BarryinIN

The KRG stock arrived yesterday. And earlier that day I ordered a new barrel from International Barrels. https://internationalbarrels.com/product/22rf-cz455-452/

Thanks! The wind was pretty much a non-factor this time. That’s one reason. I’m not sure, but I think scores were higher across the board. Also- They rotate through three courses of fire. This was my first time seeing one twice. That helped a lot to lower the match jitters. Plus I had a good spotter this time. There was a large number of attendees, so I got separated from my buddy in the shuffle to align squads, but this guy was good too. A good spotter can gain you a few points sometimes. ********** My buddy John has a new goal. He wants to clean each of the three CoFs. The next one is tougher, but I think he can do it. But he has now been moved up in class and has to shoot farther. ********** He didn’t get to use it in this last match, but John just bought a KRG chassis stock for his CZ. I liked the looks, but wanted to look one over. I like the CZs, but the stock just doesn’t work for me in prone. This is getting serious. I ordered a green one. https://kineticresearchgroup.com/product/bravo-chassis-rimfire/

They had a match Wednesday evening. I shot a personal best, but my buddy outdid me handily. He shot the first perfect score they’ve ever had.

How about a 500 yard .22 match? https://www.nmlra.org/calendar/august22longrange

Seriously, if it ever works out, let me know. I’m a member there so can get you in early so you can set zeroes beforehand. Odds are I’m going anyway.

Shoot what you brung. No limits on rifle or scope that I can see. The only equipment rules concern your rifle support, i.e. bipod or backpack front rest only, no rear bag. I’ve seen plain CZs and older Rem 541s, and I’ve seen a couple of gee-whiz chassis systems. I’d say the two most common rifles are CZ 457s (mostly MTR models) and Ruger Precision Rimfires. The downside to a big Smallbore match rifle with lots of adjustments is they are single shots. Each twenty round stage is timed. It fairly generous at five to eight minutes, so a repeating action isn’t necessary, but it helps a LOT since you already have plenty to do. It looks like a lot more money is spent on scopes than rifles. I’ve seen some crazy optics, but the Hawke brand seems pretty popular among the regulars. Hawkes are big among airgunners and are pretty reasonable. My buddy has been using an Anschutz 64MPR (MultiPurpose Rifle). He swiped a Vortex 6-24X PST off a rifle of his kid’s. He tried his CZ457 Varmint and Bushnell 4-12X Saturday. I was using a CZ457 American standard taper barrel with an SWFA 16X scope. A $450 rifle and $250 scope. My neck was killing me in prone since the stock isn’t high enough. So I took my 1980-ish Walther KKM UIT*, put a fair to OK Weaver KT15 on that I had around, and used it. Much more comfortable. I didn’t think about it before, but I guess I took an opposite approach to many: put more money in the rifle and used a cheaper scope. It is more accurate than my CZ, but the stock fit is by far more important and helpful. The key to this seems to be ammo. You have to test a little. What shoots well at 50 yards might not do well at 100, let alone farther. And ammo we’ve given up on at 50 has been OK at 100 and beyond. What really hurts is the flyers. No matter what ammo you use, or how much you put into the rifle or scope, ammo-caused flyers happen. It must be unavoidable in rimfire. Even Eley Tenex and Lapua Midas throws flyers, they just do it less. You know the old hot rod saying? Speed costs money; how fast do you want to go? Well, how accurate do you want to be? Here’s my take on it: You don't need super accuracy for this, not like you might think. Holding 2 MOA should be enough. But you need to hold 2 MOA all the way out ***including flyers***. I’ve seen $2.50/box ammo and $18/box ammo. We’ve been taking the middle ground and using SK Long Range ammo. I don’t think either of us have missed a shot with it we can blame on an ammo flyer. That’s not to say it doesn’t give flyers. Some appear to have have strayed, but still hit if we expected it to and missed when we expected it to. It is great fun. I’m afraid I’ve made it sound complicated and expensive, but it’s cheaper than most shooting sports and makes more sense when you see it. If I were buying a rig for this, I’d buy a Ruger Precision Rimfire then go to SWFA’s “sample list” and get a demo SWFA 16X scope for $260. That would be capable of clearing the course. This club runs this match twice each month. Once on a Wednesday evening and then ten days later on a Saturday they run the same course again. It’s that popular. Here’s a link, but it doesn’t tell you much about the courses of fire. http://www.rileycc.com/match-descriptions/match/index.php?ID=22 Long Range Rifle Ya know... It just occurred to me... They are not all THAT far from Chicago. *Walther KKM is a series they made for several years. It’s more or less their competitor to the Anschutz 54. The UIT model was made to meet rules that were only in place a couple of years, for a more basic class with almost no stock adjustments and a lower weight limit than the super duper match rifles of the time. Luckily for me, the stock fits me well in prone. When in position, the toe of the stock comes close enough to the ground that I can put my left fist under it for support. I delayed using the Walther because it’s a single shot. I modified an ammo box to hold the rounds staggered so I can grab one at a time, taped it to a chunk of bullet casting lead for weight, and it worked alright. I feel disaster lurking there, however.

