High Ground Media, LLC

The Hard Glove by Direct Action Gear is a flexible, lightweight glove for military, law enforcement, or civilian shooters. It gives the wearer a tactile feel of weapon control systems and smart screen technology while providing protection to fingers and palm.

The Hard Glove was recently redesigned from its classic version to a newer design that exchanges the traditional synthetic leather with genuine goat leather that gives the Hard Glove improved durability, feel, and fit.

There is a microfiber lining along the spine of the thumb from forefinger to wrist that gives the gloves a soft contact material when touching skin or other sensitive surfaces.

The slit designed finger joints give the Hard Glove improved flexibility and dexterity over other traditional designs that would otherwise stretch the material when the fingers are articulated. The middle finger and thumb pad have a surface material that makes them touch-screen compatible for smart phones or tablets/computers.

The backhand material is made from a nylon lyrcra that provides flexibility during manipulation and movement of the hand. It also features the Direct Action logo.

The gloves are anchored just above the wrist bone with an adjustable hook-and-loop cuff, attached to which is a Hypalon loop to aid in donning or to hang on a clip with other gear.

Available in either Coyote (featured) or Black, the Hard Gloves are available in sizes that range from Small to 2XL.

Product Evaluation Scores:

• Cost – Average (3/5): At $37.90 the Hard Gloves are at a reasonable (or average) price point as a short-use tactical glove that will most likely give the wearer roughly six months of moderate/heavy field use given its materials and design. The most direct market competitor to the Hard Glove is the Full Dexterity Tactical Glove (FDT) ($42.95) from SKD that is very similar in overall design. Other similar tactical gloves to the Hard Glove would be the Operator Contact Glove ($35.40) by First Spear, or the Duty Glove ($35) by Viktos. These later alternatives have similar materials but lack other design aspects the Hard Glove considers (specifically the split finger joint).
• Comfort – Good (4/5): The materials involved had a fair amount of flex and breathability when used, that gave the wearer a good level of comfort. The materials between the thumb and forefinger, where the greatest amount of stress takes place, held the only notable double line stitching for added strength. The split finger design gave added comfort during finger articulation and at no point did the materials inhibit or restrict movement. It should be noted this type of glove is good for warm or moderately cold weather, but not temperatures near the freezing point as its lightweight material is not intended to serve as a winter outdoor glove.
• Durability – Average (3/5): The materials in the Hard Gloves offer maximum protection while retaining the greatest degree of tactile sense possible. The tradeoff being that those materials will not hold up over time given moderate/heavy field use. Consumers need to understand that this is the tradeoff in these type of gloves, and is one shared among the market alternatives noted above. The more protective and durable the glove, the less tactile sense is provided. During the 30-day evaluation period the only negative aspect to the Hard Glove’s durability was some curling of the leather on the hook-and-loop tab that is consistent with wear, but could become problematic over the glove’s expected lifespan.
• Functionality – Good (4/5): The Hard Gloves functioned as well and intended for a pair of shooter gloves. Positive tactile sensation was maintained to the trigger, and dexterity during magazine changes and function drills was not impaired. The slit finger joints gave the gloves a good level of flexibility over a number of market alternatives that use a solid approach. It would be nice if the Hypalon loops were somewhat larger or more open, as it was a little difficult to thread them on/off carabiner clips. The only negative note would be the touchscreen pad on the middle finger that felt awkward given most people use their pointing finger to manipulate touch screen technology vice their middle.
• Weight – Good (4/5): At 70 grams (or 2.4 ounces) the Hard Gloves were very lightweight and gave a near “naked” feel that provided very good tactile sense to the trigger control group and magazines. The Hard Gloves were lighter than either the FDT Gloves (3.04 ounces) or the Duty Glove (3.42 ounces) which alludes to the Hard Gloves lightweight materials and design. Obviously the more protective materials and features included on any glove, the more weight is added and for a lightweight field/duty glove the Hard Gloves stride the line between weight and function.

Overall Rating – Above Average (18/25)

Product Link: https://us.directactiongear.com/hard-glovesr-leather#CBR

I am reviewing this product as a courtesy to the manufacturer and via STL Shooting Enthusiasts, so that I can evaluate it and provide my honest feedback. I am not bound by any written, verbal, or implied contract to give positive reviews. All views are my own, and based off my personal experience with the product.

The views and opinions expressed on this website are solely those of the author. The views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the administrative staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.

