High Exposure

For those that don't know them - Coopers Conditions of Readiness: Condition 4: Chamber empty, no magazine, hammer down. Condition 3: Chamber empty, full magazine, hammer down. Condition 2: Round chambered, full magazine, hammer down. Condition 1: Round chambered, full magazine, hammer cocked, safety on. Condition 0: Round chambered, full magazine, hammer cocked, safety off. These were written before striker fired pistols, but can still apply with some common sense. For example, you can't have condition 2 on any striker fired pistol. Condition 1 and 0 would be the same on a Glock (I consider the staging of the striker "cocked", for lack of a better term, even though I know it is not technically true) but both may or may not be applicable to a S&W M&P. Bedside Pistola G35 .40S&W with Surefire x300, Trijicon RMR02 milled into the slide, KKM Barrel, and suppressor height BUIS stored in a pistol safe bedside and in condition 1 - Full mag of 15 and one in the pipe. An unloaded pistol makes for an expensive hammer, it may only cost you your life.

I have watched the vid. Have researched the cases he mentions or did you just take the kids word he was citing the correct case law? All the cases he brought up, except, Delaware v Prouse have been mentioned (DvP deals with MV stops with no other AS or PC to verify driver's licenses) and the one that is closest to approaching my question of ZERO police involvment is the one posted above by NJ2AS-LCC, US v DeBerry. But it does not seem to state no involvement, it states no search. No search was required here, the gun was in plain view. If this incident happened to someone carrying CCW that required a Terry frisk, as explained in Terry v Ohio then DeBerry would probably apply. As far as innocent until proven guilty. No one said he was guilty. He wasn't arrested and he walks away at the end with his pistol. IUPG doesn't mean someone can't be suspicious, and in this case I certainly don't think it means a check of the situation wasn't warranted. If he would have just given his name and DOB, as he states in his comments is required by ME law, the whole contact would have been over in 30 seconds, with no drama. He knew why the cop was stopping him. He knew people were going to call if he walked down the street with a heater on his hip. He set the cop up. And, no, not every contact, at least in NJ, requires a report. Often times simply an entry is created in the in-house system about the contact in the event a citizen complaint comes on or a involved person wants something to refer to. I agree. The public needs a lot more education on firearms and firearms safety, and the legal maelstrom that surrounds firearm law. Edited to comment on one more post by PeteF

Understood about the Thank you. However the portion of my post that you snipped from it's entirety, when stood alone appeared to point to me believing the officer was in the wrong. Thank you for the linked case, I will read it "con mucho gusto" in its entirety. From a quick read of the excerpt you provided, it appears that the Chief Judge is intuiting that if there was concealed carry law in Illinois the gun arrest would have been invalid because then the subject would not have been in violation of the law by carrying a concealed handgun. That seems like a common sense ruling doesn't it. Why would you arrest someone for doing something legal. He goes on to say that in that instance there would be no grounds for a search. OK. That still doesn't preclude a contact and investigation into whether or not the individual is in fact a legal CCW holder. How did the person that called know there was a concealed weapon? Do we now have a possible brandishing charge or another possible violation to the CCW regulations to investigate? I mean, we all known bad guys carry guns too right? Even in states that allow CCW. You are right, it is not an intuitive subject (you meant not intuitive right?) and there are many intreprations framed by everyone's frame of reference. This whole discussion has turned a bit from what I believe the OP intended, for that I am sorry. I am however enjoying the conversation and happy it has not gotten personal and devolved into name calling and finger pointing.

"i'm saying that they cannot force a person who has done nothing wrong to comply." You are correct, but first the cops have to determine that the subject has, in fact, done nothing wrong. So, who makes that determination? Every criminal ever convicted states that they didn't do anything wrong. If the cops took them all at face value, what then? As far as Texas v Brown, as I understand it, it does not apply. Again, TvB is officer initiated vs. this case a reported call. TvB listed no real AS for the stop was given by the police officers involved. I can guarantee that if he had been stopped for jaywalking and refused to give a name, or stopped to investigate because he had a gun on his hip, it would have probably been an entirely different finding. 80% Ahhhh, lies, damned lies, and statistics. Ok, 80% prohibited person rate in Maine. Thats part of the equation. Now, what's the rate for allowed persons owning prohibited weapons. What's the regs on carrying any weapons near certain properties, like asked above? Are you catching my drift at all here?