My attention wanders like that of a coffee-guzzling squirrel. My latest interest is shooting in Long Range .22 Rifle matches. I'm sure everyone has a different idea of what "long range" is with a .22, but at this club it's 75 to 240 yards. Basically it's like silhouette shooting, but at extended ranges and shot from prone with bipods. Targets are typical steel animal silhouettes plus a few rectangles and even some bolt heads thrown in. They have two classes, Standard and Master. The main difference is the distance shot. You have to shoot in Standard until you clear 75% hits in two matches. Usually, Standard shoots at 75, 110, and 165 yards. Master shoots at 165, 200, and 240 yards, the max available there. You can use a bipod, but no rear bag. You can also rest your forend on a backpack to replicate hunting situations, but no front sandbags. A friend took about two seconds to think of putting a sandbag rest in a backpack, the weasel. If you claim decrepitness, you can shoot from a bench. I should, but have resisted. Shooters are paired up, so that whichever one is not shooting can spot and keep score for the shooter. Because it would be too easy to shoot that far with a .22, they add to the difficulty with the shooting order. They have three basic courses of fire, and they rotate through them from match to match. At my first one, they shot the middle one as far as difficulty goes. This may get confusing on paper, but here is how that went. You draw a random scoresheet from a stack, and it has your shooting order. Three 20-target stages. Five minutes per stage. My order? Five at 110 yards, then five at 165, five at 75 yards, then back to 110 for the last five. That's my first twenty targets. 110/165/75/110 Some back and forth there, you see? Break to paint targets and switch places with your partner. After his turn, here is what I had for my second stage of twenty: Five targets at 75, five at 110, five at 165, then back to 75 again. 75/110/165/75 Break, switch shooters, they shoot that stage, then it's time for my last stage. That was five at 165, five at 75, five at 110, and 165 again. 165/75/110/165 So you shoot each distance four times in those three stages. Twenty shots total at each distance for 60 shots overall for the match. Like in silhouette, targets are shot in order left to right, one shot each, a point for a hit and nothing for a miss. With the jumping around in range, and need to adjust scope elevation AND parallax, there is plenty of opportunity to screw things up besides the usual shooting error. A good spotter is important too, because they will remind you what distance is next, remind you to change your scope, etc. I shot with a friend I've shot with a lot, so that helped. The importance of that was pounded home next time. I got 11 out of the first two arrays of 20. That's 11 for them combined. Then I got 15 of the last 20. That's what happens when you use the match to zero- 26 out of 60. My buddy who had shot this once before (and unbeknownst to me spent an afternoon fine tuning his zeroes on this range) got 51/60 and one step toward Master. The winner got something like 58. Next month was the toughest course of fire they use. You change distance a lot more. No more than two targets were shot at any one distance, then you changed to another bank for one or two, then switched again. Your score sheet had you all over the range. Scope knobs were spinning, parallax dials were cranking. I was glad I had shot a match before this, because it would be a bad one to start on. This one really shows how important the spotter is. That person needs to be on their toes just to tell the shooter what target is next. My buddy couldn't make this one so I got someone else. Someone less. It was so he could do to keep up with where I was. I had to wait for him to sort things out. He missed shots. He missed hits. None of this helps, especially in a times event. I don't remember my exact score for this one but it was in the 20s and close to the first one. I'd like to blame the spotter, but I can't. The most recent match was the easiest of the three courses. They don't allow scores from this one to count toward moving up in class to Master. You shoot a stage of 20 at one distance. Next stage, all 20 are at another distance. Last stage is at the remaining distance. The only complication is you get assigned where to start and end. Oh, and this one is shot at the same distances for everyone, so it's 110, 165, and 200 yards. I got to start at 200. This time, I got over there to get good zeroes ahead of the match. That made a difference. I also switched rifles to one with a stock better suited to prone shooting. My neck had been killing me. Things went a lot better this time around. My buddy and I are members of this club although it's an hour farther than our regular club. We took another guy from our local club this time, and the three of us ended up in the top five. He joined at their meeting the following night. My buddy tied for first with 58. I've shot NRA Highpower (centerfire) to 600 yards, and F-Class to 1,000 yards. I've played around at all ranges in between. People say this Long Range .22 is like shooting .308 at around 700-1000 yards, but I don't think it's as hard as 700 and sure isn't as hard as 1,000. But it IS hard, and it's a lot easier to setup and do. It takes about three hours to do the match, and that's with a crowd of 25-30 that requires three relays. Capable equipment is easier to come by, too. Ammo isn't even close!

