CauseACTION Logo

Gun Test: CMMG Guard Carbine .45 ACP

Combining the ever-popular AR platform with the iconic .45 ACP cartridge, the Guard, reviewed here, required CMMG to design a completely new operating system that it claims minimizes the carbine’s overall weight and felt recoil. Company engineers initially looked at building the gun using both the simple blowback and direct-impingement modes of operation, however, neither were found to be ideal for the .45 ACP. Instead, they developed a patent-pending system that they refer to as a radial-delayed blowback.

Here’s how it works: A rotating bolt locks into the barrel extension when in battery, and when the gun is fired, the bolt is forced to rotate and unlock. This slows the bolt carrier’s velocity enough to safely cycle the .45 ACP. The system also allows the rifle to use a lighter carrier and buffer than a standard blowback-operated gun. That reduces the reciprocating mass while firing, making the Guard much smoother to shoot and easier to keep on target. It also helps keep the rifle’s weight down to a svelte 5 lbs., 12 ozs.

Because of the Guard’s unique operating system, there is no gas block or piston system attached to the barrel. CMMG uses a medium-taper barrel made from 4140 chrome moly steel and finished with a salt-bath-nitride treatment inside and out. It is rifled with a 1:16″ RH twist and measures 16.1″ long. Its muzzle is threaded .578×28 TPI, a fairly common thread pitch for .45-cal. suppressors and muzzle devices, and the Guard comes equipped with an effective, side-ported, SV compensator. The barrel is shrouded with a free-floating KeyMod handguard that measures 14″ in length. No iron sights are included with the CMMG Guard, but any detachable back-up sights designed for AR-15s will work fine.

Because the Guard is not gas-operated, its 16.1″ barrel is free from obstructions such as gas blocks and tubes, and it fits easily within the gun’s 14″ KeyMod-compatible handguard.


In the past, other manufacturers have built .45 ACP-chambered AR-15s, and those guns usually used UZI magazines with some type of magazine well block. CMMG instead designed its lower to accept the readily available and proven Glock magazines. Machined from billet aluminum, the Guard’s lower receiver features a trim magazine well and does not use a conversion block. The lower is specific to Glock 21 magazines (one 13-rounder comes with the rifle) and boasts a last-round hold-open feature that many pistol-caliber ARs don’t have.

The radial-delayed blowback system uses a rotating bolt that locks into the barrel extension to slow the bolt carrier and safely cycle the gun.

CMMG’s engineers designed a dual-pinned, machined linkage that is engaged by the magazine’s follower, which, in turn, activates the bolt catch. The magazine release is larger than we are used to on AR-pattern guns and can easily be activated with a right-handed shooter’s trigger finger. Our test sample came equipped with a match-grade, two-stage Geissele Automatics trigger. This non-adjustable trigger is the choice of many competition shooters, but CMMG also offers the Guard with a standard trigger at a reduced price. The upper receiver is machined from a forging and possesses a flat top with Picatinny rail and a hinged ejection-port cover. The gun does have a forward assist, and the bolt carrier is cut to work with the assist.

At 50 yds., our single best group was with 200-gr. semi-wadcutter rounds from Black Hills Ammunition and measured just 1.31″. Because the gun is not gas-operated and has no barrel port, we felt comfortable shooting non-jacketed lead bullets through it. The Guard fed the sharp-shouldered projectiles flawlessly, and recoil was negligible.

With a USPSA paper target set up at 15 yds. and a Trijicon AccuPoint riflescope dialed back to 1.25X, we used the optic as a reflex sight and fired the Guard with both eyes open.

We used a PACT electronic timer to measure our time between shots to get an idea of how controllable the Guard is in rapid fire. Our splits, or time between shots, averaged just 0.16 of a second on controlled pairs. We found the Guard very easy to shoot, with recoil and muzzle disruption being so mild that the AccuPoint’s triangular reticle never came off target. We also shot a 5″-barreled M1911 in .45 ACP to compare its velocity with that of the Guard. Averaging the three loads, we found the longer barrel of the carbine accounted for 22.8 percent more velocity and a 50.7 percent increase in energy—a remarkable and somewhat unusual increase based on our previous reviews comparing other .45 ACP-chambered pistol-caliber carbines and conversions to like-chambered pistols.

During our testing we used a wide variety of ammunition, and found all to be reliable in the Guard; we experienced no stoppages or problems during our 400-round evaluation. Disassembly of the Guard for cleaning and maintenance follows that of a standard AR-15. CMMG offers an optional Tuning Kit consisting of three different weights for the bolt carrier in order to optimize its cycling—whether using hot, +P defense loads, mild-mannered target rounds or a suppressor. Both the ejector and extractor are located on the Guard’s bolt.

