Smith & Wesson bought Savage Arms on October 21, 2026, completing a $160 million acquisition that joins two of America’s oldest firearm manufacturers under one corporate roof.

The short answer for gun owners is reassuring: Savage Arms has not disappeared, current rifles and shotguns have not suddenly become obsolete, and the company has announced no cancellation of existing warranties. The acquisition gives Smith & Wesson a much larger position in hunting rifles, rimfires and shotguns while Savage gains the resources and distribution of a significantly larger firearm manufacturer.

The more interesting question is what happens next to the Savage Model 110, Axis, Stevens shotguns, REVEL rimfires and Smith & Wesson long guns.

Did Smith & Wesson Buy Savage Arms?

Yes. This is a completed acquisition, not a rumor, proposed merger or anonymous internet claim.

According to the official Smith & Wesson announcement⁠, the company acquired Savage from an indirect subsidiary of JDH Capital. The transaction closed on October 21, 2026. 

Smith & Wesson paid with approximately nine million shares of its common stock plus cash. The final SEC filing reports a cash component of $42.4 million, subject to post-closing adjustments.

JDH emerged from the transaction owning approximately 16.7 percent of Smith & Wesson’s outstanding stock and received representation on the company’s board. That structure matters because Savage’s former owner did not simply collect cash and vanish. JDH now has a substantial financial interest in the combined company’s success.

Why Did Smith & Wesson Buy Savage?

Smith & Wesson is strongest in handguns, particularly its M&P semiautomatic pistols and traditional revolvers. It has expanded into modern sporting rifles, pistol-caliber carbines and suppressors, but hunting rifles have never been the center of its current catalog.

Savage fills that hole immediately.

Savage has a substantial position in:

• Bolt-action hunting rifles
• Precision and competition rifles
• Affordable Axis rifles
• Rimfire rifles
• Lever-action rimfires
• Stevens shotguns
• Youth and entry-level firearms
• Specialty hunting cartridges and configurations

Smith & Wesson described the two catalogs as complementary. That is corporate language, but it is also accurate. Smith & Wesson did not need another polymer duty pistol line. It needed a serious hunting and bolt-action division.

Savage generated approximately $160 million in sales and shipped about 500,000 firearms during the twelve months ending September 2026. Smith & Wesson’s investor presentation estimates the combined operation at roughly $711 million in revenue, 1.6 million firearms shipped annually, five manufacturing locations and 2,227 employees. 

That is not Smith & Wesson buying a nostalgic name and a box of old blueprints. Savage remains a functioning, high-volume firearm manufacturer.

What Happens to Savage Model 110 and Axis Rifles?

Nothing immediate has been announced for the Savage Model 110, Axis or the company’s rimfire lines.

The Model 110 is too important to discard. It gives the combined company an established bolt-action system covering inexpensive hunting rifles, left-handed models, heavy-barreled precision rifles and specialized chamberings.

The Axis occupies an equally useful position at the affordable end of the market. Smith & Wesson gains access to buyers who want a practical deer rifle without paying custom-rifle money.

Savage also supports newer cartridges aggressively. As discussed in my comparison of the 350 Legend, 400 Legend and 450 Bushmaster⁠, Savage already offers numerous Axis and Model 110 configurations chambered for 400 Legend. That type of broad chambering support is valuable to a larger manufacturer trying to compete nationally.

The sensible prediction is continued Model 110 and Axis production with gradual changes to manufacturing, sourcing and distribution. Wholesale cancellation of successful product families would defeat the stated purpose of the acquisition.

That remains an informed prediction, not an announced product plan.

What Happens to Stevens Shotguns?

The Stevens name gives Smith & Wesson an immediate presence in affordable sporting shotguns.

That may be more strategically useful than it initially appears. Smith & Wesson has handguns, AR-pattern rifles, folding carbines and Gemtech suppressors, but it lacks a broad shotgun catalog. Savage and Stevens provide access to hunting, clay-target and defensive-shotgun buyers without requiring Smith & Wesson to develop an entire product family from scratch.

Do not expect every current Stevens model to survive forever. Large manufacturers routinely examine overlapping products, slow sellers and complicated supply chains after an acquisition.

That does not mean an immediate Stevens shutdown is coming. Smith & Wesson specifically purchased Savage to broaden its long-gun and hunting presence. Eliminating the shotgun line immediately would work against that goal.

The acquisition also arrives while hunters continue shopping across categories. A customer comparing a Stevens shotgun with the Beretta A400 Solo⁠ is obviously considering very different price points, but both purchases place the manufacturer in the same hunting market Smith & Wesson wants to enter more deeply.

Does Smith & Wesson Now Own Federal Ammunition?

No. Federal Ammunition was not included in this acquisition.

That confusion is understandable because Savage and Federal once shared a corporate connection through Vista Outdoor. Those businesses have since traveled down separate ownership paths.

Federal is currently part of The Kinetic Group, alongside ammunition brands including CCI, Speer and Remington Ammunition. The Kinetic Group is owned by CSG. Federal’s own company information confirms that relationship. 

