Why a Scout-type light?

Arisaka Defense 600 Series in one of their mounts

I see a lot of questions regarding weapons lights for AR-15 platforms.  There are a lot of options out there, from handheld flashlights in a ring mount to pistol lights to dedicated rifle lights.  Even a handheld flashlight in a ring (assuming its a quality flashlight and ring) is an improvement over nothing, but in my opinion, a 600 series Scout-type light is the ultimate AR weapon light for two simple reasons - modularity and capability.

First up - modularity. The 600 series Scout is the most modular flashlight I've found.  There are multiple options for heads, bodies, and tails.  It's completely customizable to your needs. Now, keep in mind that there are two primary Scout styles, the 300 (a single CR123) and the 600 (dual CR123). Of the two, the 600 has the most options.  The 300 is customizable as well, but not nearly as much as the 600.

For bodies, there are the original Surefire, the Arisaka 600, and the Impact Weapons Components/Haley Strategic Thorntail series.  The benefit to an aftermarket body versus the original Surefire involves intended use. Aftermarket bodies typically are designed with modular mounts (KeyMod/M-LOK) in mind, versus the standard Surefire 1913 mount.  For this reason, they tend to sit closer to the rail, minimizing snag hazards.

For heads, a 600 light can be configured to throw anywhere from 350 to 750 lumens of white light, as well as IR light for those who need the capability.  And as a modular system, you choose the level of light that you need, not just whatever stock model is offered.

For tails, you have your choice of click on/off, momentary, tape switches, or combinations. 

For mounts, you can choose 45 degree offsets, KeyMod, M-LOK, 1913, CMR, inline, the sky's pretty much the limit here.  It's all about how you plan on running your light and your gun.

As far as capability is concerned, it's something of a subset of the modularity, especially as it relates to the light head. The standard 600 head is 350 lumens, but there are white light LED versions of 550 lumens with a long focus, and 750 lumens with a wider focus. This allows you to customize based on your particular illumination needs. And while few responsibly armed citizens - or even police officers - have a need for infrared illumination (mostly due to the expense of night vision), if your mission (or budget) changes, you can find a white/IR head for your 600 as well.

So, for all the reasons above, if you are looking for an AR-mounted light, I highly recommend you consider a Scout-type 600. I personally prefer Arisaka, since they've performed well and are located not far from where I grew up, but between the big three, you probably can't go wrong.

Shedding some light on the situation

Hope this was helpful. If it was, consider sharing. If you think I got something wrong, feel free to shoot me an email at guntoter.official (at) gmail.com.

KeyMod versus M-LOK

(If you dig the pic, you can buy the patch - and the KeyMod version - at Patriot Patch Company, who I am not affiliated with)

So, I see the question: "Which is better, KeyMod or M-LOK?"  You'll see lots of opinions on either side, but I thought I'd give my observations that led me to adopt M-LOK.  I've seen some debates that center around the brand loyalty and market share, but I think it's fairly safe to say that both the VLTOR/Noveske team and Magpul have been around long enough to last in a marketing-only competition, so I'll disregard that for my purposes.

First off, a bit of background.  KeyMod actually came first in 2012.  KeyMod is completely open-source.  You can literally find the technical drawings on Wikipedia.  There is no fee, and no license to utilize KeyMod.  Magpul developed the M-LOK system as an offshoot of its MOE attachment system when they found that the KeyMod system didn't work well with polymer handguards (which, of course, Magpul specialized in).  M-LOK is a licensed system, but it is free.  Magpul requires users to sign a licensing agreement and submit their designs to Magpul for their approval.  Technical drawings are not available until the license is signed.

So why did I choose M-LOK?

1. The design of KeyMod involves machining the rail at angles on the interior of the rail.  Because of this, the rail actually gets thinner the closer it gets to the exterior of the rail.  The minimum thickness of the rail is .080", but that is at the thickest point.  The thinnest point on the key is only .026" (plus or minus .005").  That is the issue Magpul had with KeyMod - the thinner polymer at the outside was breaking.  I only have anecdotal evidence of this happening with aluminum handguards, but I still prefer the uniform thickness of M-LOK, which is a minimum of .080".

2. The M-LOK design provides more area in contact and is arguably stronger overall.  The Magpul t-nut provides ~.080" of purchase on each side of the screw shaft.  The KeyMod nut provides ~.045" on each side.  Now, the KeyMod nut fits into the angle of the key (eg., the head of the nut tapers into the shaft, as opposed to a hard 90 degree angle).  Theoretically, this should provide more holding power than a standard T of the same size, but once again, the rail is only .026" thick at its thinnest point.  I'll take a standard of .080" thick with .080" of grabbing power on each side.