Remember, rights are protected, not untouchable. States manipulate them all the time. Also, as example, you can lose your right to possess firearms and vote by being a convicted felon. A cop can absolutely detain you to make certain that you are exercising your rights within the law, if they have AS. Sometimes that is as simple as saying hello and talking for a minute, other times it requires handcuffs and a trip to the local cop shop, other times it only requires someone else to flag them down or call HQ and report it. As for yet another MV analogy - Sometimes AS and PC are together. For example a speeding ticket. Cops have AS and PC simultaneously as they personally observed the car speeding. Sometimes they are not. A random plate check reveals the registered owner has an outstanding warrant, is unlicensed, or suspended. The cop doesn't know who is driving and a stop is made due to AS. An investigation ensues and an arrest is made, or not made, after a determination of PC. The crux being, is the registered owner in or operating the vehicle? If so, arrest. If not, "I apologize, please let the owner know they need to take care of a few things." I could give you a million examples ranging from something simple like tinted windows, to serious stuff, stolen cars. It all plays out the same basic way = AS -> PC -> investigation -> arrest, ticketing, or release. Now, as far as prohibited persons in other states, I do not know the stats. Pretty sure you don't either. I do not know the percentages of who has what and can't have the other in every state, county, city, town, village in the nation. You are getting into areas that we will never know all the facts. That's when you trust that the local experts in this area are doing the right thing for the right reasons. Finally, investigating a third party complaint is different than an officer initiated action. Your AS threshold is basically reduced for the initial contact, since the cops are reacting to another's observation and interpretation and not their own. In this example, the police are not stopping someone to make sure that they are following the law, the coppers are doing there jobs and investigating a report from someone else that they may not be. This explanation may help. On an officer initiated contact, police are trying to prove a subject IS breaking a law, ordinance, code, whatever, based on their observations, suspicions, interview of the subject, evidence present etc. In a dispatched call, they are trying to determine if you weren't doing what was reported by investigating, presence of evidence and asking questions, and they already may have a witness. A slight distinction, but there none the less.

Show me. Show me case law that states a report by a third party, not officer initiated contact, of a man with a gun warrants ZERO police involvement.

You got it backwards, stopping a car isn't AS, you need AS to stop the car and PC to write the ticket or make the arrest. SAT question: Motor vehicle law is to Firearm's law as Apples are to: A) hand grenades B) sneakers C) stray cats D) all of the above You can not compare a privilege, driving, with a right, keeping and bearing arms. Please stop. And, yes. Any car can be stopped if the officer has prior knowledge, articulable suspicion, or probable cause that the driver is not licensed to drive in that state. Now, you made it difficult to respond when you answered in my quote in your post, but here it goes... This is going to sound flippant but it is not meant that way. I understand you didn't see any suspicious activity. Now, What exactly is your experience with Maine gun laws and Maine Police SOP in regards to suspicion? Did you know the reporting party? Were you with them when you made the call to the PD? Were you driving by this location at the same time that the reporting party made the call to Police HQ and see something they did not? In this case, neither did the dispatcher or the police, so an investigation is warranted. As to your second point, same questions as above. In addition, is a man carrying a gun legal in Maine? All men, regardless of age, criminal history and mental background? Or just some? Are there any restrictions on firearms involving school zones, parks, incorporated vs incorporated towns, hunting seasons, bars, churches or other places of worship? Point three: So if you call the police and say there is a man with a gun in an area, then finding a man with a gun in that area is not enough to go on? The caller has to give what? Shoe size? Yes, the second amendment allows the carrying of firearms. I understand. I wish that the states could do nothing to infringe upon that, but they do. If you want to change that, get involved in politics, don't make a video where you taunt cops. Profiling on the basis of race, religion, orientation or ethnicity is illegal. Profiling based on behaviour, equipment you are carrying, etc is completely legal. Carrying a gun doesn't make a potential criminal. However, a convicted felon carrying a gun, or someone carrying an illegal weapon makes him a criminal right now. Finally, I understand what the report was. You don't understand that it being a third party report, not an Officer initiated contact changes A LOT of the rules and makes it more than enough to investigate. Not arrest on its face value, but to check it out.

