October 9, 2018 -- A Quick Run Around The Web

"[760] The REAL Double Wrench Method Tested"--Lock Picking Lawyer (6-1/2 min.)

In this video, the author returns to his prior topic of a double wrench method to defeat pad locks, except this time using it against higher quality locks. 

• Time for a new Woodpile Report. In nothing else, check out his memories and thoughts concerning the Cuban Missile Crises.
• "F*** THE NFA: Remington V3 TAC-13 Scattergun"--The Firearm Blog. Remington now offers a semi-auto non-shotgun "firearm" in 12 gauge. This one interests me much more than the pump-action versions. 
• "Workplace CCW: Tips for Personal Defense on the Job"--Jeff Gonzales at Shooting Illustrated. This is a great article on the issues of trying to carry a concealed handgun in the workplace and why, in most cases, it isn't possible to "dress around the gun." He initially starts with the decision of whether to carry a firearm in the face of most workplaces having policies forbidding the carrying of a weapons. But beyond the risk to your job or career, there is the issue of keeping the weapon concealed.

       ... The average American worker spends approximately 261 days, or 71 percent of the year, on the job. That is a lot of work hours. Even excluding hours in transit to/from work, you are looking at the majority of your year spent on the job. The major takeaway here is the importance of long-term sustainability. The reality is what you carry on the weekends may not be best suited for what you carry at work. ... [B]ut what many don’t understand is you still have to conceal and wear your daily “uniform.” Some are lucky, with a more-casual work “uniform,” while others do not have this luxury and are more constrained in their garb. This restrictive uniform can come in all shapes and sizes, from the coat and tie of the boardroom, to the work overalls of the repair shops to the uniforms of delivery drivers.

       This reality forces you to reconsider your choice in firearms. It forces you to think of the long-term sustainability as well as the effective concealability of your choice, which are not mutually exclusive. Each of the environmental conditions listed require unique solutions, which may not be mainstream or what we typically see in concealed-carry classes. Examples may include, but are not limited to: business attire that may require a tuckable solution; bulky safety gear, such as work overalls, which are restrictive; and certain uniforms like medical scrubs that have no belt options, making belly bands a serious consideration. While I have concealed extensively in business attire, the other methods are familiarization only, meaning I wore these items to help students figure out their best concealed-carry solution. I will say I have a greater appreciation for their struggle after trying to teach in their uniform. It gave me a unique perspective; while I might be able to make the standard carry methods work, trying to make them work 70 percent of the year is unrealistic. The demands of work take priority over your preference for carry.

Also: "Comfort shares a priority with security when it comes to carrying concealed." 

           Key to comfortable carrying is the weight and size of the firearm and method of carry. The author mentions several methods of carrying for different types of "uniforms" including pocket carry, a bellyband, or ankle holster. He prefers the ankle holster for wearing suits, but also mentions pocket carry. In that regard, he writes:

You can find a good balance for a smaller-frame firearm, and my experience shows that the lighter the firearm is, the less it will print through the day. As the weight of the firearm bears down on the pants-pocket material, various features of the firearm may be silhouetted at times. 

While the author doesn't discuss it, those of you having to wear business attire might want to consider carrying a small pistol in the inside pocket of a suit coat or sports jacket. I've tried it with a light weight S&W revolver and found that the weight and size is just slightly too much--hard to get out quickly and the weight was enough that I worried about the pocket material ripping. However, I've heard from people that carry in this way that the small and lightweight Kel Tec P-32 or P3AT work well because of the dimunitive size and an empty weight below 7 ounces. (Of course, you will want to couple this with a good pocket holster).

         The gist of this is that you may need to carry something very compact--a so-called "mouse gun." Some articles to get you started on this topic:

• "The Kel-Tec P-32"--Unblinking Eye. A review of the P-32 (.32 ACP) and P3AT (.380 ACP) with a comparison against some other small guns.

• "Kel-Tec P-32 – Is It Enough Gun? – Range Report"--Guns America. Another look at pocket carry and an appropriate firearm, focusing on the P-32 and comparing it to the P-3AT.