Smith & Wesson bought the Savage Arms firearm business from JDH Capital. It did not buy Federal, CCI, Speer or Remington Ammunition.

That distinction matters because otherwise we will spend the next decade hearing somebody at a gun counter confidently explain that Smith & Wesson manufactures Federal primers.

Are Savage Warranties Still Valid?

Savage has announced no general cancellation of warranties or repair service.

Its current repair and warranty page⁠ continues to direct customers to Savage Arms service in Westfield, Massachusetts. It states that Savage services current firearms manufactured after November 1, 1995, subject to parts availability for discontinued or revised models. Warranty claims require proof of purchase. 

Owners should retain receipts, serial-number records and copies of warranty correspondence. That is good practice regardless of corporate ownership.

The acquisition release does not promise that every service policy will remain unchanged indefinitely. It also provides no evidence that ordinary Savage owners must register again, contact Smith & Wesson or replace existing paperwork.

Could Smith & Wesson and Savage Share Designs?

This is where the acquisition becomes genuinely interesting.

Smith & Wesson now controls established handgun, carbine, modern sporting rifle, suppressor, bolt-action, rimfire and shotgun product families. Shared engineering and distribution could produce several logical combinations:

• Savage rifles packaged with Gemtech suppressor compatibility
• Greater Smith & Wesson distribution for Savage hunting rifles
• New bolt-action rifles using Smith & Wesson manufacturing capacity
• Expanded suppressor-ready rimfire and centerfire models
• Shared materials, barrels, forgings or machining resources
• Coordinated hunting packages and ammunition-independent promotions
• Smith & Wesson-branded products borrowing Savage bolt-action engineering

None of those products has been announced. They are reasonable possibilities based on the companies’ existing strengths, not secret information disguised as certainty.

Gun owners should be skeptical whenever a manufacturer promises “synergy.” Sometimes synergy means better availability and new products. Sometimes it means fewer catalog numbers, relocated production and a replacement part that remains backordered until the next presidential administration.

The SEC filing itself warns that integration could disrupt relationships with customers, vendors or employees and that projected savings may not materialize. That is ordinary securities disclosure, but it is also refreshingly less enthusiastic than an acquisition-day press release. 

Is the Smith & Wesson Savage Deal Good for Gun Owners?

Potentially, yes.

Savage brings serious bolt-action knowledge, strong hunting-market recognition and a catalog that reaches from inexpensive rimfires to competition rifles. Smith & Wesson brings capital, manufacturing resources, broad distribution and one of the most recognizable names in American firearms.

The danger is consolidation. Fewer independent manufacturers can mean fewer genuinely different designs, less pricing pressure and more products built around corporate purchasing decisions instead of shooters’ needs.

The opportunity is a stronger American manufacturer capable of competing across nearly every major firearm category.

For now, existing Savage owners do not need to panic. Keep shooting the rifle, retain the purchase records and watch what the combined company actually does rather than what online speculation claims it might do.

The first meaningful evidence will be found in warranty service, parts availability, employee retention, new-product announcements and whether Savage continues offering the odd chamberings and left-handed configurations that helped distinguish it.

A corporate presentation can promise a stronger company. Gun owners will decide whether that promise was kept one rifle, one repair and one target at a time.

GarandThumb.com was established on May 4, 2012, to document my experiences trying to become a better marksman.

Garand thumb is a crushing injury caused when an M1 Garand’s bolt closes while the shooter’s thumb remains inside the receiver. It is also called M1 thumb, Garand finger and, by people whose phones refuse to cooperate, Grand Thumb, M1 Grand Thumb, Garant Thumb, Garand Thimb, Garand Tumb or Garand Thump.

Whatever spelling brought you here, the rifle works the same way.

The good news is that Garand thumb is preventable. Positively lock the bolt open, maintain control of the operating-rod handle while loading and keep your hand positioned so the bolt cannot trap your thumb.

For the short history and original explanation behind the name of this website, visit What Is Garand Thumb?⁠.

What Causes Garand Thumb?

The M1 Garand loads from the top using an eight-round en-bloc clip. When the clip is pressed fully into the magazine, the clip latch and operating mechanism allow the bolt to move forward.

A properly functioning Garand does not normally attack the shooter without warning. The dangerous situation usually begins when the bolt is not positively locked behind the operating-rod catch.

A bolt can appear open while merely resting against the follower. If the shooter presses down on the follower or inserts a clip, the bolt may immediately move forward under spring pressure.

The rifle is not confused. It is doing exactly what its operating system permits.

The shooter is the replaceable part.

How to Tell Whether the M1 Garand Bolt Is Locked Back

Before placing a thumb anywhere near the receiver, pull the operating-rod handle completely to the rear and confirm that the bolt is positively held open.

Do not assume the bolt is locked merely because it has stopped moving.

A bolt resting against the follower can resemble a locked bolt, especially to a new shooter handling an unfamiliar military-surplus rifle. Pressing the follower removes the only thing preventing that bolt from moving forward.

