The NFA Odyssey Part 1: It's all about Trust...and paperwork

So you've been surfing the various fora out there dedicated to firearms and said to yourself "Boy Howdy, would I ever like to get my hands on one of those sexy SBRs!"

On the surface, it can be intimidating. There's paperwork involving Sheriffs, and Fingerprints, the ATF, maybe an FFL or two, Tax Stamps, a Dark Lord, and something about the end of the world. Ok, I threw that last part in there for grins. But there are some major hurdles to overcome, but none of them are quite as bad as you might believe.

Now there are a lot of issues with going the individual route. What I mean by that is not all Sheriffs or County Chiefs are friendly about signing off on your Form 1 or Form 4. Then there's the fingerprinting hassle and the issue of what to do in the event of your death. When you die, your NFA items will be transferred to whom you want, but they will have to go through the same process you just did, including paying the $200 stamp per item.

Seems like a headache, doesn't it? Never fear, there is a much more simple way around this: A Revocable Trust (depending on your State the name might be different).

What is a Revocable Trust you ask? It is a trust (legally binding agreement) that you can change, edit, add to, or subtract items and individuals from during the course of your lifetime. Upon your death these items will pass on to the Trustee(s) you appoint. Tax free, no hassle with probate, and no long waiting period.

Fantastic, no?

So by now you've probably looked up "NFA Trust" and found a variety of helpful, and not so helpful, websites and forum posts and you're even more confused now than before. Even better, there's a group of lawyers out there spamming various boards for their "NFA Trust Service" and "keepin up the skeer", to steel an old Southernism. If you don't mind spending $500 to pay someone else to set this up for you, by all means go ahead and do so. They'll flood you with horror stories and paint pictures of small concrete rooms, tiny windows, grey bars, and never wanting to drop your bar of soap for 20 years. The truth is, as long as you are reasonably intelligent and ask questions when you are stumped, you will be fine.

The Arizona Gun List already has an excellent walk through on setting up a revocable trust using Quicken WillMaker. I'm not going to waste my time regurgitating his already excellent work. Read up on it, and follow his procedures.


After that you do all the work for your trust, you will need to print out either an ATF Form 1 (if you're making this weapon yourself) or ATF Form 4 (if you're transferring an already made/registered NFA item).You will also need to fill out the ATF Certification of Citizenship form. Note, when SBRing a pistol the Form 1 and 4 ask for the length of the firearm. They want it's present length, not what it will be with the stock attached.

Then go to your bank and get a certified check (you can use a personal check, but if you're as fiscally irresponsible as the majority of Americans, let's not leave anything to chance) for $200 made to out to the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives". You will then fill out and print two copies (FRONT AND BACK) of your Form (either 1 or 4), your Certification of Citizenship, Your Declaration of Trust, Schedule A, and Certification of Trust, and mail them to:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

National Firearms Act Branch

244 Needy Road

Martinsburg, West Virginia 25405 USA

I sent it certified, so that I would know when they received it. At that point, just sit back and wait. As they say in Joisey "Fuggadditaboutit"

The PK-23 1800 rounds later

So this happened about 6 weeks ago, but I've been busy so I'm just now getting down to it. As you'll recall, I posted back in April that the PK-23 was an excellent "bargain" red dot scope. Well, it looks like I'm going to have to take that back. After 1800 rounds, it failed me.

I was running a dynamic shooting course using my WASR equipped with the PK-23 to really shake it up and see what it could take. As part of this course, targets were engaged at a max range of 100 meters, up to "CQB" (spitting distance). There were also several transitions from long arm to pistol and back again, reloads performed under cover, and shooting at targets behind cover.

At first, the PK-23 did quite well. The blinking dot really helped it stand out in the bright light and the smaller dot made hits on smaller targets quite easy. After going prone fast and taking several shots at a target 15m away, I noticed that the dot jumped position. Seeing this, I immediately used the front sight and scope body as a giant "ghost ring" type sight and completed the shooting course. Thankfully, this "caveman Eotech" worked well enough and I was able to make body hits on the 3 remaining targets.