Released in February 2018, the SBA3 is one of the newer AR pistol braces offered by SB Tactical, and among many along its AR, AK, and shotgun models. The A3 variant was intended to bridge the design differences between the original and fixed SBM4, with the adjustability of the future SBA4. The SBA3 features an adjustable length with mil-spec buffer tube compatibility, and a QD mounting point that provides for improved comfort and function for shooters.

While the SBA3 was intended as a follow-on to the SBM4, the SBA3 has a more minimal forearm support wings, and a 1” hook-and-loop strap to secure the brace to the arm. This gives the A3 a less-bulkier profile overall. However, where the A3 differs is the brace now accepts any 7075 mil-spec carbine buffer tube (included with brace) and thus has a 5-position adjustable length. The newer A3 brace also includes a metal ambidextrous QD mounting point for slings behind the buffer adjustment pin.

Fully collapsed, the A3 has a minimal length of 6.5”, while on a fully extended carbine buffer tube measures 9.5”. Understanding these measurements can become impetrative when determining the overall length of an AR build to meet ATF regulations on AR pistols.

With a narrower 1.8” polymer body, the spine of the A3 provides a minimalist profile for the user that avoids excessive snagging while still giving an angled platform for a cheek weld. This is an improvement over the SBM4, and for comparison an improvement over the smaller, thinner, and lighter Magpul CTR buttstock.

The SBA3 is available in FDE (featured) Black, OD Green, or Stealth Grey.

Product Evaluation Scores:

• Cost – Average (3/5): At an MSRP of $169.99 the A3 is the same price as the SBA4, thus giving the user the opportunity to find a design that best suits their needs at the same cost. The A3 is also available at secondary sites for approximately $129, with some retailer coupons or sales during holiday’s providing the brace for even a lower cost. Given that SB Tactical is the market leader for firearm braces, there is no direct competitor for comparison to the A3. However, its predecessor the SBM4 ($99) with a similar design, does include many of the same stabilization aspects, but the SBM4 is only for use with pistol buffer tubes and as such is not adjustable. Even the more recent A4 ($169) is lighter and adjustable, while the SBPDW ($299) is one of the heaviest AR pistol braces on the market. In all this gives the A3 an average price range for its time on the market and amount of materials involved.
• Comfort – Average (3/5): From a comfort aspect, the minimalist sides of the A3 were not as obtrusive as the M4 or A4, and gave good support to the forearm. This did result in the AR pistol canting slightly while in use, but the support strap kept the overall brace secured even with the weight of the firearm held out at full extension to the body. Users with thicker forearms may find it more difficult to get a deeper lock within the brace at first, until the rubber has had time to adequately break in. The nylon support strap was slightly elastic which made getting a positive/tight bond somewhat difficult, but not unattainable. One notable feature for the A3 was the approximate 2” wide angled polymer body that gave the user more surface for a positive cheek weld. This was an improvement over the SBM4’s width of 2.0” and thus narrower angle/less surface for contact. Internet research showed a number of aftermarket replacement straps to most SB Tactical braces, including Lunar Concepts “Split Fix” for the A3 that prevents overlapping and permanent warping of the rubberized plastic while in storage, and the recommendation to the manufacturer would perhaps examine improving or offering alternate straps for improved comfort and function.
• Durability – Average (3/5): The SBA3 was made with dominantly a minimalist polymer body that gave it a similar profile to a A2-style stock, but with less rigidity than the A4 brace, and provided a semi-stable platform for a positive cheek weld. There was some play noted between the brace and the buffer tube that could be manipulated with the hand, as well as some elements of the body (such as the locking pin) felt somewhat frail. The forearm support sides were made from a rubberized ABS material that gave the sides sufficient flex to contour around the arm. Over time and use, the SBA3’s support sides did collapse and overlap when stored against the loop. It is most likely that over time, the element of the A3 that will actually wear out first, will be the hook-and-loop material to the 1” support strap (another reason there are aftermarket straps available).
• Functionality – Good (3/5): Functionally, the SBA3 was easier to don on the forearm as opposed to bulkier braces, it being necessary to fully loosen the support strap and push the arm through the sides. The newer A3 also had more rigidity and coverage in its forearm minimalist support sides. This defiantly effected support to the AR pistol given its minimal contact surface, and linear dimensions that contoured around the arm once the support strap was tightened. Adjusting the position on the carbine buffer was a little loose, most likely attributed to variances in buffer tube dimensions and that not all tubes are a one-size-fits-all. But with minimal effort the A3 was able to move across all five (of six) positions on the carbine buffer tube. The ambidextrous QD mounting points were full metal and accommodated a variety of mounting accessories. The feel of the QD point (behind the adjustment pin and closer to the forearm brace) made connecting QD points somewhat difficult in the tight space. Some adjustment of your sling may be necessary to accommodate this QD location.
• Weight – Excellent (5/5): At 6.75 ounces (w/o buffer tube) the SBA3 is relatively lightweight, and among the line of other SB Tactical braces had a good scoring. As noted above, once secured to the arm, the brace did help to keep the AR pistol balanced as well as helped alleviate the weight of the firearm forward of the body. In comparison, the heaviest AR pistol brace in the SB line is the SBPDW (18.14 ounces) while others, such as the SBM47 (15.5 ounces), SBM4 (8.7 ounces), and SBA4 (10 ounces) demonstrate the weight of the SBA3 is towards the lighter side given most other AR pistol braces trend to a more minimalist approach with less materials that achieve the same results. The added weight is the payoff for the SBA3 to have that five-position adjustability.