I shot it yesterday. As expected, that experience proved it's a very short range tool. The closest backstop we have at the club is 50 feet. I shot three magazines/21 rounds, and used up a good percentage of that backstop. I'd say they went into around 16". As much as I'd like to blame that on the fact I used a different type of ammo in each magazine, I'd be lying. it's probably a MECHANICALLY accurate gun, but not so much for practical accuracy with the lack of sights, small size, a DA trigger. It has a bark, too. I don't think I'd enjoy shooting the .380 version much. For what it's meant for, it should be fine. It's a last ditch/minimum profile gun. A friend knew I had just got it, and expected I'd bring it. He had been there a while before he asked me about it. I had just dropped it in my shirt pocket on the way, but he hadn't noticed it.

No.

“It has been referred to as the pistol that the late Col Jeff Cooper would be forced to carry if he went to [censored]: a double action pistol with no sights, a magazine safety, and chambered in 32 ACP.” That’s from an Ammoland article on the Seecamp LWS-32 pistol. As a follower of most of the late Col’s teachings, I’ll go along with that. The Seecamp is a combination of what I too consider non-“features”. But I had to have one because it is so... neat. It’s fascinating engineering-wise. Everything about it is meant to make it small. Originally designed around a single ammunition loading, it is incapable of shooting (or even loading in the magazine) FMJ RN ammo because it would have to be a tiny bit larger to handle the slightly greater overall cartridge length. The slide is only as long as needed to cycle and no more. To reduce size, it was designed without slide rails. The grip supports only one of my fingers. Sights? Nope, that would take up too much space. It makes a Kel-Tec P-32 look big. Ruger LCPs dwarf it. Even the Walther TPh .22 is bigger. Most NAA mini-revolvers are longer and wider. Seecamp has a page with actual-size photographs of other guns overlaid on theirs that really makes the point. http://www.seecamp.com/overlays.htm Originally made in .25 ACP, the design was soon made to accept .32 without making it any bigger After several years, they did the same for a .380. Reports on the .380 make me think it could be too much of a good thing. Believe it or not, recoil is said to be “brutal”- something you don’t usually hear about the .380. The trigger guard whacks the outside of the trigger finger under recoil, and the manual even suggests applying a band-aid as a cushion before shooting. Suggested recoil spring replacement time is 200 rounds but some claim even that is optimistic. To get them to function while being on the ragged edge of size, they have to make it well. I keep seeing it called “the Rolex of small guns”, which I think is a stretch, but it IS made very, very well. The metal finishing is close to flawless, inside and out. It isn’t the easiest to operate due to the small size, but functions like cycling the action and pressing the trigger through its arc are smoooooth. In all honesty, though small, I think you are getting a lot of quality for the cost. There aren’t many regular production guns this nicely made. Another, admittedly silly, reason I wanted one was because they were so hard to get for so long. Demand was steady, but production was slow. Because designer Ludwig and son Larry Seecamp would not compromise quality, I understand the factory was never made up of more than four trusted employees. For a long time the wait was 1-2 years. People sold their spots on the list. If you ever saw one for sale, the price was two to three times retail. It used to tickle me that the Blue Book Of Gun Values would show the MSRP at $325, but used, new in box, at $900. I witnessed the owner of my local shop sell his right out of his pocket one day. A customer was badgering him to get one, and when the customer found out he had one of his own, he wouldn’t let up. Bob finally made the outrageous statement that he would take a thousand dollars cash for it. And the guy agreed! So yeah, there is a mystique about something you couldn’t have for so long. The Seecamps sold the rights to make the guns in 2013. Since then, production has increased until it now takes only a few weeks to get one. I found a pre-2013 .32, and although I paid twice what I could probably buy a Kel-Tec for, I felt it was a steal after knowing what they brought for so long. Having to wait only a week for it’s arrival really did make me feel like I stole it. So I have it. Buying a .32 pistol of any kind, let alone a DA with a magazine safety and no sights, is very unlike me. I sometimes feel like I am sinning when carrying a 9mm, and here I am with a .32. Not only that, I’m proud of the thing. How weird. Will I ever carry it? If I do, it will be as a third gun at best. It’s hard to imagine a time I’d carry one as my only gun, but I suppose anything is possible.