Afterwards, my brother and I spent about an hour diagnosing the problem and seeing if we could fix the scope. First, we checked to make sure that the screws on the turrets were tightened, they were. We then loosened them, re-zeroed it with a laser bore sighter, and then shot it at a new target. Immediately the dot moved and the scope lost zero. To check that this wasn't an issue with the scope, but the mount, we pulled it off of it's mount and used a pair of 30mm rings I had on hand. The scope was then mounted on my Ultimak equipped SLR-107FR after we removed the Aimpoint Comp ML3. Again, the dot moved after each shot and zero was impossible to hold. After that, we can to the conclusion that the scope had indeed bit the dust, so it's now sitting in a dump somewhere, an object lesson to me.

While I understand that others have PK-23s that have functioned for years without issue, I can personally no longer recommend it as a viable option for a weapon that you might have to trust your life to one day.

It's about the Kalashnikov, not the money...right?

Recently on my "home" forums of TheAkforum another member and I got into a rather heated discussion.See, another forumite had asked for recommendations on a quad rail for his rifle and one of the first recommended was one made by UTG, an Airsoft manufacturer. UTG is also one of the bottom of the barrel Airsoft manufacturers. I interjected and stated that these rails had known issues (not staying in place, bending easily after being warmed up, out of spec rails) and that it would be better to spend $40 more and get a solidly built quality piece, like the K-VAR 405USPR rail than waste money on "Cheap junk".

He took issue with this and said "Just because something is expensive, doesn't mean it's quality", which is completely true. However, one can easily differentiate between cheaply made and poor quality accessories versus inexpensive quality accessories, and vice versa for the more expensive ones. You see, the motto for TheAKforum is "It's about the Kalashnikov, not the money". Originally, this referred to the late Gunsnet's owner David, who was constantly having membership drives, needling frequent sellers, and badgering people to "upgrade" their memberships to fund his own personal Title II weapons collection. Some how this noble motto has now morphed, in the minds of a few, into justification for slapping the most crudely made, unreliable, cheap junk on their rifles.

Some good examples are the following: Anything made by UTG, anything made by Tapco (except for their G2 trigger), anything made by Barska, Leapers, Command Arms and a host of others. In fact, it would much easier, and brief, to make a list of quality accessory manufacturers for the AK.

Now, if you're the type of person who wants to play "dress up" with their rifle, of any make, in order to look "cool" to all the mouthbreathers at the Range, then you should read no further. If you're the type of person who says "Well I only spent $300 on this rifle, why should I spend more on a red dot?", read no further, because there's no getting around that mindset.

Unfortunately, cheapness is quite prevalent in the AK community, and for good reason; AKs are (comparatively) cheap. Certainly much less expensive than ARs or any other popular rifles today, except maybe the venerable 10/22. Not saying all AK aficionados are like that, I certainly am not, but people with that attitude do make up a large chunk of the population. They want their rifles to look like the latest cover of SWA(N)T Magazine and impress all of their buddies. They also want to do it on a "budget" and not have to save money.

Let's look at what you get for these "budget" items, when in fact if you saved up just a bit more, you'd have quality and not the issues you're about to see.

1) Handguards: The original Eastern Bloc polymer handguards are metal lined. Why? Because they get hot and the metal handguards help diffuse heat. Leave these critical pieces off, and you have a melting handguard on your hands. None of the other commonly available US or imported handguards have these heat shields other than the ones available from K-VAR, and yes, you will pay for it (about $50 for the upper and lower HG).

2) Folding stocks: A very popular mod, and one that is found on many rifles, including all of mine. Now the original Easter Bloc/Chinese folding stocks all have some things in common: Metal hinges. Why? This is a high stress area and you don't want your nice side folding stock's hinge to shatter when you're buttstroking an Imperialist Capitalist Pig, or pro-Democracy Student Protesters. For US Made folding stocks, K-VAR, ACE, and DPH are the only way to go. All of the others will break. Why? They use cheap plastic hinges. This became such an issue that for a while Tapco's website actually had an announcement addressing it.

The good news is they also have a lifetime warranty. Small comfort.

3) Magazines: Oh boy oh boy, my personal favorite. Up until fairly recently, all US Made AK magazines were junk. I mean, "won't feed reliably in any rifle" junk. Polymer feed lips and locking lugs with not metal supports. What does that mean? That with the repeated stress of removing and inserting a magazine at a static range the lugs will  eventually shear off and the feed lips will deform. That's a big deal, particularly if you're someone who likes to take training classes or shoot practically at the range in preparation for self-defense. Search on Youtube for "AK Magazine Drop Test" and you'll see what I mean. Quality polymer AK magazines will run you between $15 and $30. Look for the Izhevsk mark (Arrow in Triangle), the Bulgarian Circle 10 ((10)), etc. If it was made in the US, it is junk*. As a general rule, don't buy magazines made in countries that never issued the AK to their armed forces. By the way, you can get perfectly good steel mil-surp AK magazines for under $11. Yes, they're heavier and not as cool as polymer, but they'll be used by your great, great, grandchildren.