3. KeyMod accessories require an additional point of contact for attachment.  Because KeyMod slides into the keys to lock, without an additional point of contact (i.e., two points of contact for a one nut attachment, three points of contact for a two nut attachment, and so on), the KeyMod accessory will literally slide backwards and out of the key slot.  This is not an issue with M-LOK.  While an accessory with only one t-nut will require a second point of contact (rare, but they exist), any accessory of two t-nuts or more should be good to go without any additional points of contact (although for accessories spanning more than one slot, additional points of contact will prevent slippage).  Requiring additional points of contact introduces more chances of failure (in my opinion).  These additional points of contact also tend to make the accessories larger, meaning they can end up heavier and take up more rail space.  This is because many designers add their additional point on either the front or back of the accessory.  Several designers have made their accessories more streamlined and added the additional point between the nuts, and thus maintaining the the same size while still keeping the additional point of contact, but that doesn't negate the fact that KeyMod will fail without the correctly machined and positioned additional points.  For the occasional M-LOK accessory that needs an extra point of contact, almost all are found between the two t-nuts.

4. Magpul's requirement of a license means standardization.  Yeah, I know, most people hate the word standardization, but it's not always bad.  Because of the licensing requirement, you are assured by Magpul that any piece of gear bearing the M-LOK logo (assuming someone didn't just throw it on there) should be compatible with any other piece of M-LOK gear.  While KeyMod is technically a standard design, anyone is realistically free to change it up, and there is no higher authority assuring compatibility.  You'll just have to see if it works, or read about it on the internet.

There are some other points, but they are mostly at the manufacturer level, and would most likely not affect an end user purchase.  I've also personally found M-LOK to be easier to install than my KeyMod parts, mostly due to the additional lug required.  I'm currently in the process of changing out to solely M-LOK.

Hopefully this has been useful for you.  If it has, feel free to like and share.  If you think I've gotten something wrong, I'm more than happy to hear from you - guntoter.official (at) gmail.com.  Thanks for reading!

Ballistic Advantage Hanson Profile

There is considerable debate within the AR community in regards to barrel profiles.  Various factors such as barrel heating/cooling and rigidity combine to influence accuracy, both during slow fire and under the stresses of heavy fire.  The standard M4 profile barrel has been found in government after actions to be insufficient for sustained heavy fire, hence the transition by the military to the heavier M4A1 profile barrels.  In addition, the standard government profile (light under the handguards and heavier forward of the front sight) is a front-heavy design, which some users complain unbalances the barrel/gun and makes it harder to "drive" from target to target rapidly.

But what about for civilian or law enforcement users?  Most users will never attain the sustained rate of fire that military members will, but many still prefer a slightly heavier barrel for accuracy's sake.  Where does the balance lie between the (possibly slight) increase in accuracy, and the drag of having to carry a heavier gun?  Will a modified barrel profile make it easier to maneuver the gun?

I recently purchased a Ballistic Advantage 5.56 Performance 16" barrel in their Hanson profile to see if I could find that sweet spot.  I hope to have it installed and run in it some courses over the next few months.

Just to illustrate the differences between a Colt 6920 profile barrel (M4 profile) and the Ballistic Advantage Hanson profile:

The Colt barrel is ~.670" in front of the chamber and tapers to ~.600" behind the gas journal, which flares to .750", then drops to ~.740" for the remainder of the barrel. Lots of weight forward of the journal.

The Hanson barrel is a constant ~.700" under the handguard, with a .750" journal, then drops to ~.650" for the rest of the barrel. More weight is to the rear and it feels much more balanced.

Hope to have more information for you shortly!

Tactical Firearms with Clay Martin AAR

Clay kicking off class (PC: Great Bridge Training)

 I had the opportunity this last weekend to attend Off the Reservation's Tactical Firearms class.  The owner, Clay Martin, is a veteran of both the US Marine Corps and the US Army Special Forces, where he served in various roles including as an instructor with the Special Forces Advanced Urban Combat Course.

(PC: Boombot Media)

Tactical Firearms is a two-day rifle/pistol course.  The course requirements are 500 rounds of pistol, 700 round of rifle, and a working knowledge of your firearms.  Oak Hill Farms in Yale, VA, hosted this event, and Great Bridge Training, LLC, set up the venue, provided excellent customer service, and assisted with the class.  The staff of Great Bridge Training were awesome, and took good care of the students.

