A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Font Size



User Rating:  / 0

Ring in 2017 with a unique celebration of Americana

The first annual Sulgrave Manor Corgi Drop

Join us on Adrienne Drive to Celebrate the New Year with the Corgi Drop.  New York has some goofy ball and lots of litter, Clay’s Corner has the Possum Drop, and now Mount Vernon’s Sulgrave Manor community brings you the 2017 Corgi Drop!  

As the witching hour approaches, our Corgi will be lowered to the ground to receive New Year’s Milk Bones.  


Fun begins at 11:30 PM.  

User Rating:  / 0

Here is some practical experience using Duracoat finishes “Duraheat 2.0” product.  Pictured below are 2 practically identical .30 suppressors, with a titanium tube and rear end cap and a carbon steel front end cap.  

 The instructions provided with the product are pretty easy to follow, but ... a little misleading.  degrease, rough up / sand the finish, but do not degrease again after sanding.  so far so good.  Shake / mix and step 4:  “apply ..with an airbrush, HVLP or other spray gun.

Only if you use a spray gun you will run out rapidly before you finish whatever you’re coating. 

it says you can put on 2, 1 mil thick coats 8 hours apart.  This is achievable with an airbrush.  it says that curing will occur in 8 hours but for best performance heat to 350 for 20 minutes.  wait 8 more hours before subjecting to heat, do not subject to extreme heat during the first use.

Here’s another thing to avoid:  Solvents. I inadvertently used a paper towel on one of the suppressors pictured below - the top one - that I’d previously used mineral spirits to clean some other part.  The paper towel was almost dry, but it completely removed the duraheat from the tube, requiring it to be completely stripped and starting from scratch. 

After curing, the suppressors were checked for bore alignment through several mountings an dismounts.  Once confirmed they were taken to a local range for a function test; each suppressor had 6 rounds put through it, 3 rounds at a time.

Once they had passed this test the suppressors were taken to the range, and using the targets from the first range trip the POI shift was measured and confirmed.  At the 2nd range test, the Duraheat product failed completely after only 20 rounds of 5.56mm, fired in slow, aimed fire at a pace of only 1 round per second.  The pictures below illustrate the product simply melted off. Obviously when I attempted to remove the 2nd suppressor from the rifle it simply rubbed off in my hands.  You can also see how fragile the coating is from the nicks in both cans.  The top suppressor has only been shot with no more than 10 rounds at a time until the finish can be stripped.  The nicks have come from basic handling from 2 trips to the range; they’re holstered in pouches within a bag, so they are not bouncing around loose. The scars on the lower can are from the melted “Duraheat” finish, rubbing off against surrounding objects when the suppressor was removed from the rifle after the 20 shot string. 

Based on the performance of the suppressor pictured below, the top one was only used lightly. Even with reduced firing, the finish felt ‘tacky’ and I expect it will also fail. 



User Rating:  / 1
BATFE is attempting to add more bureaucracy to obtaining Title II firearms.  Everyone should be very concerned about this and oppose it.  Why?  Because BATFE has a history of reversing its rulings & holdings and the “legal” gun you have today might suddenly end up a “controlled” firearm in the course of a few weeks.  
Go to and log comments opposing this change.  There are some suggested comments below and elsewhere on the web.  Whatever you do, please oppose the proposed regulation change.
The link to comment is here:   <—  this takes you to the page to comment on the proposed rule.
This could impact us all down the road, because as we all know ATF loves to change their mind and when they do, there are felony implications.  Examples include:
Suggested comments:
I oppose the ATF proposal to require CLEO sign off approval for all title II firearm transfers, including Trusts and other legal entities.
  1. ATF was petitioned by the petitioner, NFATCA to eliminate the clumsy "Chief Law Enforcement Officer" (CLEO) sign off replacing it with a notification to the CLEO of the pending transfer, and supplanting the sign off with the NICS check used for thousands of firearm purchases daily.  ATF vaguely states it agrees, at least in part with the justification for the petitioner's request, however without any justification it proposes expanding that process to all transfers.  
  2. ATF admits in the proposal that it has access to several databases, including NICS, which could be used to accomplish what the petitioner requested and ensure that firearms do not fall into the wrong hands.
  3. The CLEO sign off is clumsy and outdated.  It is also far more expensive for the industry, firearms owners and the government to maintain - or expand in this proposal, than to use the NICS check procedures to verify transfers of title II firearms are not transferred to prohibited persons.
  4. The CLEO sign off enables corrupt persons in CLEO positions to politically coerce money out of transferees in the guise of campaign donations. 
As the petitioner requested, a NICS check on the principal officers of an individual, principle officers of a trust or other legal entity would be faster, more efficient, and would reduce the chances for human error.  This would allow the NFA transfer process to be streamlined, it would be safer for the public and would be a less burdensome regulatory change.  
Once again, I oppose any expansion of the ‘Chief Law Enforcement Officer’ sign off requirements for NFA transfers.
User Rating:  / 0

User Rating:  / 1

A Manly bottle opener 




You are here: Home XDS 45 review News