Our sample Guard sported an optional Burnt Bronze Cerakote finish. The takedown pins, bolt release, safety/selector, trigger pins, charging handle, forward assist, ejection port cover and magazine release are left black for a pleasing contrast to the bronze. CMMG also offers Flat Dark Earth, Midnight Bronze, Sniper Grey and Titanium Cerakote colors for an extra $150. Additionally, there are three pistol versions of the Guard, with 5″ or 8″ barrels, as well as two NFA-applicable short-barreled versions.

The CMMG Guard would make an ideal companion piece for the shooter who favors the .45 ACP pistol. Based on the AR platform, the gun is easy to shoot and uses readily available and relatively inexpensive magazines. We found CMMG’s radial-delayed blowback system to work well with the .45 ACP cartridge, and were impressed with the gun’s light weight and fast-handling characteristics. Whether used for home defense, competition shooting or general plinking, the CMMG Guard possesses the accuracy and reliability needed to find success.

Tested: CMMG Guard Carbine

2015: CA Judge Demanded Obama Release Children and Mothers Detained In ‘Deplorable Conditions’

A California federal judge ruled in 2015 that hundreds of mothers and their children held for illegally crossing the border must be released immediately, finding their detention a serious violation of a longstanding court settlement and the conditions of their facilities grossly inadequate.

Judge Dolly M. Gee of the Federal District Court for the Central District of California rejected the Obama administration’s arguments for holding the families, saying they violated the longstanding 1997 class action suit known as the Flores Settlement, which governs the treatment of unaccompanied minors apprehended at the border.

Gee slammed the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Obama administration and other federal officials in the ruling for allowing children to be held in facilities that were of “widespread and deplorable conditions.”

In addition, Gee noted that federal officials had “failed to meet even [the] minimal standard” of “safe and sanitary” holding cells.

Gee ruled on a lawsuit filed earlier that year by Peter Schey and Carlos Holguin, lawyers at the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Los Angeles.

Schey, at the time of the ruling, felt it marked “the beginning of the end for the Obama administration’s immigrant family detention policy,” and that “a policy that just targets mothers with children is not rational and it’s inhumane.” (RELATED: Here Are The Photos Of Obama’s Illegal Immigrant Detention Facilities The Media Won’t Show You)

Jeh Johnson, then-Secretary of Homeland Security, claimed the Obama administration initially began detaining immigrants at the border to send a message.

” […] there are adults who brought their children with them. Again, our message to this group is simple: we will send you back. We are building additional space to detain these groups and hold them until their expedited removal orders are effectuated. Last week we opened a detention facility in Artesia, New Mexico for this purpose, and we are building more detention space quickly,” Johnson said in an official statement before the Senate Committee on Appropriations in 2014.

While the wording of the original Flores agreement only mentioned unaccompanied minors, Gee’s ruling decided it covered all children in the custody of federal immigration officials, whether they are with their families or not.

Leon Fresco, then a deputy assistant attorney general at the Office of Immigration Litigation, warned Gee that if this ruling stood, it would encourage the Obama administration to separate children from their parents, reported the Los Angeles Times.

Gee referenced three specific facilities in her ruling — two in Texas and one in Pennsylvania. Specifically, she cited individuals who claimed the Customs and Border Protections (CBP) facilities were extremely cold. (RELATED: Obama Plans To IGNORE Illegal Immigrant Children In Detention Facilities On Texas Trip)

“Numerous declarants referred to CBP facilities as hieleras or ‘iceboxes’ and described being given coverings of aluminum foil that were inadequate to keep them warm,” the ruling stated.

The “deplorable” conditions also included the issue of overcrowding.

“Children and their mothers were held for one to three days in rooms with 100 or more unrelated adults and children, which forced children to sleep standing up or not at all,” Gee wrote.

This case, as well as the Flores Settlement, are being brought to light as President Donald Trump faces backlash over his administration’s immigration detention and the zero-tolerance policy.

Trump signed an executive order to end the separation of immigrant families at the border on Wednesday.

Follow Hanna on Twitter

Email tips to hanna@dailycallernewsfoundation.org

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Media Unsatisfied By Trump Executive Order On Family Separations

Amber Athey | Media and Breaking News Editor

Members of the media and Democrats are unsatisfied with President Trump’s executive order temporarily ending family separations at the border and are now urging him to end his zero tolerance policy on prosecuting people who cross the border illegally.

WATCH:

President Trump announced on Wednesday that he would allow families to be detained together while they wait to be prosecuted for illegal border crossings. Immigration law currently requires children to be sheltered separately as their parents await trial.

However, despite spending weeks complaining about the separation of families and even comparing the detention centers to concentration camps, the media and the Democrats are still railing against the president.

Because the Trump administration prosecutes illegal border crossers at a 100 percent rate, leftists are now complaining that families will be detained at all — even if they’re detained together. The implicit assertion is that people who cross the border illegally shouldn’t be detained, even though those people often fail to show up for their court hearings.