A week or so ago, I heard Herrett’s Stocks were no longer accepting orders, as they were closing soon. Then a few days later I heard similar news about Ahrends Grips. Bankruptcy there. We just lost a good good portion of the custom grip business. It’s hard to compete with rubber, dyed laminate, and Taiwan eBay sellers I guess. I only have a few sets of Herretts and no Ahrends, but have a feeling I'll miss both. They filled the gap between the ones I just mentioned and the multi-hundred dollar custom grips.

Since things are pretty slow around here, here’s an update. The Model 12 is still receiving attention from me. It hasn’t slipped away as old news and been forgotten yet. I painted the front sight green and put a BK grip adapter on it, and made no other changes. http://bkgrips.com With the narrower than standard K frame, aftermarket grips for these are scarce and/or require a long wait. Standard ones leave a gap at the top. The grip adapter was a temporary solution, but will remain permanent. Ahrends Grips was a possibility, but they are going bankrupt. The only other change I can foresee is a possible trigger and hammer change. Both are Model 12-specific parts due to the frame width. The trigger is narrow, but grooved, and grooved triggers are not my preference for DA shooting. Rather than permanently modify original parts on an otherwise unmodified 50 year old gun, I looked online for original parts to attack. What I found was some trigger and hammer sets. If I get one of those pairs, I’ll bob the spare hammer. I have gone back and forth on a hammer bob, but if I get a spare I can try it out without fully committing to it. The gun has been carried in a jacket pocket some this winter, and that hammer grabs like a big fishhook. Admittedly, I overlooked these for a long time, but it’s a pretty interesting gun. I’ve read before that they “carry like a J but shoot like a K” and that’s a good way or putting it. Recoil is similar to an Airweight J frame, but it’s much more controllable to make a follow up shot. It’s even made it to a class already. I attend the same Low-light/Night pistol class each year in December. Since I was using my Kimber K6s in the class this year, I took the Model 12 also. I’ll hold details of the challenges of managing revolvers, flashlights, and speedloaders for another time, but both guns were fine. New toys arriving since the M12 have all been S&Ws. A streak. That’s just how it worked out. A new M&P 15-22 rifle came first, then a nice old Model 39-2 9mm and a somewhat tired looking Model 65 3” RB. It was odd picking up the 65 last week in the shop with empty cases and gun racks.

It’s been almost a year since I posted the above. If the rumors are anywhere close to true, it’s a done deal and we’ll be swimming in them soon. I stand by the above comments. After handling the current King Cobras I think Colt could make a new Python with an action that equals the original Pythons I still don’t think that will be good enough for people. Reviews will love it. Owners of originals will slam it. Some people will buy it. Most will malign it as not being good enough to bear the name, whether they’ve ever touch either an original or new.

Welcome!

I thought they did handle the .50 BMG, but not too long ago read the travel is a little short. Oh well, I don’t have the need anyway. I need to measure, but am guessing the travel is about the same as a Rockchucker. On this large press, that amount of movement looks too little, like it should be scaled up to match the press size. It looks funny this way. I found a new, intact, shellholder plate and have it on the way. This will let me keep four of them in place instead of three, which is not a big thing, but it’s nice to make it “right” for $30. I now have one shellholder (.38/.357) to fit it and have two more coming (.308/.30-06 etc, and 9mm).

