 |
| Photo by Michael Richardson on Unsplash |
Thursday, December 29, 2022
Wednesday, December 28, 2022
Meme of the Day: The Refugee And The Hen House
 |
| Source: Bayou Renaissance Man |
Funny enough, Peter Grant at Bayou Renaissance Man gives us the story to go with this meme as well. Grant has a post, "Re-learning a hard lesson on safety and security from Buffalo, NY," about the looting that has occurred in Buffalo, New York, under the cover of the recent winter storm/blizzard. The video and photographs I've seen of actual looters suggests that most of this is being done by elements of the black population, but there also appear to be a few Hispanics. As Grant observes in his post:
... When law and order is deliberately downplayed, hamstrung, ignored . . . then the low-lifes come out to play. Snow was a factor in Buffalo, but it's far from the only one. Heat, power outages, failure of the EBT benefit system, and a host of other factors might all, jointly or severally, provoke such an outbreak of crime. Groups such as Black Lives Matter, or Antifa, or others might also deliberately orchestrate such events, to demonstrate that the city administration has to negotiate with them, or else. (Personally, I think the "or else" option is greatly undervalued, and that salutary lessons need to be administered to such groups and their followers: but not everyone sees it that way.)
What's even worse is that the flood of illegal aliens crossing our borders almost unchecked is merely adding to the problem. Most of them come from countries where this sort of thing is rampant. Do your own research into criminal and gang activity in South America, where most of these illegal aliens come from. They're bringing those attitudes across our borders, and I'm willing to bet they'll act on them as soon as they realize the welfare money is finite, and they (legally, at least) don't qualify for many of our generous entitlement programs.
VIDEO: Carry A Trauma Kit
Active Self Protection Extra (22 min.)
John Correia gives his response to the video from the Armed Attorneys on why having a trauma kit could be used against you by an over-zealous prosecutor. Correia says hogwash and steps through the Armed Attorney video to address some of the points and to point out that your defense counsel and defense experts should easily be able to refute any accusations that having a trauma kit and using it (or not using it) can be used to show some sort of intent or ill will. He also holds up the example of Kyle Rittenhouse as someone hauling around a medical kit and it not being used against him (Correia indicates it was never even raised as an issue in the Rittenhouse case).
While I tend to agree that having a kit will probably not become an issue, Correia makes one comment that if vocalized to authorities could make it an issue. Correia makes a comparison between using hollowpoint bullets just like the local police and carrying a trauma kit because the local police carry them too. Using bullets just like the local PD is to avoid or overcome arguments from the prosecutor that you used extra deadly bullets, because then the prosecutor or a witness would have to acknowledge that the local PD is using "extra deadly" bullets. The trauma kit issue, I fear, would come across in a different manner: that you were trying to emulate the police. And if you remember, one of the accusations that George Zimmerman faced was that he was not just an innocent armed citizen that happened to be robbed, but was acting like he was a police officer and proactively engaged with Saint Skittles.
It's fine to look at the local PD to see how they are carrying kits or what they include in a kit, but you're not carrying a trauma kit because that is what police do and you are a wanna-be officer, but because you want something in case you or a loved one are bleeding out, whether from a gun shot wound, knife wound, auto accident, farm or machinery accident, bear or dog attack or whatever.
Tuesday, December 27, 2022
VIDEO: "Don't Carry a Trauma Kit"
VIDEO: "Don't Carry a Trauma Kit"--The Armed Attorneys (11 min.)
They believe it is probably fine to carry one in a range bag (in the event of an accident at the shooting range, for instance) or in a vehicle (since it can be used to treat for injuries resulting from an auto accident), but not to carry one on your person. Essentially, they argue that having a trauma kit could be used against you by a "creative" prosecutor: e.g., using one to assist an attacker you just shot could be used as evidence of consciousness of guilt (i.e., you know you did something wrong and now you are trying to make it right); merely having one could be used as evidence that you intended or hoped to get into a confrontation; or if you have one but didn't use it on the wounded attacker, a prosecutor might try to use it as evidence that you wanted the person to die. I, myself, would wonder why someone would be willing to approach and render aid to someone that supposedly just a moment before had placed them in fear of imminent bodily harm or death.