*We'll see how the USPalm magazines bear out over the long run.

4) Optics. This is another area where I frequently face palm myself after talking with other AK enthusiasts. Once again, it's "Why would I spend $xxx on my scope when I only paid $300 for my rifle?" I can't say why you might, but I can tell you why I do.

• I want something that will last as long as my rifle
• I want an optic that actually enhances the performance of my rifle
• I don't want to have to constantly change batteries or re-zero the opticI don't want something that will crack a lens or dent a tube during a training 

Pretty good reasons, right? You bet. That said, you don't have to spend exorbitant amounts of money on these. Look at my post on the PK-23 for an example of a perfectly good sub-$250 red dot optic. For under $300, you can have the PK-AS, which is part of the latest generation of Russian optics for the AK series of rifle. Now yes, I do have 3 Aimpoints in Larue QD mounts for my other rifles, but that doesn't mean I don't ever use my "truck gun". Quite the opposite in fact. As to why I went for the Aimpoint/Ultimak combo on these weapons was more dictated by my need and what those rifles had than anything else, cost included. My SLR-107FR has a scope rail, but you would have to constantly attach and detach the optics mounted here to use the side-folding stock. Which is rather annoying. My Dracos (soon to be SBR'd, come on ATF!) lack the side rail scope mount, so it was just easier to use the Ultimak and the Aimpoint Micro wouldn't throw the balance off on these weapons.

In conclusion, while it is indeed about the Kalashnikov, and not the money, don't abuse your weapon by throwing the cheapest of Airsoft made junk on it. Its cruel and makes Uncle Mishka cry!

PK-23 Red Dot

Here's my review of the PK-23 and mount for another site, will post updates later:

So today, much like an eager boy, I returned home from running errands and saw that a Not So Jolly, kind of Orcish, Old Santa had left a nice little package on my door step. I was quite excited, it meant that my new mount from Kalinka arrived prior to my going out of town, always a good thing to happen.

This mount came to my attention when Belloc of WarriorTalk and TheAkforum did a review on one he was testing for Kalinka. It's a low mount, centered, with built in 30mm rings. He was wanting to mount an Aimpoint. I talked with Kalinka and they informed me that it was orginally designed for the PK-23. What luck, I just happened to have that same red dot and wanted to see if I could get it to sit a little more low and centered than the BP-02. Turns out, it does. According to Kalinka, it is still 4mm off the center of the bore. I can tell you that to my naked eye, I couldn't really tell.

Now I acquired the PK-23 because I was looking for an optic that didn't cost as much as an Aimpoint but was still as robust and reliable as the Kalashnikov design. My simple rule is I won't mount an accessory that compromises my rifle's reliability or function, period. For $200, the PK-23fit my criteria easily. I like the PK-23 for it's blinking 1 MOA red dot. Though it is smaller than I normally prefer (used to the H-1 and Comp Ml2s 4 MOA dots), the blinking function assures you that your eye is drawn to it and that the dot does not get lost in background clutter.

The mount, sits low on the rifle and, as I said is, almost dead centered. I was able to bore sight it but won't be able to check zero at the range until the New Year. Now, according to Belloc, with a little Dremel work you can mount the Aimpoint Comp M family, and it will co-witness in the lower 1/3 of the scope. Same as the Ultimak/H-1 combo. Unfortunately, this does not hold true for the PK-23. You can see the front sight, but the rear is blocked. I'm sure that once I zero the red dot, I'll be able to figure out where the front sight puts the bullet on paper and use the "Caveman Eotech" in case something goes wrong with the scope, which will be more than adequate for close range shooting.

For someone looking for a bargain "Truck Gun" with a red dot, it really is hard to beat a WASR 10 with this set up. For less than $600 invested, I have a reliable, though ugly, rifle. Should anything happen to it (AKA Thieves or Barney Fife), I won't be in as much pain were I to lose my 107FR and ML3, or one of my soon to be SBR'd Dracos and their H-1s. The following pictures were taken at my friend's apartment so he could see.

