Tag Archives: concealed carry

First Look: Smith and Wesson’s new Bodyguard 2.0 TS


Smith & Wesson’s new Bodyguard 2.0

Ursula and I made a recent stop at my favorite local gun store, Collector’s Gun Exchange. As I was perusing the shop, focusing mainly upon the more collectible firearms, salesman Cameron was playing around with a neat little pistol that had just arrived a very few hours earlier. He handed it over to me and asked what I thought of it. My first impression upon feeling the weight and noting the diminutive size was, is this a .22? Nope. It was the new Smith and Wesson Bodyguard 2.0, which comes chambered in .380 ACP/9mm kurz. I was immediately impressed. And when Cameron pointed out to me that this striker-fired elf came with a manual thumb safety, I was pretty much sold.

S&W Bodyguard 2.0 .380 TS (Thumb Safety)

And then I tried the trigger. Smooth, and light. Lighter than even my Sig P365 SAS (which I modified to include a manual safety), which I’ve carried for five years now, but not as good as the single-action mode on my previous carry weapon, the incomparabe Walther P99c AS. My only minor quibble was the longish takeup, about 5mm, with the reset coming in at about the same. More on the trigger later.

S&W Bodyguard 2.0 TS — comes with a 10-round and 12-round magazine

It’s nice that Smith and Wesson includes both a 10-round and 12-round magazine. It would be even better if S&W included a second 12-rounder for a total of three magazines, but since Sig Sauer only gave me two 10-rounders with the P365 I guess I’m not going to complain.

TS = Thumb Safety; NTS = No Thumb Safety

The Bodyguard 2.0 comes in two flavors — Rocky Road and Strawberry Cheesecake. No, wait. I’m thinking of something else. The Bodyguard 2.0 flavors are TS and NTS. The Bodyguard 2.0 TS is equipped with an ambidextrous Thumb Safety, and the NTS has No Thumb Safety. When it comes to a carry weapon, I’m all about the safety. All my carry pieces are either double-action/single-action, have a manual safety, or both. Holding the Bodyguard in my right had, I have no trouble disengaging or re-engaging the safety. Switching to the left hand did not go as smoothly for some reason. Unless my left thumb is drastically weaker than my right, which I doubt, this thing is just darn sticky on the starboard side of the firearm. I’ve been working the safety a bit, and it seems to be smoothing out.

Bodyguard 2.0 TS with ambidextrous manual thumb safety

Now back to the trigger. It’s a flat-face, which seems to be the current rage. And it does seem to assist somewhat in keeping a consistent pull. I rather like it. The pull weight is defintely nice, as well. A five-pull average on my trusty Lyman Digital Guage shows 4 pounds 3.6 ounces/1,915 grams. That certainly beats the P365, which comes in at 6 pounds 8.7 ounces/2,969 grams. For an additional comparison, the AS trigger on the Walther P99 was advertised as 4.4 pounds/2kg in single-action and exactly twice that in double-action. So, the P99’s single-action pretty much matches the Bodyguard’s pull weight.

Bodyguard 2.0 controls — takedown lever, slide lock, safety (engaged)

The Bodyguard’s takedown and reassembly beats the P365 hands down, but that’s because the SAS variant of the P365 swaps out an actual lever for a difficult-to-manipulate slotted head. One word of caution on taking down the Bodyguard: with the slide locked back, depress the ejector all the way down. It’s even more important to make sure the ejector is down before reinstalling the slide. Failure to do so will potentially snag the ejector and possibly damage it.

Bodyguard 2.0 ready for disassembly

To raise the ejector after reassembly, simply insert an empty magazine. If you don’t raise the ejector, the trigger will not engage the striker and you will be unable to function-check the firearm after getting it back together.

Bodyguard ejector in the raised position; make sure you lower it.

After removing the slide, everything else is a snap. Compress the guide rod and lift away from the barrel lug, then remove the barrel:

Disassembled Bodyguard 2.0
Slide with barrel and guide rod
Slide with barrel and guide rod removed
Frame with slide removed

Reassembly is not quite as easy. I had a dickens of a time reinstalling the guide rod. The darn spring just refused to compress. It was almost as if the spring was binding at the forward end of the rod when I placed it into the slide guide rod cutout. Several attempts to remove the guide rod and compress the spring with my fingers, and later a flathead screwdriver, took quite a bit of effort. But after repeated attempts I got the spring to move, and eventually got the guide rod back in, compressed, and reseated onto the barrel lug. I suspect I may have a faulty spring, but once I got it back in there was no binding.