I concur. No cherry picking one line out of context from an entire post and claiming victory. What I said was: I agree it doesn't meet the Terry Stop requirements because it has moved past the realm of "Stop and Frisk" and into detain (not arrest, so dont pull the miranda card yet) and investigate, not because it doesn't rise to meet it. As to your question, "Is open carrying a firearm, where open carrying is perfectly legal, reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed?" I have a question before I answer. Is OC legal to everyone in Maine regardless of Age or Criminal Background or Mental History? Are all weapons regardless of make, model, capicity, or class legal? If the answer is No, then I say there was more than enought AS for this temporary detainment and investigation. It is frustrating when you cherry pick one part of what I say and leave the rest. If you read all of my posts, you would see that I described the process of police - public interaction correctly. A cop can skip RAS and go right to PC as well, which is what I feel happened in the Maine situation. That the subject was practicing Open Carry negates the need to do a "stop and frisk" before proceeding towards a more a complete search or thorough investigation because you can already see the weapon. It is proven to be there, in plain sight. No suspicion regarding the possession. Now he just needs to determine the subject of the investigation is following all of the laws regarding, ownership, possession, and carrying firearms in that jurisdiction.

They didn't just stop this guy and check his papers. They responded to a call for service. So, a citizen calls the police and reports a man with a gun because they feel it isn't suspicious? The officers were dispatched to investigate a "man with a gun call" they find a man with a gun. They stop to talk to him. Were there other men with guns in the area? Was he specifically targeted for another reason in this sea of openly armed men? The cop stating "I stopped you because you had a gun" is analogous to him saying "you matched the physical description of a man we were looking for" And why do you think a cop can look at someone carrying a gun and determine that no crime was being committed without speaking to the person carrying a gun. The gun laws in Maine, while clearly better than those here, may be just as confusing. How can Police determine that the subject was legally allowed to own a gun, the specific firearm in question was legal in that jurisdiction, and the method of carry was legal as well with speaking to him? You don't need PC to stop and talk to someone in an investigative manner. You need Reasonable Articulable Suspicion. Much less than PC. Thanks for posting that! Right, at that point the Officer has determined that that this is the person that was reported by a citizen and an investigation has begun. The Cop has AS and determining if there is PC to take it further. Detention justified.

Again, I don't live in Maine, so this is all tainted towards NJ Yes, I know about terry stops and Terry vs Ohio. Terry stop = Detain AND search with PC (which would let him put cuffs on right there, then search) or at the least AS. Great. Does responding to a report of a man with a gun, and finding a man with a gun in plain sight matching the physical description meet the terry stop reqs? I don't think so. Could open carry, I mean, you can see the weapon, open the door to negate the terry stop rules. You no longer have a search for suspected weapons, the weapon is right there, in plain sight. No search required. Now an investigation to determine if the weapon is legally carried by a person legally allowed to have a weapon begins. If the investigation reveals "yes and yes" to the previos questions of legal and allowed, then its "have a nice day, sorry to waste your time." If there is a "no" in there, then everything changes. A cop stopping to talk to a person matching the description of a citizen report does not need PC or AS. A cop can stop and talk to anyone as long as the person lets them. If this guy kept talking to the cop trying to prove his point, well then that's on him.