If you are uncertain, keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, control the operating-rod handle and start again.

The Civilian Marksmanship Program’s M1 publications⁠ cover the rifle’s operation, loading, unloading and safe handling in detail. A new M1 owner should read the manual before attempting to diagnose the mechanism through experimentation with his thumb. 

How to Load an M1 Garand Without Getting Garand Thumb

Begin with the rifle pointed safely downrange and the bolt positively locked open.

Place the edge of your loading hand against the operating-rod handle while pressing the loaded clip down into the magazine with your thumb. This hand position gives you control if the bolt releases earlier than expected.

Once the clip is seated:

1. Keep the operating-rod handle controlled with the edge of your hand.
2. Withdraw your thumb completely from the receiver.
3. Allow the bolt to move forward only after your thumb is clear.
4. If the bolt stops before fully chambering the cartridge, keep the rifle pointed safely and use the heel of your hand against the operating-rod handle.

Do not place fingers in front of the bolt to “help” a cartridge chamber.

Do not hold the rifle sideways while looking into the action.

Do not test whether the bolt is truly locked by pressing the follower with an unprotected thumb.

That last procedure is commonly known as the Grand Thumb Verification Method. It verifies the bolt’s spring pressure and your ability to invent new language.

Does the M1 Garand Always Close Automatically?

No. Some rifles close immediately after the clip seats. Others require a tap on the operating-rod handle before the bolt moves completely forward.

Differences can result from clip fit, lubrication, spring condition, internal friction and the relationship among the clip latch, bullet guide, follower and operating-rod catch.

A bolt that needs a light tap after loading is not giving permission to leave your thumb inside the receiver. Continue controlling the handle until your hand is clear.

Likewise, a rifle that has never produced M1 thumb can still do it tomorrow. Familiarity with one particular Garand does not repeal spring tension.

Can You Get Garand Thumb While Unloading?

Yes.

The most famous injury occurs during loading, but any situation involving an open bolt and a hand inside the receiver demands control of the operating rod.

Removing a partially loaded clip, clearing a malfunction, cleaning the rifle or demonstrating the action can all place fingers in the bolt’s path. Verify that the rifle is unloaded, keep the muzzle safe and physically control the operating-rod handle whenever your hand enters the action.

The word “unloaded” describes the ammunition condition. It does not mean the operating spring has stopped storing energy.

Does an M1 Garand SLED Prevent Garand Thumb?

An M1 Garand SLED helps a shooter load individual cartridges during slow-fire competition. It does not eliminate the bolt or operating spring.

My M1 Garand SLED guide⁠ explains how the device fits into the rifle and supports single loading.

A SLED can simplify competition loading, but it is not an M1 Garand thumb saver in the literal sense. The shooter must still control the operating rod and remove his thumb before releasing the bolt.

Equipment can support good handling. It cannot replace it.

How Bad Does Garand Thumb Hurt?

The severity depends upon where the bolt catches the thumb and how much tissue is compressed.

Possible symptoms include:

• Immediate pain
• Swelling and bruising
• A cut or torn skin
• Blood beneath the thumbnail
• Nail-bed damage
• Difficulty moving the thumb
• Numbness
• A fracture

Some incidents produce little more than soreness, embarrassment and a purple thumbnail. Others require medical treatment.

Being able to finish a range session does not prove the thumb is undamaged. Adrenaline and the urgent need to pretend nobody noticed can both interfere with an honest assessment.

Garand Thumb Treatment and First Aid

Move away from the firing line, unload and secure the rifle, then examine the injury.

For an apparently minor crushed finger, MedlinePlus recommends applying an ice pack wrapped in clean cloth to reduce swelling. Appropriate over-the-counter pain medication may help when used according to its label and the person’s medical restrictions.

Do not place ice directly against the skin. Do not attempt to drain blood from beneath the nail unless a medical professional instructs you to do so. 

Seek prompt medical attention if:

• The thumb is bent or deformed
• You cannot move or feel its tip
• Bone is visible
• The skin is deeply cut
• The nail is displaced from its normal position
• Pain is severe or worsening
• Considerable blood has accumulated under the nail
• Bleeding will not stop
• Swelling or discoloration appears to compromise circulation

A crushed thumb can involve the bone, joint, tendon or nail bed even when the external wound looks unimpressive.

Internet bravado is not diagnostic imaging.

Grand Thumb, Garant Thumb and Garand Thimb

The correct term is Garand thumb, named for the M1 Garand rifle designed by John C. Garand.

Grand Thumb sounds like a senior member of a thumb-based royal family. Garant Thumb sounds imported. Grande Thumb sounds like it costs an extra dollar and comes with whipped cream.

Garand Thimb, Garand Tumb, Garand Thump, Garand Thumn and M1 Grand Thumb are ordinary typing errors, but they all describe the same unpleasant mechanical lesson.

Call it Garand finger if you want. Just do not demonstrate it.

The Bottom Line

Garand thumb happens when the M1 Garand bolt closes on a thumb left inside the receiver.

