The answer to the question is yes, regardless of what Brownells says.  I believe much of what they say is just wrong.

There are two types of telescopes (and a rifle scope is a telescope): refracting and reflecting.  A rifle scope is a refracting telescope.  He was misled by the analogy he drew, and the amount of the light let in by the scope is certainly a function of the diameter of the objective lens.  If the tube diameter is small, the degree of convexity of the lens must be more extreme, but that’s the point with an objective lens with a different diameter than the tube.

In fact, in theory it’s possible to capture enough light with a very large objective diameter and highly convex lens that it would blind you regardless of the diameter of the tube.

The diameter of the objective lens affects more than just the field of view.  It also affects the amount of light captured.

I had seen other analyses of the tunnel rats, but this expose does even better at outlining the extent of the networks.

Dean Weingarten has a discussion up at Ammoland of South Carolina open carry, something we’ve pushed for years as regular readers know.

There are only five states which currently ban the open carry of handguns in most public areas, most of the time. They are: Illinois, New York, California, Florida, and South Carolina. New Jersey and Hawaii ban open carry in practice, but legally, anyone with a permit can open carry. It is just extremely difficult to obtain a permit.

South Carolina is moving toward restoring the right to openly carry handguns in public with House Bill 3094, labeled “Open Carry with Training”.

They’ve been moving for years, only to get torpedoed by the controllers who appear to control the controllers in South Carolina.

I’ve sent blast emails to every legislator in South Carolina before, but it has limited utility compared to communications a South Carolina resident would send.

To my readers in South Carolina: you’re on top of this, aren’t you?  You’re involved, aren’t you? Unless you’re involved, don’t complain when your state looks just like New York.

I can complain when I drive into South Carolina because my rights are not honored, but I don’t live there and they won’t listen to me.  They’ll listen to you, maybe, if you speak forcefully enough.

So you can’t complain.

Prior: South Carolina Open Carry Tag

We recently discussed the Primary Arms 5x Prismatic Optic and how its weight can be offputting.  Vortex recently released their 5x Prism optic, and Brownells reviews it, followed by the Vortex introduction of it.

It appears to be small, compact and light. I also like the plate for a miniaturized red dot on top of the optic.

Shooting Illustrated.

As the velocities of metallic cartridges increased and as rifle cartridges become significantly more powerful than handgun cartridges, things begin to change. If a shooter wanted a rifle, they generally wanted a rifle cartridge that would drastically extend the reach and hit harder than a handgun. Still, some revolver cartridges continued to be popular in rifles. With modern munitions, however, a popular revolver cartridge like the .357 Mag.—delivering about 1,200 to 1,400 fps out of a 4-inch revolver—will push the same bullet as much as 400 fps or faster out of a 16- or 18-inch-barrel rifle.

This created a problem for bullets. Modern projectile technology would allow ballistic engineers to create a bullet for .357 Mag. that could perform quite well at handgun or rifle velocities. What was challenging was to create something that would deliver expansion, maintain its weight and deliver decent penetration when fired from a short-barreled handgun as well as a rifle. You see, velocity is the driving force behind terminal performance, and bullets are typically designed to work within a certain velocity range. Extending that performance range so acceptable terminal performance can be had at impact velocities as low as 1,000 fps and as high as 1,800 fps has, at least until now, been similar to the search for Bigfoot.

I found myself trying to solve this conundrum of ammunition selection when I began working with a Ruger 77/357 bolt-action rifle I wanted to set up as a general-purpose rifle and as my companion to a concealed-carry and a general-purpose revolver.

[ … ]

Out of a snubnose revolver, the HammerDown load penetrated 15.5 inches and deformed with a frontal diameter 1.5X caliber. Out of the 4-inch revolver, the bullet penetrated 20 inches and across the front it measured 1.6X the unfired bullet diameter. And, out of the 18-inch barrel of the rifle, the 170-grain bonded bullet pushed to 22 inches and had a recovered frontal diameter that measuring 1.3X its original diameter. Unlike Critical Duty, which only showed a 400 fps (38 percent) velocity increase between the 2- and 18-inch barrels, the HammerDown load jumped from 1,102 fps out of the snubby to 1,773 fps out of the rifle, a 61-percent increase in velocity.