Thumbs up all around! If you dig the Eo run it. Just check the battery compartment often. CR123 batteres were designed to have shock absorption along their longitudinal axis, not perpindicular like the battery box in the Xps models. They solved the old batterers box problem of the contacts breaking under recoil and created a new one where the batteries break under recoil. The more you shoot, the higher chance you have of rupturing the battery in the optic. Remember, the batteries are the ammo for your optic. Use quality 123's only. Surefire, Streamlight and the like. No Chinese or Paki crap. Get the T-1. You won't regret it Shoot straight bro!

2. Thanks, I won't 3. Balderdash. Guns don't make people equal. Me carrying my gun with my training and experience does not equal my wife carrying a gun that she has never shot or is scared of. It is about mindset. Software not hardware. Also. Don't pretend to know the mind of an assailant or bad guy. You are falling onto the trap of assuming you have the same thought process and risk factors as they do. Also, I am not saying the presence of a firearm by a member of the public is bad or inappropriate. I am saying carrying OC so everyone, including the bad guys, know you have a firearm may not be the best decision you made that day when you walk into a stop and rob at oh-dark thirty. 4. I am not going down "pre-crime" lane here. I am simply stating that Cops have a job. That job is to investigate citizen reports of all nature. I don't know what OC or firearms laws in Maine are, so I can't respond if any laws were broken. A Maine resident, who presumably has an inkling of Maine laws, called the Maine police and reported something suspicious which may or may not be a crime. What if this guy was a convicted felon as was not allowed to own firearms? Without the cop investigating, how is he to make that determination? 5. Correct, partially my point there. Again I was referring to the notion that originally posted by NJ2AS-LCC about OC precludes the need for cops except in GFZs as being preposterous. You are correct, there is rarely a cop right there when you need one and the mile away comment was referring to the dispatcher attempting to determine if that a report of a possible crime should not be addressed. Not only good guys carry guns. Not only good guys carry guns in holsters. Another point, if someone calls about the suspicious man with a gun, and cops are dispatched, and it is in fact a bad dude (cause only good guys carry guns right?) then you just may have a real Police right there when you need him. Again, I am not saying that citizens should not carry firearms. I wish CCW was instituted in NJ as "Shall Issue". What I am saying is that OCing those firearms may not be the best tactical idea you ever had. OCing doesn't deter crime against the specific person OCing. I propose that it in fact makes them more of a target by some criminals. You protect yourself by being smart first, not solely by carrying a gun in plain view for all to see. I don't understand your comment about offending the attacker. I never said that. If someone attacks me or my family, I will do everything I can to make sure that hurt feelings are the least of his problems.

Like I said, I didn't watch the video. However, I don't live in Maine. Don't know the laws in Maine regarding OC, CCW or firearms in general, so I don't know of he was or was not following Maine's OC laws. You said the cops were dispatched to look for him based an an eye-witness report of a man with a gun, right? How then were the cops instigating anything by following up on a citizen complaint? That's their JOB. People report something suspicious, weird, dangerous and cops respond and investigate. They then take action based on facts, discretion, experience, training, judgement, and the totality of the circumstances. Thats not instigating, that is how public safetu works in this country. Maybe the cop was not trained in the exact way to handle this type of call. Maybe the law recently changed. Maybe he was a rookie cop. I don't know. By reports here, at the end of the vid, the boss came in, and set him right. The law ended up being followed and everyone went about their business. What I can guess though is this. If the cop had walked up, introduced himself asked what was going on, then the OCer replied with whatever Maine requires and the cop said "OK, have a nice day" radioed HQ and said no problem here, the guy that made the video would have never posted it. Now that video of a pleasant PD to OC contact would have made a much better impact on 2A rights then this one where even gun owners can't agree.