Bodyguard U-notch rear sight

The sights are a bit like a Spaghetti Western — There’s the good, the bad, and the ugly. The good is that the front sight is tritium with a high-visibility orange surround. The bad are that the tritium portion is very tiny. The ugly is the absolutely hideous U-notch rear sight — all black with no side indices for low-light acquisition and a ridiculously wide notch. There will be no match shooting with this handgun. But, then again, that’s not why it exists. Inside of 25 yards/23.8 meters I doubt I’ll have problems keeping on paper. I may not be as accurate in the dark, however. There’s simply no way to tell if I have the front sight within the notch, let alone have it centered left, right, up, or down. That’s certainly a minus in comparison with the P365’s Mepro FT Bullseye, even though the FT Bullseye also has its challenges in low-light situations.

Bodyguard 2.0 tritium front sight with orange surround

So, am I ready to swap out the P365? I think so. I’m definitely going to consider it after I’ve thoroughly checked out the Bodyguard for reliability. It’s smaller, much lighter, and holds the same number of rounds. The only downside is that I’ll be stepping down to .380 ACP/9mm kurz from the more powerful 9mm Luger. But, heck, I’ve even been known on occasion to carry .32 ACP/6.35 mm in a Beretta 3032 Tomcat or a Walther PPK and still not feel insufficiently armed.

S&W Bodyguard 2.0 vs Sig Sauer P365 SAS

I mentioned a moment ago that the S&W Bodyguard is considerably lighter than the Sig Sauer P365 SAS. I measured them today, both with empty 10-round magazines inserted. The P365 weighs 17.88 ounces/507 grams while the Bodyguard is a featherweight 11.48 ounces/326 grams.

S&W Bodyguard 2.0 vs Sig Sauer P365 SAS

S&W Bodyguard 2.0 TS Dimensions and Other Information:

  • Length: 5.5 inches/140mm
  • Height (with 10-round magazine): 4 inches/102mm
  • Width: 0.88 inches/22mm
  • Barrel length: 2.75 inches/70mm
  • Weight (with empty 10-round magazine): 11.48 ounces/326 grams
  • Capacity: 10+1 and 12+1 with included magazines
  • MSRP: $449
  • Street price: $399
S&W Bodyguard 2.0 vs Sig Sauer P365 SAS
S&W Bodyguard 2.0 vs Sig Sauer P365 SAS

Hopefully I’ll get out a range report soon. In the meantime, if you’ve any questions just leave me a comment.

Слава Україні! (Slava Ukraini!)

2 Comments

Filed under Firearms, R. Doug Wicker

SIG Sauer P365 SAS — First Look and a Shooting Review


If you are here for the continuation of my fall foliage cruise series, I’ll be continuing those articles starting December 30. This week, however, I owe my firearms fans some long-promised handgun reviews. And after that I go to two weeks of Christmas-themed reruns.

SIG Sauer P365 SAS — What’s in the box

Today I’ll be giving a first look and shooting review of the SIG Sauer P365 SAS with the Meprolight FT Bullseye sighting system equipped with an innovative tritium-illuminated sight using  fiber optic light tubes. Take a look below and at first glance you’ll wonder where the front and rear sights are located:

SIG Sauer P365 SAS (SIG Anti-Snag): Too much of a good thing?

First, the handgun. SIG Sauer’s P365 subcompact 9mm arrived to the market in 2018. What amazed the concealed carry world was the 10+1 capacity in a handgun very nearly the size of a .380 ACP/9mm kurz 6+1 Colt Mustang. My personal favorite concealed carry pistol since 2009 also holds 10+1 rounds of 9mm, but by P365 standards my trusty ol’ Walther P99c AS is positively gargantuan in comparison even though the P99c (compact) was quite a breakthrough when it was introduced some twenty years ago.

SIG Sauer P365 SAS comes two 10-round magazines; flat-base and finger-rest

Let’s take a look at some images showing the size differences among the P365 SAS, Walther P99c AS, a Colt Mustang Lite sporting an aftermarket 7+1 magazine, and the incredibly small Beretta 3032 Tomcat holding 7+1 rounds of .32 ACP/7.65mm:

From top: Walther P99c AS, SIG P365 SAS, Colt Mustang Lite, Beretta Tomcat

First up, SIG P365 SAS versus Walther P99c AS:

SIG P365 vs. Walther P99c

Let’s take a look at the differences in grip width, even though both guns have a 10+1 capacity:

Grip comparison — Walther P99c vs. SIG P365

 