See how low it sits, just barely above the dust cover (you can still remove and reattach the cover, btw, for malf clearing).

Other side

Cell camera pick, with the Kalashnimutt doing double duty as a target. The camera is off center, not the dot.

I've been told that it will co-witness with the PK-23 on some rifles, but not others. A few mm difference in the location of the optics rail makes all the difference in the world. I can use the iron sights through the scope, but only when I set my elevation to 500m.

Hope you find this helpful.

"US Troops target Civilians"

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've certainly read this headline and seen its ensuing video since it all went viral Monday thanks to Wikilinks.

Now, on the off chance you haven't seen the video, I'll embed it below:

This is the full 38 minute video, not the edited for excitement 17 minute video most people have seen. What you are watching is an Apache attack helicopter crew observe, attempt to identify, and engage suspected insurgents. Unfortunately, amongst the insurgents, was a Reuters film crew. Actually, they were locals "contracted" to get video clips of foreign fighters and insurgents engaging and killing Coalition troops. It is very, very easy to sit back and Monday morning QB the actions of the crew in this video from the comfort of our living rooms on our personal computers with our IPhones buzzing in the background.

Unfortunately, when you're in the heat of combat, you don't have the luxury of time. You go with what you see, and can logically infer. So let's take a look at the two incidents and treat them semi-separately.

1st, the killing of the cameraman and "reporter"

1. This took place at the beginning of Gen. Petraeus' "Surge". Combat and insurgent activity were very high.
2. The "reporter" and "cameraman" were with insurgents while those insurgents were on an operation to kill and maim US and Coalition troops.
3. From a gun camera, the "cameraman's" camera looks an awful lot like a rocket launcher, particularly when you're trying to decide whether or not the men you're watching are trying to kill your fellow soldiers. Nobody wants to be the guy who didn't pull the trigger and then have his buddies killed later.

When taken together, perhaps this wasn't the smartest choice for the Reuters contractors. Interviewing insurgents from a safe house is one thing, actually going along with and participating on an op with them? I'd say both men are guilty of having terminal stupidity.

Now, with all that said, it is also obvious that the Apache crew were jumpy and overstated the threat a bit. The caveat here being that this incident didn't occur in a vacuum. Insurgent activity was high, patrols were being attacked almost hourly, and mens lives were on the line. They don't call it "The Fog of War" for nothing. 

Second event, the shooting up of the "Ambulance" with children in it. Civilian deaths are always regrettable, and the US Military has a policy of minimizing civilian casualties if at all possible. Sometimes to the point of costing US Servicemen their lives (Mogadishu, and the current ROE in Afghanistan). 

Let me be quite frank here, while I have sympathy for the children, I have none for parents who knowingly and intentionally put their children in harms way. This wasn't the first such case of insurgents using women and children as human shields, nor will it be the last. I've heard at least a score of first-hand accounts from soldiers on the ground who held their fire because they saw women and children in a vehicle only to have a homicide bomber detonate the vehicle moments later.

Gallows humor aside, this is something that will haunt those I've spoken with about it until the day they die. It takes a certain type of grit in a man to regularly go into harm's way and kill his fellow man.  Orwell said (correctly quoted) "Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf". Thankfully, the US military has men and women willing to do so without question to the cost of their lives for us here on the home front. That said, while there are few who, when being honest, will willingly shoot women and children unless there is no other choice. Any statements to the contrary don't stand up to objective scrutiny. If our men and women in uniform callously mowed down all innocents, insurgents and homicide bombers wouldn't use them as human shields in the first place. Yes the gun crew was looking for any excuse, because that is what the rules of engagement dictate to them. War is so much easier when politicians and lawyers don't step in and unnecessarily complicate it. When they do Mosques become bases and weapons caches as well as playing host to snipers while our soldiers get wounded and killed with no recourse.

The people in this video were lending a helping hand to armed insurgents who had been preparing an ambush against coalition forces. Maybe they were Good Samaritans, maybe they were concerned friends and relatives. Maybe they just wanted to pick up extra weapons and supplies and prevent the wounded from falling into US hands for interrogation.

The point is, they were in the middle of a combat zone and intentionally took their children on an operation. At the end of the day, this was the choice the parents made. 

Critics should take care to note that no other force in the breadth of military history has ever taken as great of pains, often to the detriment of its own soldiers, as the US Military when it comes to minimizing civilian deaths.