It’s old-ish. The company was Hollywood Gun Shop, a pretty small company. I’d say they were about the same size company as Star. They made reloading equipment- mostly presses, dies, and powder measures- from roughly the 50s until only a few years ago. I think this model started production in the mid-60s and lasted for 25-30 years Hollywood outlasted small names like Texan, Bair, and the like, but not by much. It might’ve been in the 80s when they slowed way down, but they didn’t have far to go. I thought they had quit some time in the 90s, but evidently the last owner was still making reloading tools until just a few years ago when a fire made it too hard to continue. I only read that after buying mine. I think that fire was 2013. If it helps to find them online, other Hollywood models were the Junior, Senior (made in both single stage and turret), and Automatic- a progressive. This one is a Universal turret. Another company called Dunbar made very similar-looking models. I don’t know if there was any connection, but when I say they look similar, they look very, very similar BTW, an odd thing about this press is that the ram raises on the UPstroke of the handle. Some presses have been made so this action is reversible, but I don’t see how it can be done on this one.

I have wanted one of these for a while, and have to brag. This thing is a big ‘un. That’s a Rockchucker next to it in the picture. The angle of the picture makes the Hollywood look bigger than it is, but not by much. The head has 12 die stations. I plan to use it for dies that I can set and LEAVE set, like crimp dies for revolver cartridges, a .223 seating die adjusted to 55 FMJs, a .308 seating die adjusted to my heavy bullet load, etc. This will save time and should be more consistent than adjusting them again each and every time I change them out. Shellholders are going to be a speed bump. Shellholders are pretty much standardized between brands now, but not when Hollywood started making their stuff. Although a couple of other companies used the same style, the design is different from what is made now, and I’ll have to scrape some originals up or buy an adapter (RCBS makes one, as does others). These presses were made with a rotating casting that holds four of their shellholders. That let you install four different shellholders that you could instantly switch between. A previous owner “experimented” on this piece and hacked up one spot. The guy I got it from is a machinist and eliminated that location so it’s now a three-hole arrangement. These presses were available with either a steel or aluminum frame. I might’ve preferred steel for the strength if I was buying a new one (50 years ago).. Mine is aluminum but I don’t think it’s lacking any strength. Let me say a big press is harder to carry than I thought it would be. I don’t want to overblow it into too big a deal, but like a sleeper sofa, everything wants to move when you pick it up. The added weight of a steel frame would not have helped.

Nikon is done also. What’s out there now is it.

I’ve had it in my hands for maybe a week now and it still seems weird to see “AIRWEIGHT” stamped on a K frame. I’ve carried it in a jacket pocket some and it rides well. My iPhone in the opposite pocket is enough counterweight to make the jacket hang right. I think S&W is missing out by not making these now, but in Scandium. Add some better sights and it would be slick. A 3” barrel option would be a neat variant also.

I don’t know why, but I’ve wanted one of these for a while. The Model 12 is an Airweight K frame .38 Spl. Basically an aluminum alloy framed Model 10. You could get it in any combination of 2” and 4” barrel, round butt or square butt grip frame. I’m getting a 2” round butt. But then again, it’s not just an alloy-framed Model 10. An odd fact is the Model 12’s frame is thinner by .08”. Well, the Model 12. 12-1, 12-2, and 12-3 is. The last ones, the 12-4s, were standard K frame width. Who would want that? Weight: 18oz. For comparison sake, the smaller 5-shot .38 J-frame concealed hammer Airweight 442/642 is 15.8 oz. I even have a couple boxes of standard pressure Federal Nyclad 125 HPs saved up for it. For some reason, I’ve had a thing for Sam Spade, Noir-style gats lately. Gats. Heaters. Roscoes. Torpedoes. Iron. Piece. Steel. Freakin’ Gunbroker. Maybe a Detective Special will be next.