You are right, disturbing the peace does require a response. Whose job is it to determine if the "disturber" in question is in fact disturbing the peace. The caller, the dispatcher, or the cop on scene? That's my point. The dispatcher does not get to tell the caller "Oh, that is not a crime, have a nice day" when it could be a crime, or a sign of a crime, under certain circumstances. They must send a cop and the cop determines it in person. Driving your car may or may not be a violation of Title 39, the NJ motor vehicle code, not a crime in and of itself. If you are issued a summons for speeding and plead guilty, or are found guilty after a trial, do you have to answer "yes" when asked if you have been found guilty of committing a crime? No. Yes, there are some 2C statutes that deal with operation of MV but that is a different ball of wax. As far as stopping my car every day, if the cops have probable cause (PC) or an articulable suspicion (AS) for the stop, it's their perogative to light me up, even twice on the same day. I may not like it, but that doesn't matter. They can't, however, just stop me and "check my papers". They can stop me because I violated title 39, or they have some other PC/AS. I agreed to that when I accepted the responsibility of the "privilege" of driving on public roadways and signed my NJ Driver's License.

1. Fair enough, but in that case each state you travel to will have it's own criteria, rules, regs, and requirements for OC and what is and is not PC for investigations. 2. Disagree based on personal opinion, not universal truth. 3. Right, so its not the presence of the firearm, but the preconceived notion by the bad guy of whether or not this person's presence, who in this instance happens to be a cop, will let you get away with the crime you want to commit. Correction Officers don't carry guns at work, they are surrounded by criminals daily, yet few of them get injured even though they are outnumbered. Why do you think that is? UK cops manage to curb crime in a nation with similar gun control laws as NJ. They manage to fight crime. How can that be without guns? Because they are the Police. Police deter crime, not the guns they carry or the way the carry them. 4. Red herring. Mowing your lawn is never a crime, and if it has the potential to be an ordinance violation, then yes, a dispatcher has to send a cop. Carrying a firearm may, or may not be a crime. Or it may be a part of the totality of the circumstances after a proper investigation by the responding officers that leads to an arrest or a prevention of a crime. How about this scenario: You call the police because the neighbors are arguing loudly. Is it a crime for them to yell at each other in their own house? No. So the dispatcher responds, "That's not a crime. Have a nice day." Not appropriate. It may be a signor a precursor of a crime, even though it is not a crime in and of itself. An appropriate response is to take the call. Dispatch an officer and let them make the determination on the scene. 5. We are saying the same thing about GFZs in the first part. I agree with your first 2 sentences with every fiber of my being... Then you lose me. I was referring to the notion that cops stay away from OC zones all together, letting the presence of armed OC citizens deter crime simply by walking around with holstered handguns, and the police only focusing on the GFZs as being shortsighted. As far as your scenario with Good Guy pulling his piece and saving the day, you are forgetting a few outcomes. The bad guy has a vote in the fight. The true "Worst case" is he snatches the pistol out of your hand/holster, or skins his own, shoves it in your face and pulls the trigger till it goes *click* Your call a cop timeline assumes that no cops are already in the area. My call a cop "best scenario" timelines go something like this: 1) Uniformed cop on patrol in the area. Bad guy decides not to be bad. 2) Cop sees bad guy being bad guy because he is on patrol in the area, not avoiding the location and letting OC deter crime in and of itself, and stops bad guy doing bad stuff. Edited because I hit the "post" button before I was done.

1. I don't know. But, it doesn't apply in NJ so it's a straw-man argument for our purposes. 2. I agree. Open carry has it's place - hiking, at home, yard work, in vehicles, on horseback. Around town running errands, not so much. 3. Police are a deterrent because they are the POLICE, not because they have guns, see the UK. The fact they do "open carry" (its in quotes because I don't believe it is open carry when you are wearing a uniform and badge as well, which advertises you have a gun and makes you a target anyway) in the US is coupled with the fact that they also carry radios, body armor, less-lethal, handcuffs, usually another gun - or two, have backup, and are trained to be vigilant and in weapon retention techniques with their level 40 retention duty holsters. 4. It is not a dispatchers job to tell a citizen what they see is legal behaviour based off of a report given to them via phone. It is the cops job to respond, investigate, and use discretion based on their training and experience to determine a if a crime is being committed, not a 3rd party message from an eye witness that is relayed by a dispatcher in a station a mile away. 5. Places that allow open carry are just as prone to crime and violence as anywhere else. The argument about GFZs is that it reduces a citizen's ability to respond to lethal force appropriately, not that it increases crime. Would you rather have some dude with his pistol permit and his .25 in his back pocket respond to a shots fired incident or violent crime, or a cop? Nope.