Prevent it by positively locking the bolt open, controlling the operating-rod handle, keeping the muzzle pointed safely and withdrawing the thumb before allowing the bolt to move forward.

The M1 Garand is not unusually difficult to load. It simply comes from an era when machinery expected the operator to pay attention and delivered immediate performance feedback when he did not.

Learn the mechanism before handling live ammunition. Practice under the supervision of someone familiar with the rifle. Read the CMP material. Control the operating rod every time.

Most importantly, do not trust a spring-loaded piece of American military history merely because it behaved itself during the previous eight clips.

GarandThumb.com was established on May 4, 2012, to document my experiences trying to become a better marksman.

The Supreme Court AR-15 case moved forward on October 21, 2026, when Cook County and Connecticut submitted their merits briefs in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins.

These consolidated cases ask whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. Oral argument is scheduled for December 2, 2026.

The government briefs reveal the strategy that defenders of “assault weapon” bans will place before the Supreme Court: portray the AR-15 as an unusually dangerous offensive weapon, dismiss ownership numbers as constitutionally insufficient and compare modern rifle bans with historical restrictions on everything from medieval weapons to Bowie knives and machine guns.

That is a strained argument for banning America’s most popular semiautomatic rifle, but it is now the argument the justices must confront.

What Was Filed in the Supreme Court AR-15 Case?

The official Supreme Court docket⁠ shows two submissions dated October 21:

• The Connecticut respondents’ brief⁠ in Grant v. Higgins
• The Cook County respondents’ brief⁠ in Viramontes v. Cook County

Connecticut defends its prohibition covering named rifle models and semiautomatic firearms possessing specified features. Cook County defends its local “assault weapon” ordinance.

Both briefs ask the Supreme Court to uphold the bans.

Both also depend upon essentially the same proposition: government may prohibit a firearm it characterizes as unusually dangerous even when large numbers of peaceful Americans lawfully own that firearm.

Connecticut Says AR-15s Are Unusually Dangerous

Connecticut’s brief argues that AR-15 rifles combine characteristics enabling rapid, accurate and sustained semiautomatic fire. It connects those capabilities with several mass shootings and argues that the platform presents dangers comparable to its military counterpart.

The brief then claims a historical tradition of restricting weapons considered unusually dangerous relative to other available arms. Its examples reach back well before the American founding and include:

• Medieval restrictions involving the launcegay
• English crossbow regulations
• Restrictions on going armed to the terror of the public
• Nineteenth-century Bowie-knife laws
• Twentieth-century machine-gun restrictions

Connecticut argues that the regulated weapon may change while the underlying principle remains the same.

The obvious problem is that many of these historical laws did not impose a complete ban on peaceful possession inside the home. Regulations concerning threatening public carry, concealed knives, poaching or medieval social classes are not automatic historical twins for a modern prohibition on possessing a common semiautomatic rifle.

The Supreme Court has said that governments need not identify a perfect historical twin. That does not mean any old weapons law becomes a constitutional blank check.

Cook County Calls the AR-15 an Offensive Weapon of War

Cook County’s brief is even more direct. It describes AR-15-platform firearms as “offensive weapons of war” designed for maximum lethality and argues that they are not customarily used for self-defense.

It also makes the extraordinary claim that the AR-15 has effectively placed the destructive power of an armed battalion into one person’s hands.

That description is political theater masquerading as mechanical analysis.

A civilian AR-15 fires one cartridge for each pull of the trigger. It does not provide the automatic fire, crew-served weapons, explosives, indirect fire, logistics or combined capabilities possessed by an infantry formation.

The rifle’s common features—including a detachable magazine, pistol grip, adjustable stock, barrel shroud and threaded muzzle—can improve handling and adaptability. They do not transform one citizen into a battalion.

The actual American AR-15 is a defensive rifle, hunting rifle, ranch rifle, recreational firearm and competition platform. My first NRA High Power match⁠ involved a White Oak AR-15A2 configured as a service rifle. My Crosman MAR177 review⁠ shows how the same AR lower, trigger and geometry can support indoor marksmanship practice.

That is the real rifle culture these government briefs attempt to erase.

Is Common Use Enough to Protect AR-15 Rifles?

Common use may become the decisive issue.

The challengers argue that AR-15 rifles are protected because Americans possess tens of millions of them for lawful purposes. The United States also filed an amicus brief supporting the gun owners and identifying the AR-15 as the country’s most popular rifle.

Cook County and Connecticut respond that ownership numbers cannot immunize a weapon from regulation.

Cook County argues that a firearm’s popularity is not constitutionally determinative, particularly when the government claims the firearm is not customarily used in actual self-defense. Connecticut similarly rejects what it calls a “common-use-only” test.

That theory would drain common use of its practical meaning.

A citizen should not have to shoot an attacker with his rifle before the rifle counts as being used for self-defense. Keeping a firearm available to defend a home is itself a lawful defensive use, even if the owner is fortunate enough never to fire it at another person.