“Under the zero tolerance policy … so long as these parents are being prosecuted criminally, they will continue to be separated from their children and will be separated from their parents for at least a few days,” Natalia Cornelio, a criminal justice reform director, told MSNBC.

MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt questioned what would “happen next,” noting, “this executive order does not end the zero tolerance policy — everyone will continue to be prosecuted which puts a serious strain on resources.”

Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin complained on CNN that “it does not reverse his zero tolerance policy and so we’re still going to have some really critical issues to deal with relating to … families with young children.”

“If the detention of families continues we’re still creating a different problem,” Efren Olivares, a civil rights attorney, asserted. “How are parents going to be brought into court without being separated from their children for their criminal hearings? That’s a big question. And if they are separated, what will be the next step? How are they going to be reunited?”

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights sent out a press release on Wednesday asserting that Trump’s executive order does not solve the “humanitarian crisis” because his administration will still be detaining children.

“The president crammed our nation’s highest ideals and values into a shredder. He does not get credit for taping them back together,” they added.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio complained about the shifting goalposts on Twitter, writing, “Democrats already arguing keeping families together isn’t enough.”

Follow Amber on Twitter

Tags : cnn illegal immigration media bias msnbc

The US Needs To Focus On Space Launch Security: Small Threats Loom Large

As the world becomes smaller, more dangerous and increasingly volatile, America must become smarter — and better able to deploy space-based assets with confidence, precision, speed and complete assurance that national security will not be compromised, but predictably protected.

Most people focus on the big threats: North Korea and Iran deploying miniaturized nuclear weapons on intercontinental ballistic missiles, China militarizing the South China Sea, Russia suddenly getting hungry for more European land, a massive inflow of Venezuelan refugees to American shores.  

These threats are real, of course. And they argue persuasively for complete, 24/7-365 situational awareness — an American satellite launch industry able to deliver anything anywhere, to any orbit at any time for any reason, to support our national security awareness, readiness and response.  

But there is more to be concerned about. By reference to history, big perceived threats often end up not materializing, while smaller threats to a nation’s security can prove lethal, or at least debilitating.  

America’s indigenous commercial space launch sector is critical to preventing threats big and small.  Globally, space launch companies are experiencing a renaissance. Embedded in this global launch renaissance, however, are subtler threats. They are growing quietly, and they are not well-understood.  

Data makes the point. In 2017, a third of the world’s satellite launches were from U.S. soil. American companies are proliferating, launching American and international payloads to high and low orbits. Big companies were resupplying the space station for NASA, while smaller ones were offering low-earth orbit satellite drops. All this was good.

On the other hand, China is determined to leapfrog American launches by 25 percent in 2018, aiming for nearly 40 launches — and everyone from Russia and Western Europe to New Zealand is hell-bent on promoting launches from their soil. America needs to be on special guard.

Today, international ambitions — and what they mean for U.S. national security — are worth focus. While big American companies capture new markets, the risk is high that American decision-makers will accidentally contract American national security to companies launching from foreign soil. That would be a major, potentially irreversible mistake.

Look at the trend line. While America’s precious heavy-lift payloads to geosynchronous orbit are launched on American rockets from American soil, a universe of non-geosynchronous satellites stands ready for launch.  

Non-geosynchronous launches are projected to triple between 2018 and 2027, putting up nearly 3000 precious payloads. But here is the kicker: Are we watching with that historic eagle’s eye to be sure these payloads are only launched from U.S. soil, only by U.S. companies, only by those chiefly financed within the United States, and not allowing any U.S. national security assets — civilian or military payloads — to be sent abroad? That is the billion dollar question, and it deserves a clear answer.

At present, what we know is this. The projected need for space launch, including the need for rapid deployment of short-lived and critical space assets by the American national security community, is likely high. The number of American-based companies launching strictly from American soil is limited but growing.  

And the risk is that the delta between need and capacity will force shortcuts, such as using foreign launch or, what is just as bad, risking shipment of American national security payloads overseas for launch from a non-U.S. soil launcher.

All this should bring policymakers back to basics. As the world becomes smaller, more dangerous, and increasingly volatile, America must stay smart about space launch, with policymakers insisting that any and all American national security assets be launched by American companies from American soil.  

Perhaps more to the point, the Pentagon, the White House, Congress and those with the highest equities in space should be part of this conversation, not just those interested in promoting global commerce, using space launch for diplomacy, regulating aviation or those outside the national security circle.  

The right answer is to recognize that seemingly small threats to American national security — like the soil from which critical assets are to be launched into space — can be as important as monster threats, of the sort that grab headlines.

Without complete confidence that we can put small and large payloads into every orbit from American soil at any time and absent foreign involvement, we may one day find that this small threat impairs ability to halt a big one. And that makes this seemingly small threat, by definition, a big one.