Read me: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/reports/reports2006/073106robNewtonPatton.htm Carrying a gun in a holster for all to see makes you a target, not a threat. There is a reason why open carry is referred to as "Shoot me first" carry by so many out there. If you are legally open carrying a pistol and a gen-u-wine bad guy is carrying his roscoe concealed, who do you think has the tactical advantage? There are people out there that are not scared of you or your pistol. They have already shot people, been shot, been shot at, and had guns pointed at them by other bad dudes weekly. You are merely a slight change in the plan during a 7-11 holdup, or a source for a free gun like our friend in VA in the link above. Don't expect every bad guy in your area to move to the other side of the street as you come walking down the block open carrying your blaster. You can expect however, the masses of uneducated law abiding sheeple to freak the hell out, point and scream, and call the Police. Law abiding people, good people, forget that "Here there be Monsters" and apply their thought processes, values, morals and ethics to everyone. Those monsters will take your personal honor, your morals and ethics, and make you choke on them. Violence happens with a quickness most have never experienced. The bad guys only concern is "Will my violence defeat their violence?". If they think the answer is yes, then it is on. If they can get the drop on you, armed or not, the answer is more likely to be yes. You want an attacker to avoid you? Not going to happen brother, that's why they are called attackers and not avoiders. You don't want to be a victim, you need to avoid attackers. Be the grey man. Keep your situational awareness up. Avoid bad areas. Don't be afraid to turn around and walk away if something seems weird. Don't blindly walk into a convenience store, instead park outside and wait a few seconds and watch. Put the phone away while you are walking. Keep your strong hand empty when carrying a briefcase or bag. Keep your wallet, keys, and cash out of site. Lock your car doors. Leave at least a car length between you and the car in front of you at stop signs and red lights so you are not boxed in and can drive off. Have a plan to defeat every stranger you meet, whether by fight or flight, but keep it to yourself. You know, walk softly and carry a big stick. Just keep your stick hidden until you need it. That being said, I didn't watch the video. People provoking the police over this stuff just makes me angry for a lot of reasons I am not going to get into here. I understand the "a right not used is a right lost" argument and I agree, but find a better way to demonstrate your support for 2A. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I mean, I could walk in downtown Newark and exercise my first amendment rights and start talking to people about white power or my opinion on immigration too, but I am sure we could all agree that that is just silly.

I don't want to start an EoTech vs Aimpoint flame war or a "this better than that" thread. So, please keep in mind that my opinion is based on my needs, the role I use my weapons, and my personal experiences with the equipment. It is not universal truth. I have found that the EoTech is heavier than the Aimpoint T-1, has a larger footprint on the rail, and the mount is mediocre. It has atrocious battery life when compared to the Aimpoint. I also don't like the Eo's 4 or 8 hour auto-off feature that is necessitated by the short battery life. I do like the 50,000 hours constant on battery life of the Aimpoint T-1 much better. I literally never turn my optics off. I am not a fan of the bad design of the battery compartment in both the battery parallel and the battery perpendicular to the barrel models that make it prone to failure for multiple reasons. They have also had terrible CS since L3 took over. My rarely shot EoTech has been in 3 times for service. I don't know what Aimpoint's CS is like from personal interaction, but I havenot heard any complaints. I also don't like the rear location or the design of the Eo's controls. The EoTech does have a larger field of view, but that is moot if you shoot with both eyes open. And, personally the other big touted plus, the 1moa dot of the EoTech vs Aimpoint 4 (or now 2) moa dot is balderdash when you consider the inherent accuracy of most rifles (4 moa for a rack grade mil spec M4), added to the inherent accuracy of most ammo (8-10moa for most 55-64gr FMJ) fed to those rifles, AND the inherent accuracy of most shooters is way more than 1 moa. I recently took a 3 day VTAC class. 20 shooters, all experienced and well trained. There were 18 EoTechs, 1 iron sighted rifle and me with a T-1. 6 of the EoTechs went down hard. 3 others were going through batteries at the cyclic rate, and 1 had mount issues. My T-1 in a LaRue mount kept on keeping on. No issues. As it has for the last 4 years, with it's 1 battery, multiple multi-day classes and 8k rounds. - edited for clarity