Otherwise, government could dismiss every firearm that successfully deters violence without a shot as unused.

The briefs also create a dangerous circular argument. A jurisdiction prohibits a rifle, thereby reducing lawful possession and reported defensive use within that jurisdiction, and then cites the resulting scarcity as evidence that the firearm is not customarily used for defense.

Constitutional protection cannot depend upon how thoroughly a government has already suppressed the protected activity.

The Historical-Analogue Problem

Neither brief identifies a founding-era American tradition of banning an entire class of commonly possessed rifles inside citizens’ homes.

Instead, the respondents assemble a long chain of regulations addressing different weapons, conduct, locations and historical circumstances. They argue that these laws collectively establish a broader government power to prohibit unusually dangerous weapons.

The comparison becomes especially weak when laws regulating threatening conduct are treated as equivalents to bans on simple possession.

There is an enormous difference between punishing someone for carrying a weapon in a manner intended to terrorize the public and declaring that millions of peaceful citizens may not possess a particular rifle at all.

The Second Amendment does not protect only whichever arms legislators consider sufficiently modest. It removes the basic right to keep and bear arms from ordinary political balancing.

If a legislature can prohibit a common rifle after declaring it especially dangerous, common use offers no meaningful protection. Any effective defensive firearm can be described as dangerous. That is part of what makes it useful against a violent attacker.

What Happens Next in Viramontes and Grant?

The gun owners will have an opportunity to answer these arguments before oral argument.

On December 2, the justices are likely to press both sides on several central questions:

• Does common lawful ownership establish constitutional protection?
• Must a firearm be frequently discharged in self-defense, or is possession for defensive readiness sufficient?
• Can an arm be common and nevertheless “unusual”?
• Are historical public-carry restrictions valid analogues for possession bans?
• How similar is a semiautomatic AR-15 to a machine gun?
• Can governments prohibit a protected arm merely because other firearms remain available?
• Would a ruling apply to comparable semiautomatic rifles beyond specifically named AR-15 models?

The last question is particularly important. Connecticut and Cook County regulate more than one manufacturer’s rifle. A narrow opinion addressing only particular statutory definitions could invite states to rewrite their feature lists and begin another decade of litigation.

A clear holding that common semiautomatic rifles are protected arms would reach the actual constitutional problem.

Could the Supreme Court End Assault-Weapon Bans?

A decisive ruling for the challengers could place state and local bans in immediate jeopardy nationwide.

The effect will depend upon the language of the eventual opinion. Courts would still need to apply that decision to individual statutes, but hostile jurisdictions would have difficulty preserving categorical bans if the Supreme Court holds that AR-15-platform rifles are protected arms in common lawful use.

The Court should say exactly that.

Cook County and Connecticut have now presented their strongest defense. It rests upon inflammatory descriptions, remote historical comparisons and a theory under which widespread lawful ownership does not necessarily prevent prohibition.

The Second Amendment means more than the right to own whatever firearm the government considers least objectionable. An AR-15 does not lose constitutional protection because politicians dislike its appearance, fear its effectiveness or prefer that citizens select a different rifle.

The government does not get to choose the people’s arms.

GarandThumb.com was established on May 4, 2012, to document my experiences trying to become a better marksman.

The Beretta A400 Solo vs A400 Xtreme Plus comparison began at 8:15 in the morning, when the thermometer already showed 84 degrees and the air felt thick enough to reload.

By 10:00, the temperature had passed 90. The wooden bench was hot, the ammunition boxes were softening at the corners, and our blonde range influencer had abandoned any pretense that this was going to resemble a polished hunting commercial.

Her tan cap was stained around the brim. Damp strands of hair had escaped her ponytail, and perspiration had darkened the collar and back of her olive range shirt.

“If one of these costs more because it comes with air conditioning,” she said, “that one wins.”

Neither did.

A400 Solo vs A400 Xtreme Plus Specifications

The A400 Solo⁠ is Beretta’s three-inch, general-purpose semiautomatic hunting shotgun. The A400 Xtreme Plus is the company’s heavier-duty waterfowl gun with a 3½-inch chamber and more aggressive recoil management.

Feature

A400 Solo

A400 Xtreme Plus

Gauge

12 gauge

12 or 20 gauge

Chamber

3 inches

3½ inches in 12 gauge

Gas system

B-Link Pro

B-Link Plus

Recoil system

Kick-Off Plus

Kick-Off Mega

Claimed recoil reduction

Up to 40 percent

Up to 70 percent

Barrel

Steelium

Steelium Plus

Forcing cone

80mm double cone

320mm triple cone

Receiver

Aluminum, optics ready

Aluminum

Stock

Synthetic

Synthetic

Chokes

OptimaChoke HP

OptimaChoke HP

Both test guns were 12 gauge with 28-inch barrels. We installed Modified OptimaChoke HP tubes and used the same ammunition in both shotguns wherever chamber length permitted.

