I love this


Sig 365-9-SAS-C

Sig P365 SAS

Do any of you have experience with this handgun? Recommendations? It’s a “no-snag” handgun with a unique sight.


After Lunch



What happened to NASCAR? They allow a Black Lives Matter car and driver but have banned TRUMP MAGA hats at events because…they’re racist. Nascar is dead to me.


Black and Decker

They are leaving China and building a $90 million plant in Texas. #MAGA


ID the Aircraft


Yes, I left the cheat caption for you. It’s a tough one to get. Most people don’t recognize this early entry into the US jet fighter line up, made by Bell Aircraft. The jet was a lemon. They only made two of them.


The Old Foot Locker


Break it Down

Baby MK12

This firearm might not be familiar to readers. NAVSEA Crane Div. designed the MK-12 SPR, chambered for 5.56×45 was in use by the SEAL Teams and other NAVSPECWAR Units until only recently. SPR=Special Purpose Receiver.

Optimally, the rifle fired the Mk 262 Open Tip Match (OTM) round  using a Sierra MatchKing 77-grain Hollow Point Boat Tail bullet without a cannelure (crimping groove). Nossler then developed a 77 gr.  cannelured bullet. The contract for bullets bounced between Sierra and Nossler.

The MK-12 was replaced by the Fabrique National SCAR (in 7.62 and 5.56) and there is a LOT of politics involved in which firearm and which caliber the future SOCOM weapon will be. I’m not going to churn through that here. Ok, just a bit. I like the 6.8 SPC… It shoots flatter, has better ballistic characteristics overall, etc. And even at that, there are two separate 6.8 rounds with slightly different characteristics, different headspace, etc.

(John D. – this is why I’m reluctant to get involved with DAMMO, a Norwegian division of Raufoss, and the politics of military ammunition and rifles. It’s kind of a wicked game.)

For this blog’s casual readership, there has been a long standing procurement war for “the next” cartridge. Will it be a caseless duplex round that no longer uses brass? (the brass lobby doesn’t want THAT to happen) Who will make the rifle for the next cartridge? There are a lot of ex-four stars beating each other over the head on behalf of their corporate masters. Getting involved in it means that unless you have world class stroke, you’ll be trampled by the old bull elephants. And that’s not in my wheelhouse in terms of projects anyway.

The LL family did play in that game a long time ago. My grandfather was head of small arms research and development for the Office of the Chief of Ordnance, US Army, during the Second World War. He raised me. And he ended up doing sort of what I have done, and moved into the country, when he was about my age.  I didn’t fully understand it then, but I certainly do now.

I have a son-in-law who works at NAVSEA, and I was in the Navy at one point in my life, and still dabble in work that USGOV has an interest in from time to time. But I am not part of the debate (above). Sometimes, with permission, I field test things as a dispassionate third party, and offer a written opinion.


  1. But I don’t want to go among the political people! I want what’s the best small arms caliber for our fighting men and women. Oh, you can’t help that when you work here! We’re all political. I am. You are. Now, shine your four stars and write a report that endorses what your corporate masters like to hear. Not necessarily the truth or what’s best…..
    How do you know I’m political? You must be, or you wouldn’t work in procurement!

    • You’re not going to do better ballistically than the 6.8 SPC. I think that we’re still 30 years from seeing a caseless duplex round come into vogue – or maybe it never will.

  2. There’s a lot to look at in the Steyr-Hahn photo.
    As for snagless sights? That’s what lasers are for.
    Or just point and shoot when the batteries die.
    But who am I to tell you?

    • The OLD Sig SAS had a very snag free profile as well and had the looks of a Walther PP as best I recall. They didn’t make many of them and I never did get my hands on one of them. Now they’re back in this format. One of the problems with a pocket handgun always comes down to snags. Which is why this one caught (pun) my attention.

  3. I have no experience with that model, though I did pick up a P239 some months back. It was in .40 S&W, a caliber no one wanted at the time so I got it at a bargain price along with a Mitch Rosen holster. Sadly it’s not an SAS but it’s still a fine pistol.
    +1 on the 6.8SPC. A great round and one I need another upper or six in that caliber. Unlike the 5.56, it’s still possible to find ammo in that caliber though it’s in short supply like everything else. My supply is adequate in the short term, but I do keep watch for more.

    • The ammunition supply will end up catching up with demand.

      The Democrats played their hand too soon. Telling everyone to hand in their firearms while they were promoting mob violence and a call to disband the police doesn’t even play in Hollywood and Martha’s Vineyard.

  4. We don’t do warning shots either…wastes ammo.

    Love the Old Foot Locker pic. Simpler times.