Overall Rating – Above Average (17/25)

Product Link: https://www.sb-tactical.com/product/sba3/

***Editor’s Note: The history and ruling of AR/AK pistol braces is a sordid one. From the initial ATF ruling in 2014, the “clarification” letter by Max Kingery (then-acting Chief of Firearms Technology Criminal Branch) in 2015, and a second ATF ruling in 2017, and the most recent ATF clarification in 2019 the regulation agency has struggled to provide a clear ruling on the application of such devices. Specifically shouldering, the topic of proper use of braces has caused more internet arguments among “internet lawyers”. Currently ATF guidance as of 2019 states as follows:

“To the extent the January 2015 Open Letter implied or has been construed to hold; that incidental, sporadic, or situational ‘use’ of an arm-brace (in its original approved configuration) equipped firearm from a firing position at or near the shoulder was sufficient to constitute a ‘redesign,’ such interpretations are incorrect and not consistent with ATF’s interpretation of the statute or the manner in which it has historically been enforced.”

As such, Per the ATF the use of an AR/AK pistol brace comes down to intent. Thus, accidental or “sporadic” shouldering of an AR pistol brace is not illegal. When consistently shouldered however, it demonstrates the intent to subvert regulations on SBRs by utilizing the AR pistol and brace as an impromptu work-around (and thus illegal). The same is said by adding accessories intended for precise accuracy as found with an SBR, such as scopes or utilizing irons. During the course of evaluations, any shouldering of the SBA3 was purely accidental, as efforts are made to test the brace within various range iterations to the extent of design, while still adhering to ATF regulations.

I am reviewing this product as a courtesy to the manufacturer and via STL Shooting Enthusiasts, so that I can evaluate it and provide my honest feedback. I am not bound by any written, verbal, or implied contract to give positive reviews. All views are my own, and based off my personal experience with the product.

The views and opinions expressed on this website are solely those of the author. The views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the administrative staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.

Spun from a single bead of solid copper, and machined to near CNC precision, the 9mm cartridge from Fort Scott Ammunition is among many on the market that offers penetration and stopping force. But with its unique Tumble Upon Impact™ (TUI) design, the 9mm projectile ensures maximum cavitation once it strikes a soft target.

Made to meet SAAMI specifications, the 9mm TUI cartridge has the following characteristics:

• Caliber: ……….………9mm
• COAL:…………….…….1.165”
• OAL:…………….………0.547”
• Projectile Weight:…115gr
• Powder Type:….……Disc Flake
• Charge Weight:….…4.9 grain
• Primer Pocket:……..Boxer Pocket w/Crimped Primer
• Crimp……………..……None

A process of three ladder tests were completed using a Millennium 2 Chronograph from Competitive Edge Dynamics for each caliber with the first being for record and the remaining two for confirmation. The averaged results were as follows:

Performance Test #1: Sig P226 R w/4.409” Barrel

• Caliber:…………….….9mm Luger / SBS / TUI
• Projectile Weight:…115 grain
• Rounds Fired:….……8
• Velocity:…………….….1265 fps.
• Velocity:………………..1117 fps.
• Velocity:………………..1152 fps.

Performance Test #2: GEN 5 Glock 19 w/4.02” Barrel

• Caliber:………….…….9mm Luger / SBS / TUI
• Projectile Weight:…115 grain
• Rounds Fired:……….8
• Velocity:…………….….1164 fps.
• Velocity:………………..1130 fps.
• Velocity:………………..1139 fps.