SIG P365 atop a Walther P99c AS

Now for a shot of the P365 overlaying the P99c, which weighs about two ounces more than the SIG:

SIG P365 overlaying a Walter P99c

I know I was certainly impressed, but how does the SIG stack up against a .380 ACP/9mm kurz Colt Mustang Lite with an aftermarket 7+1 magazine with a finger rest? I forgot to insert a magazine into the P365 before taking these shots, but even with the finger rest SIG magazine the height still would have come out far less than the Colt’s. Let’s take a gander:

P365 next to a Colt Mustang Lite

Mustang overlaying the P365

Finally, let’s compare the P365 against one of the smallest practical pocket pistols around, the Beretta 3032 Tomcat with 7+1 rounds of .32 ACP/7.65mm:

Beretta Tomcat overlaying the P365 with finger rest magazine inserted

Now that’s impressive. The P365 SAS has the ‘SIG Anti-Snag (SAS) treatment, more so than any other SIG SAS pistol I’ve yet seen. Perhaps too much. The takedown lever is gone, replaced by a latch that requires a coin or flat-head screwdriver to manipulate. The slide stop is now completely useless, although I don’t miss that because I always slingshot the slide to chamber a round rather than depress the slide stop.

SIG SauerP365 SAS (SIG Anti-Snag)

SIG Sauer P365 SAS (SIG Anti-Snag)

Fortunately, though, I found one pleasant surprise upon reassembling the weapon. Attaching the slide and moving it back to the slide-lock position, then engaging the slide lock upward into the slide notch, the slightest of touches causes the takedown latch to snap back to the ready position. That’s a neat feature, for sure, and one that negates some criticism of the original P365 takedown lever being difficult to rotate back upon reassembly. Speaking of disassembly, let’s take a look at the innards of the P365 SAS:

P365 SAS frame and inverted slide

Disassembled P365 SAS

The P365 is a very light weapon chambered for a not-so-subtle 9mm round. But don’t worry. The gun is not that snappy. First of all, the barrel sits very low over the frame, giving an incredibly low bore axis. Then, as part of the SAS treatment, SIG went further and ported both the slide and barrel. This porting directs gasses upward in a V-shaped pattern about 15mm from the muzzle. The result is that recoil is somewhat mitigated, which also helps to negate the tendency for the muzzle to rise.

SIG P365 SAS ported barrel and slide

I found the P365 very controllable, with easy and quick target reacquisition despite my unfamiliarity with the Meprolight FT Bullseye sight. You’ll note that I said ‘sight’ rather than ‘sights’. That’s because the traditional front sight is completely missing from this system. Observe:

Meprolight FT Bullseye tritium/fiber-optic sight

No front sight needed . . . or wanted

It takes a little time to get accustomed to the FT Bullseye sight, but for a defense pistol used inside of, say, twenty yards or so, they’re simply fantastic. Before I took the P365 SAS to the range, I spent about two weeks practicing target acquisition at various ranges. The brighter the light striking the top of the gun, the better the illumination, but bringing the gun aligned with your line-of-sight is critical, or you wind up hunting for the magic bullseye to appear. This is especially critical in low light situations, as the tritium on this particular sight is nowhere near as bright as on SIG’s other tritium night sights, and far less than SIG’s superlative X-Ray sights. The best way I’ve found to practice this is to have the unloaded P365 nearby, and then on occasion snatch it up level to your dominate shooting eye, then looking to see if the bullseye is visible. If you’re off on the alignment, you may not see anything, but if you’re close enough you’ll get this:

P365 aimed high and to the left

FT Bullseye misaligned right

FT Bullseye misaligned left

Once you’ve mastered getting the top of the P365 slide aligned with your dominate shooting eye, however, centering the bullseye is done rapidly as long as you were close enough initially to see some green. When it all comes together, this is what you see as you squeeze the trigger:

FT Bullseye sight properly aligned.

One more word about sighting: I found that initially, despite lots of dry-fire practice, I was shooting low. That’s because I’m used to either a six-o’clock sight picture, or placing the intended point-of-impact at the top of the front sight post, depending on how the particular gun is sighted in. That’s not going to happen with the FT Bullseye, and you have to train yourself out of that habit. It’s much closer to a combat sight picture. With this sight you place the bullseye directly over the intended point-of-impact. Do that, and you’re dead on target. Revert back to your prior training, and you’re going low.