    • There is no need for a warning shot (despite what former VP Biden said about a shotgun). If somebody is where they shouldn’t be and they pose a threat, maybe a verbal warning to disarm is ok, and when they don’t, you must act before you are acted upon.

  5. Constantly getting raised eyebrows and condescending looks for not having a 6.8. So I guess I’d better bow to peer pressure and get an upper.

    Neat early jet pic. Had to look it up.

    • You live in Texas Hill Country. You fly the Bonnie Blue Flag. People have expectations of you.

    • I’ve already got a 6.5 Grendel. Can’t think of what I’d do with 6.8 that the Grendel won’t do as well (and out to a somewhat longer range). I was going to do a 5.56mm carbine upper, but finding parts and ammo is problematic now, to say the least.

      • The Grendel is a better all around cartridge, but the sharper shoulder and the design that makes it better for you to use (better chamber pressure, etc.) makes it more difficult to use in a machine gun. Feeding issues, etc.

  6. Yeah, couldn’t name that jet – although it was pretty clearly an early post-war Bell.


    • The load out is horrible, WSF.

      I don’t know what to say about new materials and what’s in the pipe. A lot of effort has been put into finding better load bearing gear and comparing what is carried today (weight of the helmet, etc) with what was carried fifty years ago or longer, is significant. What is expected of modern infantry is also different because infantry (though fighting on foot) has a different profile than they would have had in Vietnam or previous to that.

      But a 100lbs pack is way too heavy.

  7. I can’t comment on the next military cartridge, as I’ve never been military. Their cast-offs, however, have served -me- well, from .30-06 to .308 to 5.56, as they have millions of other folks. The load development from the almost-was catridges is also nice.
    With regards to the 365, i have two, a standard and an XL. Both have so far functioned flawlessly, even when swapping uppers between the two. I expect the SAS would likewise perform error-free. As for the sights on it, that is going to be a matter of preference; I handled one, and the sights are… “unique.” Love them or hate them; I passed and bought the XL.

  8. Okay, regarding the Bell plane, not a P-59B, sooo… never operated operationally, so an X designation and we get the late unlamented Bell XP-83, a flying turd that could have been designed by Brewster, except that it actually performed… okay and it didn’t fall apart, unlike anything from Brewster.

    Was okay when designed. That shows how quickly designs and components changed in the early jet years.

    Dang. That was a tough one. Good attempt at stumping us. Was close.

    As to guns, I thought one of the functions of brass was to suck waste heat from the action. Or so I was told. Which is one of the arguments against plastic/ceramic cases or caseless ammo. What are your feelings and experiences?

    • I’ll reply in two parts with the caveat that I’m (1) not an expert; (2) have limited exposure to R&D; and (3) am commenting on rather old tech.

      Caseless and caseless duplex are different problems. The caseless I have seen that actually seem to work are caseless sabots, so you’re shooting a projectile (tungsten) that would wear through the steel barrel quickly if it wasn’t inserted into a sabot. The test platform(s) were not operating rifles and the heat dissipation issue had not been solved, except that exotic alloys that allowed for heat conduction to heat sinks showed promise. The caseless duplex rounds had issues. Shooting one round – they could get to work – but there were issues.

      Heat sinks on barrels (such as the one on my JP Arms LRP-07) work well in giving you a cold bore shot every time because while the LRP-07 is designed to offer semi-auto fire, it’s designed for precision shots, not magazine after magazine being expended in 120 degree (F) ambient. So they work in some calibers and in some settings but you wouldn’t want to dip the LRP-07 into a trough of mud and expect it to function normally.

      Which circles back to a SOCOM battle rifle. It’s not firing from a laboratory, and it’s not a tenderly cared for LRP-07 that will deliver sub-minute of angle at 100m, with a heat sink on the barrel. The conditions that it must operate under successfully are punishing. And caseless is still 30 years out IMHO. Even then the rifles will be VERY expensive because of the tech that goes into them. A universe away from a stamped metal AK-47. But they will be very light as will the ammunition.

      • Caseless has been 30 years out for the last 40 years, maybe longer, best as I recall.

        I bought a “regular” 365 last January, the one with a manual safety. So far it’s been a good little gun and replaced my 938 because who doesn’t like more bullets. I’d have probably bought the XL if they were being made with the manual safety at that time, which they came out with and started shipping a month or so after I bought the other one, dammit. I have never looked thru the SAS sights but a retired cop buddy of mine who is more than just a fair hand with a pistol has one and likes the sights.

      • I’m fully anticipating that, by the time caseless and caseless duplex are somewhat functional in a combat environment, handheld railguns will be ready for widespread use.