Post-Mortem Observations:

None of the pistol cartridges nor primers fired showed any evidence of overpressure with either budged cases nor flattened primers. During life-fire stressor drills the ammunition performed consistently and did not fail to fire.

Product Evaluation Scores:

• Cost – Average (3/5): At $25.34 for a box of 20 rounds, the TUI 9mm by Fort Scott Ammunition offers the same penetration capabilities as the company’s rifle ammunition. Using a solid-spun projectile of copper or brass, the 9mm ammunition is fit for hunting or defense. In comparison, some of the market “gold standards” in 9mm ammo include PMC’s “Bronze” 9mm ($12.89 for a box of 50 rounds), Sig Sauer’s Elite V-Crown 9mm ($14.99 for a box of 20 rounds), or specialty ammo like Buffalo Bore’s 9mm +P (TAC-XP) self-defense ammo ($39.89 for a box of 20 rounds). Thus, Fort Scott’s 9mm is at an appropriate (or average) price for high-performance/specialty ammo and the overall market.
• Comfort – Good (4/5): For 9mm ammunition, the evaluated sample proved to have low carbon emission and relatively smokeless function. The barrel, breach, and chamber showed an average rate of carbon fouling, but none of that impeded the function of the firearm at any given time. Recoil from the ammunition was both as expected and manageable.
• Durability – Excellent (5/5): All ammunition from Fort Scott arrived in a pristine state with no evident signs of exposure or corrosion. All noted projectiles were observed to have a consistent overall length, with primers seated appropriately. During evaluations, rounds that were chambered and then removed without firing, demonstrated no signs of setback indicating the projectiles had enough case tension to avoid that from happening. After firing, all brass was inspected with none exhibiting signs of overpressure through case budging, visible cracks, in or flattened/popped primers.
• Functionality – Average (3/5): Functionally, the option of a solid copper/brass projectile is done so to provide maximum penetration. But unlike traditional self-defense or jacketed projectiles that “flower” outward and transfer that velocity into the cavity, the conical SBS/SCS projectile will retain its shape until it encounters a denser material (such as steel). During evaluations there was some thought to utilize watermelons to simulate the approximate water/tissue ratio that could be encountered, but once measured on a chrono, it was realized the projectile was simply moving too fast for a melon to offer much notable effect that could speak to Fort Scott’s unique TUI effect. The conical design to Fort Scott’s projectile is what gives the TUI ammunition its unique “tumble” effect after encountering tissue. In essence the projectile retains stability/accuracy in flight, but once it enters a soft target becomes unbalanced and falls end-over-end and will transfer much of that kinetic energy into the cavity. It should be noted that at longer distances than the evaluated 25 yards, velocities will drop off significantly but the SBS/SCS projectiles will still retain their penetration ability on thin-skinned targets such as wild pigs, deer, and bear. The one negative observation during the evaluations arose from difficulties loading the 9mm ammunition into aftermarket magazines. While they loaded well into factory and some OEM standard magazines, other high-capacity magazines were not able to effectively feed the unique tipped ammunition. Two problematic magazines included SGM and ETS 30-round magazines wherein the bullets would bind up after loading approximately five or six rounds due to the point of the projectile contacting the interior wall of the magazine. Users will need to consider this when purchasing.
• Weight – Average (3/5): The SBS/SCS pistol projectiles had a unique feature to them that aided in overall trajectory and accuracy while in flight. Each projectile has two enlarged bands around the outer diameter that allowed for greater contact with the shorter rifling of the pistol’s barrel. These ensured a tighter spin and more consistent pressures. These bands were also part of the overall 115 gr. weight and did not unbalance the projectile as it traveled down range (as evidence by a lack of keyholing on paper). The option of 115gr. projectile in ammunition is perhaps one of the more common training weights on the market simply because it is traditionally the more inexpensive. Having the option to pick the correct balance of projectile for your individual barrel gives Fort Scott’s ammunition an appropriate (or average) weight within the current market of performance ammunition.

Overall Rating – Above Average (18/25)

Product Link: https://fortscottmunitions.com/collections/handgun-ammo-bullets/products/9mm-luger-tui-115gr-handgun-ammo

I am reviewing this product as a courtesy to the manufacturer and via STL Shooting Enthusiasts, so that I can evaluate it and provide my honest feedback. I am not bound by any written, verbal, or implied contract to give positive reviews. All views are my own, and based off my personal experience with the product.

The views and opinions expressed on this website are solely those of the author. The views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the administrative staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.