So, how does this sighting system work in conjunction with a handgun specifically designed around it? Quite well once you work it all out. Below are the targets I used. All are printed on 8.5×11-inch/216x280mm paper. The first three targets simulate the distance requirements for Texas state qualification for a license to carry — 20 shots at 3 yards/2.74 meters; 20 shots at 7 yards/6.4 meters; 20 shots at 15 yards/13.7 meters (Texas requirement at 15 yards is 10 shots, but I doubled that). And while these requirements are with a much larger B27 silhouette target, again I was using targets printed on standard letter-size paper:

P365 3yds 20 rounds

P365 7yds 20 rounds

P365 15yds 20 rounds

Next up is ten rounds of 124-grain JHP at a distance of 7 yards, followed by eleven rounds of 115-grain FMJ at 7 yards one-handed:

P365 7yds 10 rounds 124gr JHP

P365 7yds 10+1 round One-Handed

Finally, here are twenty rounds at 5 yards/4.6 meters shot in a rapid-fire exercise at about one-second intervals to see how quickly I could get back on target. Those holes marked ‘FB’ were fired from the included flat-base magazine, while ‘FR’ stands for the finger rest magazine, as I wanted to see if the additional purchase afforded by the finger rest allowed for better rapid-fire accuracy. I’ll let you judge that one:

P365 20-round Rapid Fire Test (FB=flat base; FR=finger rest)

Test notes and observations:

  • Out of 101 rounds fired I experienced very early in the testing one failure to extract using 115-grain Winchester White Box target ammunition. Subsequent testing using mostly Magtech 115-grain ammunition failed to duplicate that failure.
  • When chambering a round on a freshly inserted magazine with the slide locked back, I twice experienced a failure of the slide to go fully into battery. I believe these failures may have been due to me applying insufficient rearward force when slingshotting the slide back, or perhaps I may have briefly ridden the slide forward before releasing it. In either case, the gun did not fire while out of battery (a good thing), and a light tap on the back of the slide remedied the problem.
  • The flash from the ported barrel and slide was impressive in the dim light of the indoor range, but not overly distracting. I didn’t much notice it after about twenty rounds or so. But I certainly appreciated those ports for the reduction in recoil and muzzle flip in a gun that weighs in at 17.6 ounces/499 grams with empty magazine, or 22.3 ounces/632 grams fully loaded.
  • The magazine release took some getting used to, as depressing it with my thumb caused the back side of the button to protrude into the first joint of my middle finger. It was also incredibly stiff initially. After working the release, the stiffness has gone away, and as long as I don’t relax my grip when engaging the release, the back side no longer fights against the middle finger joint. Magazines now eject without drama.
  • The rail is proprietary, so lights and lasers are not going to be readily available. But, then, that FT Bullseye sight kind of negates the need for a laser at any rate.
  • The grip is nicely textured without being overly aggressive about it. The P365 SAS is comfortable in the hand, and putting 100+ rounds down range was not fatiguing in the least. Unlike most comparably sized blow back pistols in .380 ACP/9mm kurz (Walther PPK/S for example), this is an all-day shooter.
  • I don’t have a trigger measuring device, but I place the P365’s trigger pull at between the P99’s 8.8-pound double-action pull and its 4.4-pound single-action pull. My best guess is right around six pounds, although SIG claims closer to 5.5. Trigger take up is about 4mm, with another 2mm to go beyond that to the trigger trip. Reset is very positive, giving both audible and tactile indications at about 3mm. All in all, an entirely acceptable combat trigger, but one that is lacking for anyone thinking this is a target pistol.
  • Accuracy is completely acceptable for the intended purpose of this weapon — self-defense at ranges inside of twenty yards or so. With practice, that FT Bullseye sight is probably good for perhaps another ten yards beyond that against a man-sized target, but the sight does begin to block out the intended point-of-impact fairly quickly. This is not a target pistol. But at defense ranges, this is probably the quickest and most accurate sight I’ve used, as you no longer need to focus on a front sight while simultaneously getting half-way decent depth-of-field and resolution on both the rear sight and the target. With the FT Bullseye you lock in on centering the bullseye and placing that bullseye over the intended point-of-impact. This is, in my view, a much better system for close ranges inside of twenty yards, but it takes time to master.

Additional notes:

  • My carry weapons have in the past always been either double-action/single-action, equipped with a manual safety, or both. The P365 gives me pause in that the trigger is lighter than my comfort level for concealed carry, but no overly so. I already feel comfortable carrying the P365 in a Don Hume H721 “Double Nine” belt holster.
  • SIG offers higher capacity magazines for the P365. You can get 12-round and 15-round magazines, although the fifteen  rounders appear to start negating the height advantage of the weapon. I’ve yet to handle a twelve-round magazine, but looking at side-by-side photos next to the finger rest ten-rounder, there isn’t that much difference between the two. I suspect three 12-rounders will be in my future, and perhaps a 15-rounder would make a good, high-capacity spare magazine for pocket carry.