Robert Bunnis a  former senior law enforcement attorney in FL and commentator on national issues. He holds multiple degrees from Harvard University and is author of two books, including The Panama Canal Treaty: Its Illegality and Consequential Impacts.


The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.

Cops Come To 9-Year-Old’s Rescue After His Lemonade Stand Was Robbed

Brooklyn Park police officers came to the aid of a 9-year-old from Minnesota after junior high school kids on bicycles robbed his lemonade stand.

Gracen had setup a stand and made a sign that read “Lemonade on the right. Mostly in the morning!”  Two junior high students rode by Thursday and swiped $20 out of his cash cup, according to KTIS. Gracen’s father, Mark, received a call from him asking if he should call the police, and his father told him to leave it be. He then prayed a verse from the Bible for his son. (RELATED: Police Officer Play Santa Clause To Family In Need)

“Two junior high kids on bikes drove by his stand and stole $20 out of his cup. Gracen called me up and asked me if he should call the police, and I said that he probably shouldn’t bother them. But I did pray for him over the phone using the verse from Proverbs 6:31 that says whatever the thief steals he has to pay back sevenfold,” Gracen’s father told KTIS.

“Later I called him back and told him to go ahead and call the police that if they weren’t busy maybe they would help him out. When I got home, there were two Brooklyn Park police cars on the street in front of his lemonade stand, and the nice lady officer told him she was going to replace his $20 and she said, ‘but I want Dad to hold on to it,’ so she gave it to me to hold for him.”

A third police officer later arrived on the scene and purchased four cups of lemonade for $5. Gracen had made $50 by the end of the day, KTIS reported.

The following day, one of the officers stopped by the stand again and bought another lemonade, according to Fox News.

“My wife and I were really blessed. In fact, the next day another officer stopped by for lemonade, and she was out there with tears in her eyes thanking him,” Gracen’s father told KTIS. “She couldn’t believe that people would do this for a child. I had tears in my eyes too, that it was so precious that something so little could mean so much.”

You can Follow Nick on Twitter and Facebook

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The Country’s Most Unpopular Governor Increases Renewable Energy Mandate

The governor of Connecticut signed legislation aimed at addressing climate change, likely increasing costs for residents in a state that already suffer from the highest energy bills in the country.

Outgoing Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy, a Democrat, signed two bills into law on Tuesday, one addressing greenhouse gas emissions and the other regulating energy production. Public Act 18-82 calls for reducing the state’s carbon emissions 45 percent by 2030, compared to 2001 levels. Public Act 18-50, also signed by Malloy, mandates that 40 percent of Connecticut’s electricity originate from renewable energy. This new law doubles the states’ renewable energy portfolio, which previously stood at 20 percent.

“While President Trump, EPA Administrator Pruitt, and their Republican allies in Washington roll back critical environmental protections, Connecticut is stepping up,” Malloy said in a statement Tuesday. “These two new laws demonstrate, once again, Connecticut’s determination and leadership in combating climate change to keep our planet and residents safe, all while still being economically advantageous.”

The bills, however, have become law at a time when Connecticut already produces low rates of carbon emissions, and residents suffer from exorbitant energy costs.

No coal plants exist in Connecticut, nor does the state produce petroleum or natural gas, according to the Energy Information Administration. The vast majority of the electricity consumed is produced by nuclear power, renewables or is transported from out of state. This setup has allowed Connecticut to be ranked as the seventh most green state in the country.

Such a low-emissions energy market doesn’t come without its consequences. Connecticut earned the distinction in 2017 of being the most expensive state in the country for energy costs — beating out its New England neighbors that are also high on the list. Connecticut residents, the analysis found, paid on average $380 per month in energy costs — a whopping $48 more per month than residents in the second most expensive state.

Many green groups still expressed displeasure with the legislation signed by Malloy. Namely, environmental advocates and the solar lobby complained of a provision in one bill that reforms the state’s net metering program, which establishes a new flat rate for solar power. (RELATED: Hundreds Of Workers Impacted As Michigan Coal Plant Braces For Closure) 

“Everyone deserves the choice to lower their electric bills, especially low-income and middle-class homeowners, who are most likely to lose solar access,” read a statement from a coalition group that included Environment Connecticut and the Connecticut Citizen Action Group. “[The law] is a major step backward for solar energy in Connecticut [and] jeopardizes hundreds of solar jobs and the ability of residents and businesses to generate and use their own clean power.”

Connecticut also boasts another distinction: their governor is the most unpopular governor in the country. Morning Consult released a survey in April of the most and least popular governors in the country. Making the bottom of the list was Malloy, who touted a disapproval rating of 72 percent.

The ardently anti-Trump governor announced in April that he would not be running for re-election.

Follow Jason on Twitter.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.