        I mean, we have leaps and bounds in energy storage coming yearly-ish. And so are leaps in superconducting materials and such.

        So a body-carried railgun or gauss gun (if you play ‘Traveller’) or magnetically-accelerated kinetic energy projector or whatever you call it. Firing nice high-speed darts or lower-speed explosives.

        In other words, I don’t anticipate any really practical caseless or caseless duplex infantry rounds to come available within 100 years or so. Material science just isn’t there.

        Same for the push for small caliber (25-50mm) cannon rounds where the projectile is embedded within the propellant. Sure, it works, but like the Navy’s 6″ wunderweapon, the round will be too expensive to shoot.

        Military ammo, just like civilian ammo, must be reliable, available and affordable. Pie-in-the-sky $4.00 per round rifle rounds just don’t work and nobody can afford them.

        Though from what I’ve heard, finally the 6.8 seems to be actually working, even if it is being pushed by some seriously funky lobbyists with bad ties to bad people.

        • The Navy has had some serious R&D problems that didn’t line up with the promises and projections (vaporware), and since that rail gun was more or less the only battery of note on the Zumwalts, it was a multi-billion dollar goof. Inexcusable.

          The 6.8 is a better cartridge than the 5.56 or the 7.62, and always has been. It comes down to science and design. The 7.6 was originally designed at 6.5, but politics and the arbitrary, unscientific need for a 30 caliber weapon pushed its development. I don’t know what will win out. The 7.6 is good enough for battlefield applications and we’ve made a LOT of 7.6 ammo.

      • Most of Brewster’s production was sold, if I remember correctly, to the various Lend-Lease companies.

        The Brits went over their ‘new’ planes very carefully, and had to fix and rebuild many that they got from Brewster.

        And the losses by Free then national French during and after the war could be explained by either French or Brewster or both.

        And, yes, am picking on Brewster. Their one decent design, the Buffalo, was okay, just not great. Which was a step above most of their other designs, which were decidedly not okay and attaining okay status once in a while.

        • The F2A Buffalo was BARELY acceptable and in no way as good as an F4F Wildcat. Both rolled out at almost the SAME TIME. The USMC got the Buffalos.

          I’m not a big F4F fan, but when the war broke out, it was what we had to fight the Zeros with. Tactics (Thatch Weave, etc) were developed that gave them a fighting chance. They were more rugged than a Zero and if fought correctly, they did ok. Not so with the Buffalo.

          The P-40 wasn’t great, but using the right tactics (Flying Tigers), they’d hold their own too.

          • The Fins loved the Buffalo, but, well, they were fighting Russians, and they (Finns) were wacky people who loved weird stuff.

  9. Can’t comment on “The Next Cartridge” as I have little experience is such things. I’m a bit like Kermit in that I never served in the military, and use time-tested Old Skool stuff like 45ACP, 30-06, 30-30, 357, and of course, 12 ga.

    My Remington 1100 with a Nikon scope and rifled barrel is a hoot to shoot sabot slugs from, 2″ groups at 125 yds, and that’s about as “High Tech” as I get.

    Gave up on NASCAR quite a few years ago when they started screwing around with the rules every month or so trying to “equalize” the competition. It turned into a “Spec Series” after that, and I couldn’t see the point any longer.

    Bell made some very good aircraft, but that’s not one of them…..

  10. I lurve my SCAR 17S. And 6.8 is nice, but in reality it’s still a wildcat cartridge. The tradeoffs are ‘interesting’ to put it mildly. Got to play with a MK-12 out at Crane, do NOT want to shoot that thing without the suppressor on it, if you value your moustache and eyebrows!!! Personally, I liked their modified M-14s better. 🙂

  11. There is a reason why the MK-12 was phased out. I think that the SCARs are both exceptional firearms. I had more than one firearm that shot 5.56×45 before that dreadful boating accident, and like the round, for what it is. I’ve always preferred the 7.62 as a combat round and the Modified M-14’s are spectacular to shoot.

  12. Beans, the Russians loved the P-39 Bell Aircobra. And while I don’t hate it, and they worked out OK for the Army on Guadalcanal, they were far from a success story in the US arsenal.

    • The P-39 was a hot ship, especially at high altitude, until some bigwig in Bell decided to delete the turbo. Ruined the aircraft. Oddly enough, the Russians used it as a fighter, not for ground attack, as most in the West seem to think. It worked okay at low level, where most of the Eastern airwar occurred. IIRC, one of those Russian aces flying the P-39 had a tally of ~80 Germans.

Comments are closed.