-out, and it's a proven gun with many hard-charging users having logged some serious round-counts on their unique samples. There's not a single one that I've seen go down in class, and I honestly would not hesitate to get one with my own money.

The only problem is that it requires boxed ammo.

And that's just the short and long of it. Sights are an intensely personal issue. Why are there so many different makers who market so many different sights? Why don't all of the top-tier shooters use the same sights - and why do so many market their own? Because we all see things just that much differently from each other: and this is before age and disease even come into the picture. The absolute best thing you can do is to try to shoot as many pistols as you can, with as many different sight configurations as you can get your paws on. This way, you can truly "see" for yourself what actually works best with your vision (mechanically) and with how your brain perceives what's in front of you. A good shooter and someone who really knows their gun will also be able to tell you exactly what the front and rear sight measurements/dimensions are - this can play into how the sight package is seen by the shooter, too, and is something to keep in mind when you decide to "take" that other shooter's sighting configuration to use on your gun, particularly if there's a large difference in sight radius. You need to leave behind marketing descriptions/claims as well as understand that what another shooter "sees" may not be what you see. Ever fight with your co-workers about the color of that stupid striped dress? It's not so much that anyone needs to take a class in order to figure this out. Rather, it's that folks need to get out there on the range and in varied lighting/weather conditions, with varying target color/shape as well as backgrounds, and to get their hands on as many different sights as possible so that they can really pick out for themselves what works better/best, instead of just blindly emulating their favorite dynamically dynamic instructor, their hero top-tier competitive shooter, or just copying the flavor-of-the-day in the popular print rag.

Are magazines prohibited items by age? If not, why could a younger person not have been given those items when they were children?

Great! Keep at it, and see if you can start stretching that "no cowitness" out more and more. Per SMEs of both optics and guns like John "Chappy" Chapman and others, a proficient shooter should be able to easily engage 18-inch-ish x 10-inch-ish pates at 300 yards with quality 1 to 4 MOA "red dot" type optics, on a typical 14.5" to 16" AR. This is with the dot alone, no cheating and peeking through those irons! ---- YIKES!!!! It looks like he's just a tactical-fanboi, then. But still, given that he's got the guns, you might as well just use him for them. And hey, at least when he's shooting with you, you can hopefully correct him on some of his rather dire problems! Holy crap, how the HECK did he ever manage that?!?!!! Given his backstory - which, in all honesty, you should've ponied-up with earlier - I'd say that you're right, that he's just regurgitating what he's heard/read. But in all honesty, mechanically, they're fine weapons (as are many others) - subjectively, though, there's a lot to like....but then again, it's subjective. For me, I like them because they feel (subjective) great in my hands and point naturally (again, subjective). That, objectively, their triggers can be sublime and that their overall reliability and durability are on-par certainly doesn't hurt. I don't own any (yet), though. Came really really close to, once. Since you're self-admittedly less of a handgunner and have much more experience with long-guns, I would really advise that you pursue some good instruction before you make that more difficult/limited purchase. Judging a gun purely by feel is a horrible thing. It's like only sitting in the car in the showroom before you buy it. You've gotta give the thing a fair shake. But that said, yes, the Glock is rather svelte - compared to the width of the P226. Even so, hulking guys like Steve Fisher and guys with hands like Robert Vogel still seem to shoot the Glock just fine........ Which wraps us back to the CZs - see, subjective, right?