• "Is a Pocket Gun “Enough” to Use in Self-Defense?"--US Concealed Carry Association. From the article:

         Is a pocket gun enough? Data analysis indicates that a five-shot .38 probably holds enough ammunition to handle 70 percent of all likely situations. In the hands of a “low skill” shooter (anyone lacking training beyond the CHL level), the odds of getting acceptable hits are poor; that group averaged 57 percent on the test. When those two probabilities are multiplied to calculate total probability, the result is 40 percent, which isn’t great, but is better than 0 percent (no gun).

         Training and skill, whether it’s acquired through practice with the pocket gun or a larger gun, dramatically increases the odds of getting acceptable hits from the low 60s to the mid 90s. 

• "Mouseguns/Pocketguns for Self-Defense - Selection and Tactics"--Mouseguns.com. Key point:

The most important factor with regard to tactics is a realitic admission of the limitations of a mousegun. A mousegun is not suitable for engaging bad guys at long distance. Mouseguns are weapons of last resort, meant to be used really close up and personal. The purpose of a mousegun is simply to give you an edge - a chance to get out with your life. Sights are rudimentary, and mouseguns are not tack drivers. They are not range guns. They are not rifles. Most mouseguns are designed to be "shot little and carried often," not the other way around. If you are under pressure, and are armed with a mousegun, you will do amazingly well to hit a man-sized target at three yards. Fast, excited shooting at over three yards is very iffy.

• "Using the .22 for Self Defense"--Greg Ellifritz at the Buckeye Firearms Association. Short version: don't use the .22 LR for self-defense. 

• "The Box O’ Truth #26 – Little Guns vs. The Box O’ Truth"--The Box of Truth. Some penetration tests of .22LR, .32 ACP, .380 ACP, and .38 Special from what would be considered pocket pistols--not very encouraging results. Again, avoid .22 LR.

• "The .32 ACP: Can It Be Counted on for Self-Defense?"--Shooting Illustrated. An excerpt:

Penetration of .32 ACP FMJ bullets ranges from 13.8 to 18.75 inches in 10-percent ballistic gelatin. The FMJ bullets might not produce devastating wound channels, but they go deep enough to meet the FBI criteria. Over-penetration is seldom a problem in this caliber, although it has been reported when tested in Clear Ballistics gel. 

• "WHEN DOES A .380 BEAT A 9MM?"--Grant Cunningham. When the handgun is so small that recoil becomes an issue. In that case, Cunningham suggests that the lighter recoil of a .380 may make it a better choice than a harder kicking 9 mm.

• ".32 ACP"--Brassfetcher. Ballistic testing of the .32 ACP in gel, a discussion of the limitations or weaknesses of the round, and some recommendations. The author notes, for instance: "A 32 ACP JHP performs better than a 380 ACP FMJ on the shallow shotlines like hits to the arms and legs of an attacker (a very frequent occurrence given the stress of the situation) but falls flat on solid hits to the chest—the penetration is not great enough. Some have suggested ‘staggering’ the rounds in their 32 ACP such that one shot is a JHP, the next shot a FMJ, the next shot a JHP and so forth. I recommend this approach as well for 32 ACP."

• Even if you aren't looking for a mousegun for pocket carry, there are other reasons to consider a light weight caliber like .380 or .32 ACP: "Handguns for Handicapped and Very Recoil Sensitive Shooters"--Chuck Hawks. In this regard, the author suggests a look at the full-size .380 or .32 pistols, writing:

        Full size .32s and .380s are exactly what I need. I have severe arthritis. My hand is held together by 4 screws and two artificial joints. I can't shoot the smaller .32s and .380s. In the lightest pistols (less than 18 ounces), I can't even handle .32 ACP. In midsize pistols I can handle .32 ACP fine. 18 ounces is difficult, 20 ounces is good, and 23+ ounces is ideal for .32 ACP.

         In .380, more weight and size is better, with 23 ounces being about the minimum and 28 ounces being about perfect. The full size Beretta Cheetah (23.3ounces), Browning BDA (23 ounces), CZ83 (28 ounces), Walther PP (24 ounces), Bersa Thunder .380 (23 ounces), and Baikal IJ-70A/Makarov (24 ounces) are possible options. Use the softer and more ergonomic rubber grips on any Makarov type pistol to cushion the shooting hand.