The Solo felt slimmer through the fore-end and noticeably more lively when brought to the shoulder. The Xtreme Plus felt like a serious waterfowl gun: substantial, steady and designed by somebody who assumed the weather would be terrible.

Ammunition and Test Procedure

We brought three types of ammunition:

• 2¾-inch, 1⅛-ounce target loads
• Three-inch steel waterfowl loads
• Three-inch turkey loads

The Xtreme Plus also received three 3½-inch waterfowl shells at the end of the session.

Each shotgun fired 75 target loads, 25 steel loads and five turkey loads. We fired patterns at 25 and 40 yards, then used the remaining target ammunition on hand-thrown clay birds.

The guns were cleaned and lightly lubricated before the test. No adjustments or cleaning were performed once firing began.

The influencer measured the targets while I stapled paper to the backer. She drew two circles and declared both to be 30 inches.

One measured 31 inches. The other was not so much a circle as an opinion.

It was already too hot to argue with her.

Beretta A400 Solo 40-Yard Pattern

The A400 Solo produced the more evenly distributed 40-yard pattern with our three-inch steel load.

Pellet coverage remained consistent across the circle without a large empty area. The center contained enough density for waterfowl, but the pattern did not concentrate an excessive number of pellets into a small core.

That makes sense for a general-purpose hunting shotgun. A broad, even pattern provides useful forgiveness when a bird does not follow the exact flight path discussed during the drive to the range.

The Solo uses Beretta’s Steelium barrel with an 80mm forcing cone. Beretta says the gradual transition helps limit pellet deformation and produce uniform patterns.

Our target supported that claim. The Solo pattern was not spectacularly tight, but it was balanced and practical.

When we walked downrange, the influencer wiped her forehead with the back of her arm and leaned toward the camera to point out three pellet-free areas near the upper edge.

“These are the only places the duck could have lived,” she said.

“That is not how pattern analysis works.”

“It is exactly how duck analysis works.”

Beretta A400 Xtreme Plus 40-Yard Pattern

The A400 Xtreme Plus produced a tighter central core with the same choke and ammunition.

Its Steelium Plus barrel uses a considerably longer 320mm triple forcing cone. The densest portion of the pattern remained close to the aiming point, with fewer pellets spreading toward the outer edge of the circle.

For longer waterfowl shots, the Xtreme Plus target was more impressive. The pattern looked deliberate, with a concentrated center surrounded by enough secondary coverage to remain useful.

The Solo placed pellets more evenly throughout the circle. The Xtreme Plus placed more pellets where the bead had been pointed.

Neither shotgun produced a bad pattern. They produced different patterns that matched their intended roles surprisingly well.

The Xtreme Plus behaved like a specialized waterfowl shotgun. The Solo behaved like a shotgun intended to do almost everything.

Which A400 Has Less Recoil?

The A400 Xtreme Plus won the recoil comparison.

With ordinary 2¾-inch target loads, the difference was present but not dramatic. Both guns were comfortable, and neither produced the sharp rearward impact associated with lighter fixed-breech shotguns.

The A400 Solo’s Kick-Off Plus system softened the initial impulse and controlled muzzle movement. After several boxes, however, the Xtreme Plus remained slightly easier on the shoulder.

The difference became more obvious with three-inch steel ammunition. The Xtreme Plus produced a longer, softer push. The Solo delivered a quicker impulse that was still manageable but easier to notice during rapid follow-up shots.

The 3½-inch load ended the debate.

Our influencer fired one through the Xtreme Plus, lowered the gun and stood silently while sweat dripped from the edge of her cap.

“Well?” I asked.

“It needs the other 30 percent.”

She declined a second shot until reminded that it was her idea to compare magnum recoil.

The second shell produced the same result. The Xtreme Plus controlled the load remarkably well, but “reduced recoil” should not be confused with “no recoil.” Physics does not accept marketing literature.

A400 Solo Reliability and B-Link Pro

The A400 Solo fired all 105 shells without a stoppage.

The gun cycled light target ammunition, steel hunting loads and heavy turkey shells without adjustment. Ejection remained positive even after the receiver and gas system became hot enough to make handling uncomfortable.

The Xtreme Plus also completed its portion of the test without a malfunction.

Beretta claims the Solo’s B-Link Pro action cycles 36 percent faster than competing systems and produces 46 percent less fouling than earlier Beretta designs. Those percentages were not something we could measure with a timer and a folding table.

The more useful observation was that the Solo continued functioning as residue accumulated and the temperature climbed.

After the session, its gas components were dirty but not heavily packed with carbon. The B-Lok magazine cap allowed the fore-end and barrel to be removed quickly without a prolonged wrestling match.

That mattered because nobody wanted to stand in the sun performing detailed shotgun maintenance.

Handling, Loading and Controls

The Solo’s enlarged loading port and competition-style lifter made loading noticeably easier. Its oversized bolt handle and bolt release were simple to manipulate with sweaty hands.

The semi-flat trigger felt clean and predictable. Reset was short enough that the shotgun never seemed slow during pairs on clay targets.