A little bit about the venue.  Yale would be considered "out of the way."  The nearest food is 15-30 minutes away, depending on what you're longing for.  I personally think it's worth it, as the venue is excellent.  It's far enough out in the country to not be bothered, but close enough that a 30 minute drive to a hotel (if you need one) isn't that bad.  I would bring food and snacks though, as taking an hour just to drive to food and back does slow down the class.  There are full bathrooms on site for your convenience.

Clay coaching the line (PC: Great Bridge Training)

The class began with two drills (one on steel for speed, and one on paper for accuracy).  Clay uses these to gauge individual student skill levels.  The start of the class is very time intensive, as Clay comes around and coaches each student individually.  The particular skills Clay focused on were trigger manipulation, grip, follow-up shots, and rapid target transition.  There was a decent amount of down time, but that was a result of the individual attention, so the trade-off was worth it, in my opinion.  Down time was occupied with reloading mags and socializing with fellow students.  Before lunch, we re-shot the speed drill to check our improvement.  I won't regurgitate Clay's philosophy here; instead I'll direct you to his own words, which will probably do a much better job.

After lunch, we moved into rifles.  Clay ran us through a basic zeroing theory lesson, then we zeroed at our choice of 100 or 50 yards.  We had some equipment failures among the students, so zeroing took a little longer than planned.  After the zeroing, we ran the 400-point aggregate - 10 shots prone at 100 yards, 10 shots sitting at 75 yards, 10 shots kneeling at 50 yards, and 10 shots standing at 25 yards.  Next we ran the 1/2 & 1/2 drill three times - 10 rounds in 10 seconds at 20 yards, 10 rounds in 5 seconds at 10 yards, and 10 rounds in 2.5 seconds at 5 yards (all standing).

After the 1/2& 1/2, we broke for dinner.  The Oak Hill Farms provided us with the use of their grill, so after a run to the store, the students cooked up hot dogs, chicken, and barbecue from a local BBQ joint.  It was great to sit down and talk and just hang out with shooters.

Night shoot (PC: Great Bridge Training)

After dinner, we conducted a night familiarization shoot.  We practiced illuminating the target with a rifle light while firing pistols, and Clay ran us through the four positions for using a handheld light to ID and engage targets with a pistol.  That concluded Saturday.

Sunday morning began with pistol draws and reloads.  Clay has a slightly different method of both drawing the gun and dropping the mag than I've been taught, but both seemed effective.  It will take some time on the range testing them out to see if I choose to switch over or not.  We had a chance to run through drills practicing draws, and both reloads with retention and slide-lock reloads.

Moving in depth (PC: Great Bridge Training)

Clay coaching moving in width (PC: Great Bridge Training)

After the pistol drills, we shifted to shooting and moving with the rifle.  We shot drills in both width and depth.  The shooting in width drills varied from the standard "walk a line and shoot 'em as you see 'em."  Clay emphasized engaging targets as you would if you were clearing your sector in a CQB environment, i.e., engaging the far target first, not the near target.

Our final lesson of Sunday involved team fire and movement (shoot/move/communicate).  We started with two-person movement dry, then worked up to four-person movement live.  Everyone had a great time with these drills, and we finished up strong.  The class wrapped up with a quick after action and lots of brass pickup.

Moving! (PC: Boombot Media)

Overall, this was an excellent class.  My biggest takeaway was from the pistol portion.  Clay makes good use of the work that the Army has done with competitive shooters, and he can transfer the material very well.  I learned that a lot of the things I was doing with my pistol (how I gripped, pinning the trigger, and working the reset) were less than optimal, and I've got a lot of work to do to unlearn and relearn those aspects.  I felt the rifle material was information I had already learned in other courses (many of which were also taught by Army vets with similar backgrounds).  All in all, the pistol section alone was completely worth it.

I did end up shooting a lot more than 500 pistol rounds, probably closer to 650 (I brought 1000).  Part of that was my own fault, as I tried to work 2-3 rounds strings as much as possible to test the new methods and their effects during rapid engagement.

Clay has a very laid-back style, which might be a little different for people who are used to very regimented courses.  Clay runs a hot range and expects guns to stay loaded and topped off.  He's also very attuned to the realities of combat and the chaos of CQB, so his take on weapons handling is not driven by flat range artificiality.

(PC: Boombot Media)

I definitely recommend taking a class with Clay if you get the chance.  You can tell he cares about the material and transferring as much as possible to the student as he can.  Plus, the price ($300 + $20 range fee) was very reasonable, especially for the caliber of instructor.  I think you'll come away with the knowledge to make yourself a better shooter.  Whether you implement those with practice afterward is up to you.

Check out Clay on the web or on Facebook.