        Of these, the heavier CZ-83 is the most recoil friendly choice. Since it is offered in .32 ACP, .380 ACP, and 9x18, it's a sure thing that one of these is perfect for anyone. In .32 the CZ-83 has minimal recoil, even for a guy with a screwed together hand. I'd recommend this for the most recoil sensitive people. In .380 it's okay, even for me. In 9x18 it's borderline for me, but doable on a limited basis. It's the most recoil I can handle.

He also discusses some of the lighter recoiling revolvers.

"The Greatest Ancient Empire you have never heard of…The Mitanni"--Epimetheus (8 min.)

• "The Great Cultural Revolution, American-Style"--Michael Walsh at PJ Media. Yesterday, I greeted a couple people in my office with a "Happy Columbus Day," and one responded with a comment about the day we celebrate the death and enslavement of the native peoples. I responded, no, it was the day we celebrate their liberation from slavery and human sacrifice of the Aztec Empire. Ok, technically I'm wrong because that came later, but then, again, so did her reference. In any event, Walsh's article reminds us a bit of the "wonderful" Aztec's:

“[The Aztecs were] a culture obsessed with death: they believed that human sacrifice was the highest form of karmic healing. When the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan was consecrated in 1487 the Aztecs recorded that 84,000 people were slaughtered in four days. Self-sacrifice was common and individuals would pierce their ears, tongues and genitals to nourish the floors of temples with their blood. Unsurprisingly, there is evidence that Mexico was already suffering from a demographic crisis before the Spanish arrived.”

• "Ignored History: Columbus Sought to End Islamic Tyranny"--PJ Media. The article begins by noting the terror and slaughter regularly practiced by the Muslim invaders of Spain--the Moors:

To keep the Christians in their place it did not suffice to surround them with a zone of famine and devastation. It was necessary also to go and sew terror and massacre among them. Twice a year, in spring and autumn, an army sallied forth from Cordova to go and raid the Christians, destroy their villages, their fortified posts, their monasteries and their churches, except when it was a question of expeditions of larger scope, involving sieges and pitched battles. In cases of simply punitive expeditions, the soldiers of the Caliph confined themselves to destroying harvests and cutting down trees. Most of the time they took the field to win booty. A district was allowed to re-people itself and be brought under cultivation; then it was suddenly fallen upon. Workers, harvesters, fruits and cattle were seized.

The motivation for such raids and extermination was couched in terms of jihad. Continuing, the article explains:

        But as the rationale for Columbus’ voyage demonstrates, even Ferdinand and Isabella’s reconquest of  Granada three centuries later did not solve the broader “dilemma” of Islam’s global jihad. Shortly after Granada was reconquered, Ferdinand and Isabella agreed to fund and provision Christopher Columbus’ voyage. His expedition, which serendipitously ended in the discovery of the Americas, had for its original objective, as Bertrand documents:

... to reach the East Indies, so as to take Islam in the rear, and to effect an alliance with the Great Khan -- a mythical personage who was believed to be the sovereign of all that region, and favorable to the Christian religion -- and finally, after the sectaries of Mahomet had been reduced to impotence, to diffuse Christianity throughout that unknown continent and trade with the traditional source of gold and spices.

Although the leftist members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints try to excise this from their minds, LDS cannon is clear that Columbus was guided by God to the New World.

• "Progressive Tribalism Beats The War Drums"--Rod Dreher at The American Conservative. Dreher considers the meaning behind an op-ed published by The New York Times entitled "White Women, Come Get Your People -- They will defend their privilege to the death." The author of the op-ed, Alexis Grenell, is a Democratic Party strategist who calls "white women" traitors, and claims that white people like this cannot be reasoned with, only destroyed, because they will defend their bigoted beliefs “to the death”.
• "Modern American Civil War: A Clash Of Ideologies"--Ammo Land.
• "The ever receding climate goalpost: IPCC and Al Gore “12 years to save the planet” (again)"--Watts Up With That. Notwithstanding that all of their prior forecasts of doom have passed without the "melting icecaps" or other doom foretold, the IPCC has set yet another time frame in which we must act--i.e., hand over power to the U.N.--or it will be TEOTWAWKI. Like their prior predictions, this one is also moored in b.s.

• Related: Ed Driscoll reminds us that in 2009, the Guardian newspaper warned that Obama only had 4 years in which to save the planet, and in 2000, the Independent newspaper warned that snowfall was a thing of the past.