The point of all this is that if you’re a fan of the .357 Mag., and if you would like a single load suitable for hunting, predator defense and personal protection—a general-purpose or Bigfoot-capable load—you now have a fantastic option.

Left unmentioned are two things.  The first may be just an editorial preference, and that is that the ammunition design also incorporates certain features like chamfering at key parts of the cartridge to reduce misfeeds.

The second is the important one.  This is a designer, boutique ammunition, and the difficulty at the moment is finding ammunition at all.

Finally, just try to located a Ruger 77/357 or for that matter a Ruger 77/44 today.  They’ve been discontinued.

Oh, so then look for a Henry X Model in 357 magnum or 44 magnum.  Nope.  Cannot be found either.

News from South Carolina.

Some South Carolina Republican lawmakers are trying to get the decidedly conservative state to join 44 others that allow people to carry guns without concealing them.

South Carolina is one of only five states without so-called open carry, joining atypical partners such as California, Florida, Illinois and New York.

A House panel voted 3-1 along party lines to advance a bill Wednesday that would allow people who already have concealed-weapons permits to carry their guns without hiding them under a coat or other clothing.

The proposal has a long way to go before becoming law. But like another bill proposed each session that would ban almost all abortions, the open-carry bill got a boost when Republicans gained five seats in the General Assembly in the 2020 elections.

Before voting Wednesday, the subcommittee listened to the public speak for about two hours, both in person and virtually. Some speakers said the proposal would make them feel safer protecting their family, while doctors said they feared more gun violence and domestic killings in a state that is often among the worst in the country.

Doctors.  Experts in public policy, or so someone thinks.  Yea, that blood running in the streets thing hasn’t materialized anywhere open carry is legal, and they know it.

Some gun owners said the concealed-weapons law is just fine as it is. But Charleston’s police chief asked lawmakers to focus instead on laws ensuring that violent criminals serve more time in prison.

Chief Luther Reynolds, testifying by video, told lawmakers open carry is a bad idea given the recent increase in protests over racial injustice, which often involve angry people pitted against each other in close quarters.

“Adding the open carry of firearms raises tension,” Reynolds said. “It makes it even harder for law enforcement officers to determine who has and who has not been committing a crime.”

Both local and state law enforcement officials have been a significant force in preventing the bill from passing in previous years.

About a half-dozen of the 28 people who testified Wednesday were in favor of the bill.

Mark Roote said he carried his gun openly in Pennsylvania, which doesn’t require a permit, before moving to South Carolina. He said as a disabled veteran, a gun helps him defend himself and his family even if he can no longer physically fight.

“Having a pistol concealed on my hip requires extra motion,” Roote said.

I certainly wouldn’t deny a disabled veteran the right to choose what best suits his self defense needs, but the real issue is whether it is right and just to dictate to a man how he carries his weapons.  The answer is no, whether he’s a disabled veteran or simply doesn’t like IWB carry.

At least one speaker Wednesday said the proposal doesn’t go far enough. Tommy Dimsdale, who identified himself as belonging to a group of tens of thousands of gun owners in the state called Palmetto Gun Rights, said South Carolina needs to join about 16 other states that allow legal gun owners to carry their weapons any way they wish, without a permit.

“We’re disappointed that lawmakers think this bill adequately addresses the concern of gun owners,” Dimsdale said.

None of the lawmakers spoke about the bill before voting Wednesday. In the past, some African American legislators have suggested the measure might pose a danger to Black gun owners, who they said could be mistaken for criminals by police or other armed civilians.

“My reality is I am Black, and because of the color of my skin, I am feared by some of those same gun owners who have no idea I could be a good guy with a gun,” speaker Butch Kennedy said. “Open carry to me means open season on the hundreds of thousands of people who look like me.”

Good for Tommy.  He pressed the issue to constitutional carry.  As for the dude who is black being afraid of open carry, the answer is simple.  Then don’t open carry.  Lot’s of people don’t like it, just like lots of people don’t like concealed carry.

Much of this group sounds like a bunch of New Yorkers.  I suspect most of the naysayers came from law enforcement, gun control advocate groups, Greenville, Columbia and Charleston.

Maybe New York could annex those three cities and spare South Carolina the trouble of coddling their emotions.

News from Tennessee.

Is anyone surprised that those who risk financial loss (instructors for state-required classes) are opposed to this bill?