The Xtreme Plus remained steady and absorbed movement well, but the Solo transitioned faster and felt less cumbersome during longer strings.

By the fourth box of target ammunition, the influencer’s shirt was visibly damp across the shoulders and lower back. She stopped between stations to drink water and hold a cold bottle against her neck.

The heat made the Solo’s easier handling more apparent. A weight difference that seems trivial inside a store becomes more persuasive after repeatedly mounting the shotgun under direct summer sun.

A400 Solo vs A400 Xtreme Plus for Duck Hunting

The A400 Xtreme Plus remains the stronger dedicated waterfowl gun.

Its advantages include:

• A 3½-inch chamber
• Kick-Off Mega recoil reduction
• A denser central pattern with our steel load
• Steelium Plus barrel construction
• Greater comfort with heavy ammunition

The A400 Solo is the better crossover shotgun.

Its advantages include:

• Faster, livelier handling
• Three-inch ammunition compatibility
• Effective recoil reduction
• Optics-ready receiver
• Improved loading controls
• Better suitability for turkey, upland hunting, clays and ordinary duck hunting

Most hunters do not need a 3½-inch chamber. Modern three-inch steel, bismuth and tungsten ammunition can provide excellent performance without increasing shotgun weight or turning every trigger pull into a disagreement with your shoulder.

Dedicated goose hunters may still value the additional capability. Everyone else should decide whether the longer chamber solves an actual problem.

Which Beretta A400 Should You Buy?

Choose the A400 Xtreme Plus if your priority is waterfowl hunting with heavy ammunition in miserable weather. It produced the tighter pattern, handled three-inch ammunition more comfortably and offered the option of 3½-inch shells.

Choose the A400 Solo if you want one premium semiautomatic shotgun for ducks, turkey, pheasant, clays and general field use.

The Solo completed the same practical test without a malfunction, produced the more evenly distributed pattern and remained easier to handle as the temperature climbed.

The A400 Solo is not merely a cheaper Xtreme Plus with features removed. It is a less specialized shotgun built around ammunition most hunters actually fire.

Final Verdict

The A400 Xtreme Plus won the recoil test and produced the denser center at 40 yards. It remains the better choice for heavy waterfowl loads and hunters who genuinely need a 3½-inch chamber.

The A400 Solo won the handling test. It patterned well, fired 105 shells without a stoppage and proved easier to carry, load and mount during a brutally hot morning.

By the end of the session, both guns were filthy, the target backer looked diseased and everyone had exhausted the water supply.

The influencer examined both targets one final time, leaned toward the camera and pointed at the dense center of the Xtreme Plus pattern.

“That one wins,” she said.

“Because of the pattern?”

“No. Because we’re leaving now.”

The Xtreme Plus is the better specialized waterfowl shotgun.

The Solo is the one I would rather own if I could have only one.

GarandThumb.com was established on May 4, 2012, to document my experiences trying to become a better marksman.

The Supreme Court AR-15 case reaches an important deadline today, October 21, 2026.

Cook County and Connecticut must submit their merits briefs defending bans on AR-15 platform rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. The Supreme Court will hear the consolidated cases on December 2.

At publication this morning, the official Supreme Court docket⁠ listed today as the deadline but had not yet posted the respondents’ briefs. This page will be updated when those filings become available. 

The constitutional question is remarkably direct:

Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

They do.

What Is the Supreme Court AR-15 Case?

The Supreme Court granted review in Viramontes v. Cook County on June 30, 2026. It simultaneously granted Grant v. Higgins and consolidated the two cases for briefing and oral argument.

Viramontes challenges Cook County’s prohibition on firearms classified by the county as “assault weapons.” Grant challenges Connecticut’s state ban covering named rifle models and semiautomatic firearms possessing prohibited features.

The cases now appear together primarily under Supreme Court docket No. 25-238. The Court has allotted one hour for oral argument on Wednesday, December 2, 2026. 

These are not cases about machine guns, violent criminals or the illegal use of firearms. They concern whether ordinary citizens may possess common semiautomatic rifles.

A standard civilian AR-15 fires one cartridge for each pull of the trigger. It is not an automatic weapon. Adjustable stocks, pistol grips, handguards, threaded barrels and muzzle devices do not change that operating system.

The politicians defending these laws depend heavily on blurring those basic facts.

What Happens on October 21?

Today is the extended deadline for Cook County and Connecticut to file their briefs on the merits.

A merits brief presents a party’s full legal argument after the Supreme Court agrees to decide a case. These filings matter more than press releases, campaign speeches or televised performances by politicians holding rifles incorrectly.

The respondents must explain why their prohibitions can survive the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents. They will have to answer several difficult questions:

• How can a rifle owned by millions of peaceful Americans be considered “unusual”?
• Where is the historical tradition of banning an entire class of commonly possessed rifles?
• Why should cosmetic features remove a semiautomatic firearm from constitutional protection?
• Can a legislature evade the Second Amendment by attaching an inflammatory label to an ordinary rifle?
• Who chooses which firearms are suitable for lawful defense, citizens or government officials?