SIG Sauer P365 SAS dimensions:

  • Length: 5.8 inches/147mm
  • Barrel length: 3.1 inches/78.7mm
  • Height (with flat-base magazine): 4.1 inches/104mm
  • Width: 1.0 inch/25.4mm
  • Weight (measured with empty flat base magazine): 17.6 ounces/499 grams
  • Weight, loaded (measures with 10+1 rounds and finger rest magazine: 22.3 ounces/632 grams
  • Capacity: 10+1 (included magazines); 12+1 (optional magazine); 15+1 (optional magazine)

Conclusion:

  • SIG Sauer have a concealed carry winner with this handgun. Before acquiring this pistol my every day carry for the past decade was the Walther P99c AS, with the .380 ACP/9mm kurz Colt Mustang used for deeper concealment needs during winter months, and the .32 ACP/7.65mm Beretta Tomcat performing that duty during warmer weather. The P365 has made both the Walther and the Colt redundant. The Tomcat still beats it in casual summer attire, however, on the rare occasions when something more compact will be needed.

2 Comments

Filed under Firearms, R. Doug Wicker

Presenting Another Dozen Sacrificial Lambs to the Altar of Wishful Thinking


The Solution to the Gun-Free Zone killing fields — trained, licensed, responsible concealed carry licensees

Today, once again, yet another dozen people were unnecessarily and callously sacrificed upon the gun-control altar known as the “Gun-Free Zone.”  This latest mass shooting was the second in four years at a military installation — this time the Washington, D.C., Naval Yard.  The previous military mass shooting occurred at Fort Hood, Texas, just shy of four full years ago.  The Fort Hood toll was thirteen dead, another thirty wounded; and it occurred, ironically enough, at an installation filled with people who were trained in small arms, yet were precluded by regulation from carrying them because they were in a “Gun-Free Zone” that wasn’t quite gun-free enough.

Since 1950, every single mass shooting resulting in four or more deaths save just one example has occurred in a supposedly “Gun-Free Zone.”  You would have to be an absolute loon to believe that correlation is mere happenstance.  And while the gun-control crowd would like nothing more than to distract attention from this failed Gun-Free Zone social experiment by making a circus of the tragic Zimmerman case, I would point out that they sole reason George Zimmerman received so much attention was not because licensed, responsible, concealed licensees are a substantive danger to the public.  Rather, the focus on Mr. Zimmerman stemmed from the fact that such reckless behavior by a concealed carry licensee is so rare as to be newsworthy when it does occur.

Despite the ever-growing mountain of evidence accumulated over the past 63 years, gun-control advocates continue to insist upon implementation of yet more failed “Gun-Free Zone” killing fields.  Considering that weapons in the possession of private citizens successfully deter almost one-million crimes a year — usually without a shot being fired with the perpetrator retreating more often than not at the mere sudden brandishing of a defensive weapon — it is time for gun-control advocates to admit that their social experiment has failed, failed miserably, and is doomed to fail repeatedly in the future.

Example:  There were within twenty-minute’s drive of James Eagan Holmes‘ home a total of seven theaters from which to choose for his massacre in Aurora, Colorado, on July 20, 2012.  The one upon which Mr. Holmes eventually settled was not the closest.  Rather, it was the only one out of the seven that had posted on the entrance door a sign designating that theater a “Gun-Free Zone.”  Again, you would have to be an absolute loon to believe that was coincidental.  It most assuredly was not.

If gun-control advocates insist upon continuing with not-so-gun-free “Gun-Free Zones,” then it is time to hold them personally accountable for the inevitable results.  A theater owner who so designates his premises, and who then fails to protect his patrons with armed guards, should be held civilly liable for the resulting carnage.  A governmental entity — whether it be local, state, or federal — should be compelled to compensate victims and relatives of victims when they are wounded, maimed, or killed by what we now know to be a failed social experiment based more upon wishful thinking rather than empirical evidence of effectiveness.  Under no circumstance should that governmental entity be allowed to proclaim sovereign immunity for creating an environment where law abiding citizens are denied the inalienable right of self-defense.

It’s way past time to start holding responsible the people who make such mass killings possible.

1 Comment

Filed under Firearms, Opinion Piece