I realized I haven’t posted anything since shooting the Kimber, which I’ve since done. A lot. I like it. It’s comfortable (enough) with Magnum ammo, but I’ve been carrying Speer .38 Spl +P 135 grain Short Barrel Gold Dots in it. Another good choice might be Remington .357 Mag 125 Golden Saber which is a mild Magnum. I’ve been using it as my motorcycle gun*, carried in a highly raked crossdraw from Azula Holsters. More or less a “driving holster”. This was my intended use for this gun. I wanted a revolver for motorcycle carry in case I had a need to shoot without the ability to lock my wrist. I would like to add a lanyard ring for a little extra security. I love the grip shape. They are so smooth as to be slick, but there is a stippled version that should take care of that. The grip on the 3” version is a little longer than the 2” but not by much. It is just long enough to get about 3/4 of my pinky finger on and that’s enough. In a word, the grip is efficient. There is only enough material to receive the hand and no more. It’s pretty interesting, really. When gripped with one hand, the only wood visible is a small wedge between my fingertips and the heel of my hand. That got me thinking more. “Efficient” is a good word to describe the entire gun if I had to choose only one. I just described the grip, and the cylinder is well-known. It is only a couple hundredths of an inch larger than a J-frame cylinder yet holds a sixth round. If you look at the cylinder window of the frame, it is cut close at the front and rear. No wasted space there. Every detail was carefully thought out. I still don’t think the trigger is as good as in some other Kimber revolvers I’ve tried, but it HAS improved with use. *BMW R1100RS and BMW K75S.

If I’ve learned anything from shooting this gun, it’s that it thrives on abuse. It requires hard use to function. You cannot go easy on it. I know that’s the rule for a lot of guns- lever actions come to mind- but you hammer this thing and I swear you can hear it laugh.

I’ve had it a few days but haven’t shot it yet. The trigger is smooth, but I don’t think it’s quite as smooth or as light as the few I’ve handled before. Those, however, had been shot and/or dry-fired a lot. One was used by a fellow student in a class. We shot around 500 rounds each in that class, plus he had owned, shot, and carried it for months previously. The others were all on display at trade shows where people had been walking up and dry firing them over and over. I guess I shouldn’t compare an out-of-the-box gun to those. It is between S&W J-frame and K-frame size. Maybe a little closer to J. The old Colt D-frames (Detective Special, Agent, etc) is a close match, and HKS D-frame speedloaders work. Its a loose fit in a K-frame holster and won’t go into most J-frame holsters unless they are worn. Many early reviews mentioned that the inside of the frame was actually well finished without a single tool mark. Then I read one recently that complained about how rough it looked inside. This had me wondering if Kimber has let things slide since they brought these out three years ago. I had to look. It appears to me that either the negative reviewer got a bad example or “told a story” (no pics were included) because mine matches early descriptions. A small detail or two. The K6s sideplate comes off about like a S&W. The three screws have hex/Allen heads. I was nervous about taking them out the first time, since they might be ridiculously tight and I’d mar them. They were about right for torque and broke free without drama. The S&W sideplate is usually so tightly fitted it’s hard to get off, but due to minor differences in how the Kimber plate is made, it’s not as bad. It’s still tight, but not bad. The front sideplate screw is pointed, and secures the crane, and therefore the cylinder assembly, in the frame. Remove that screw and the cylinder comes right off. I don’t know why, but it seems easier than on a S&W even though it should be no different. I would love to see Kimber offer an accessory cylinder in 9mm. Or why stop there- .38 Super or even 9x21 for “non-permissive” countries. This one (3”) has the longer grips. The shape feels great, but the wood is so smooth I’m afraid they may be too slick in some cases. They seem like they will be OK with a proper grasp, but so close to not OK you can’t afford to lose any traction. We’ll see. Some checkering or stippling would’ve been nice. There aren’t a whole lot of replacement grip options out there, but there are at least a couple. But none of this means much without shooting it. I’m getting to it.

In between the Basic and Advanced groups at 4-H Shooting Sports this weekend, we got set up early so I let my helpers try the KS7 out. We shot most of a box of shells successfully. A friend wanted to bet me it wouldn’t make it through one box of shells before living up to the Kel-Tec reputation of needing a trip back to Cocoa, FL. I refused the wager on the grounds of owning Kel-Tecs before. I thought the amount might be closer to one magazine of seven rounds. I’ll admit it has exceeded my expectations there. BTW, now that I’ve had the chance to look around inside, this gun reminds me of the Ithaca 37 in some ways. If there is a negative that stands out, it’s the safety button. It’s a push-through crossbolt type, above and in front of the trigger. It gets pushed left to right to fire. That’s the opposite of the typical safety button used on Remingtons and others. This is really bothering me.

Followed me home. This is the single mag tube version of the KSG. Simpler, lighter, and trimmer. It’s also quite a bit less money- the local shop had $409 on it. What the heck. I’m no Kel-Tec fan, but for $409, I’ll give this one a chance. It feels a lot handier than the KSG.