Gun-control lawyers may bury those problems beneath statistics, strained historical comparisons and repeated use of “military-style.” The constitutional defect remains.

The Second Amendment protects arms. The government cannot transform a protected arm into contraband through creative branding.

What Do the AR-15 Owners Argue?

The challengers filed their Supreme Court merits brief⁠ on August 28.

Their argument begins with the obvious: AR-15 rifles are “arms” covered by the Second Amendment. The rifles are overwhelmingly common, possessed for lawful purposes and permitted throughout most of the country.

The brief says available data indicate that tens of millions of Americans own similar semiautomatic rifles, including approximately 22 million AR-15 owners. It also explains why citizens select them: accuracy, relatively manageable recoil, light weight, adaptability and ease of use. 

Those are precisely the qualities that make the AR-15 useful for home defense, hunting, competition, training and recreational shooting.

They are also qualities familiar to anyone who has actually used the platform. My White Oak Service Rifle⁠ is an AR-15 configured for CMP High Power competition. The Crosman MAR177 upper⁠ allowed indoor practice using AR-15 geometry and the same lower and match trigger.

The real AR-15 exists far beyond the grotesque caricature presented by anti-gun politicians. It is a competition rifle, defensive firearm, ranch rifle, hunting rifle and training platform.

The United States Supports the AR-15 Owners

The United States filed an amicus brief supporting the challengers⁠ on September 4.

That brief states plainly that the Cook County and Connecticut categorical AR-15 bans violate the Second Amendment. It identifies the AR-15 as the country’s most popular rifle and notes that it fires only one shot with each trigger pull.

The federal brief also argues that AR-15 rifles are in common use and lack fully automatic fire, the mechanical feature that distinguishes them from machine guns. It cites estimates of at least 28 million AR-style rifles in domestic circulation. 

The federal government is correct here.

That does not excuse its long history of tormenting gun owners with pointless paperwork, shifting classifications and regulations written as traps. It simply shows how difficult these bans are to defend when even the federal government admits the AR-15 is a common civilian rifle protected by the Constitution.

Can an AR-15 Be “Dangerous and Unusual”?

Expect the phrase “dangerous and unusual” to receive considerable attention.

The Supreme Court has distinguished protected arms in common use from weapons that are both dangerous and unusual. An AR-15 cannot honestly be called unusual when millions of Americans own one and the rifle is legal across most of the country.

The lower courts attempted to escape that problem by concentrating on alleged dangerousness while weakening or bypassing the common-use analysis. The challengers argue that this reverses the constitutional standard.

A government cannot declare a popular firearm unusually dangerous and then use its own declaration as permission to ban it. If that worked, “common use” would provide no protection at all.

The historical restrictions cited in this debate also commonly addressed carrying weapons in a manner intended to terrorize the public. They were not founding-era prohibitions on peacefully possessing a common firearm inside the home. The challengers’ brief explains that important distinction in detail. 

When Is the Supreme Court AR-15 Oral Argument?

The Supreme Court will hear Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins on December 2, 2026. The Court’s official calendar lists the consolidated cases for one hour of argument. 

The challengers may file a reply after Cook County and Connecticut submit today’s briefs. The justices will then question the attorneys during oral argument.

Important issues to watch include:

• Whether the Court treats common use as decisive
• Whether respondents can produce a genuine historical analogue
• Whether the justices reject comparisons between AR-15 rifles and machine guns
• Whether a ruling covers similar semiautomatic rifles beyond the named models
• How clearly the Court limits future attempts to evade its decision

Oral-argument questions are not votes, but they can expose which legal theories the justices find persuasive or indefensible.

Could the Supreme Court End AR-15 Bans Nationwide?

A strong ruling for the gun owners could place state and local “assault weapon” bans in immediate constitutional jeopardy.

The exact effect will depend on the wording of the opinion. The Court could hold clearly that AR-15 platform rifles are protected arms in common use, leaving hostile jurisdictions very little room to preserve their bans. A narrower decision could send cases back to lower courts and invite more years of government obstruction.

That distinction matters. Anti-gun states rarely accept a constitutional defeat gracefully. They rename prohibited categories, adjust feature tests and force citizens to finance another round of litigation.

The Supreme Court should eliminate that game with a direct holding: governments may not prohibit common semiautomatic rifles possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court AR-15 case is no longer a distant possibility. Cook County and Connecticut must defend their bans today, and oral argument arrives December 2.

The AR-15 is an ordinary semiautomatic rifle. It fires once per trigger pull, is owned by millions of Americans and is commonly selected for lawful purposes. Calling it an “assault weapon” does not remove it from the Second Amendment.

If the Constitution does not protect America’s most popular rifle, then the right to keep and bear arms protects little beyond whatever obsolete equipment hostile officials temporarily decide to tolerate.

That is not a constitutional right. It is government permission, and the Second Amendment was written precisely because government permission is not enough.

GarandThumb.com was established on May 4, 2012, to document my experiences trying to become a better marksman.