An AR

Keep in mind this is a working shotgun, not a HD shotgun. Thanks, I actually don't grab it like a broomstick/chicken choke. I use it more like a hand stop/reference point. It closely mimics my support hand hold on a rifle, just without my thumb over the top. That barrel gets HOT! I will try to take a pic to better explain. I am looking for something a little more low profile, but haven't found anything yet that fits the bill. In the meantime, the "Irish" stubby works fine. Thanks Ray. I agree 110% on the topic of adjustable stocks. That is why I have one. The rail is lightweight (6oz for the rail, 4.1oz for the TLR-1, and 2.5oz for the vert grip) that is 12.6oz vs 16.1oz for the Surefire dedicated fore end light), a stable mounting platform for white and IR lights, grippy as hell and will clear the side saddle with the action open. I have never had a problem with the rail grabbers moving, flexing, or slipping and I have never cut myself on anything other than the shell elevator. The rail also let's me upgrade my light to newer, brighter, whateverer without the expense of a whole new fore end. The red dot has decent battery life, approx 3000 hours on the medium setting, and the rail it sits in actually creates a ghost ring for the bead in the event the RDS shits the bed on me. The dot is helpful shooting at 50yards with a shotgun just as it is on a rifle. It also helps for high percentage shots. The bead is fast, but the dot is faster and accurate, in my experience. The +2 is clutch as well as the big head dome safety, but you Mossy guys don't know about that Finally the sling. I look at the sling as I would a holster. In my opinion It is 1 of the 2 pieces of essential equipment you need on a fighting long arm (the other being a white light for target ID). What do you do with it if you need to do something with 2 hands - carry something, open a window, go hands on, restrain someone, open a water bottle. These are all thing you may need to do while carrying your long arm. If you gotta ask

That's fine bro. For my purposes everything on there is there for a reason. Be specific an we can chat it out. This is for discussion and learning right? What would you change and why?

Excellent! Best of luck with it.

Ground squirrels and marmots whistle

Hey Shane, sorry I missed this. My forum settings were jacked and I wasn't getting notifications. You are 100% correct, before you engage a target in the real world 2 things have to happen, you have to acquire a target, then identify it. The ACOG and other magnifying optics help tremendously with that. That being said, the OP was talking about target shooting out to 100 yards (occasionally longer), so no real need for magnification for ID other than to make sure you aren't hitting your neighbors target, and SHTF, which may have an ID component prior to engagement. I say "may" because you are going to have a hard time justifying shooting someone at distances where you need 3-4x magnification to realize it is a threat, as self defense. Not saying it is an impossible situation, but merely improbable. Now, getting into a close engagement while trying to di-di the area of unrest during the SHTF is much more likely to happen, IMO. A RDO and a pair of good binoculars would be a better investment and a more versatile equipment choice for SHTF, again, in my opinion. That being said, I have an ACOG, a RDO, and binoculars and yes I am bringing all of them if it ever comes to that.

Try moving the grip toward the muzzle end of the forearm. The further your hands are from the weapons center of balance, the more control you will have. You will see a definite increase in speed and control when driving the muzzle. Your split times on multiple target engagement drills will decrease significantly, and you will see an improvement in your speed and accuracy when shooting on the move as well. The downside is it is more fatiguing having your support arm out there near the muzzle. Also, you can try using the vert grip for a reference point or hand-stop vice the broom handle grip. Like the photo in Post #4 in this thread.