Friday, December 23, 2022
VIDEO: "Exploring Ghost Town Frozen in Time ..."
Exploring with Wade (16 min.)
Kitsault was (is) a company mining town constructed in the early 1980s and apparently abandoned in late 1983. It had houses, duplexes, apartment buildings, shopping mall, recreation center, a guest/visitor lodge, school, and hospital. And everything is remarkably well preserved with furniture, fixtures, books, etc., still in place. The town is privately owned, is apparently difficult to reach, and looked after by hired care takers, so nothing has been looted or vandalized. It would be ideal as a giant movie or television set for any production supposed to take place in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Although there is minimal maintenance being carried out, it still is remarkable how well everything is preserved. It really looks like you could walk into most any building and immediately take up residence.
Thursday, December 22, 2022
Wednesday, December 21, 2022
Lessons Learned: Don't Hunt for a Criminal After Calling 911
This lesson comes from a Daily Mail article titled: "'It wasn't me': Footage shows millionaire tech entrepreneur's final words after being fatally shot by a trigger-happy cop while defending his home from a suspected burglar." The gist of the story is that about 12:30 AM on November 15, Rajan 'Raj' Moonesinghe apparently believed that there was a burglar inside his house, although there was no evidence of an intruder. For some reason, Moonesinghe believed the best course of action was to call 911, grab his AR, and then go outside to peer back into his house through windows and doors to see if he could spot the supposed burglar, eventually firing a couple of times into his house just as officers were arriving on the scene. The police, of course, promptly shot Moonesinghe before they could even finish ordering him to drop his gun. Literally: "Drop the" ... *bang, bang, bang, bang* ... "gun!"
So, what can we learn from this incident?
- First of all, if your judgment or reasoning is impaired or you are just plain stupid, you shouldn't be handling a firearm. Although there is nothing in the article to indicate that Moonesinghe was using medications or intoxicated, in the video you can hear him talking to someone--presumably the non-existent "intruder"--before he let off his two shots. Plus the fact that he was outside his house and shooting inside. These facts suggests to me that his judgment or reasoning may have been impaired, whatever the reason for it.
- Consider using a more discrete firearm if you have to exit your house. Moonsinghe was not in a situation calling for a rifle. He was not under attack by a group or gang; and he did not live in a rural area where he might be shooting longer distances at a predatory animal. He was in a suburb with houses crowded close together. I've noted before that if I am investigating the proverbial "bump in the dark" outside the house, I prefer a handgun that can be concealed in a pocket or under a jacket for the very reason that if someone sees me they won't see the firearm and call the police or shoot me because I'm armed.
- Don't be acting like the "bad guy" when the police arrive. Most of the time, this bit of advice is couched in terms of what to do with your firearm when police arrive or are expected to arrive: things like putting the firearm down or reholstering it before police arrive. Moonsinghe might have lived if he had followed this advice. But there was more than just the fact that he had his firearm. As noted above, he was standing outside his house and had just barely shot his firearm into the house as the police rolled up. Unfortunately, the video doesn't show how Moonsinghe acted when he turned toward the police with his rifle: it shows the rifle in a low ready and then the video freezes or has been edited (although the audio continues) so we can't see if it stayed that way or he raised his weapon.
- Finally, police and firearms don't mix. I'm not talking about police competence with firearms. I'm talking about the fact that as soon as you or someone else calls 911, you (or whomever called 911) has just invoked a bunch of armed people showing up at your house ready to do violence, and they will do that violence to you if you in any way look frightening or threatening. So, absent some exigent circumstance like trying to protect loved one in some other part of the house, your checking out your house or yard, room clearing, or whatever you want to call it, ends as soon as you or someone else calls 911. At that point, you transition to waiting for the police to arrive, preferably next to the telephone with the dispatcher on the line and lights on so officers can see clearly and not acting like the "bad guy" (see point 3).
Tuesday, December 20, 2022
Friday, December 16, 2022
What Is Your Primary Weapon?
 |
| Source: Wikimedia |
Jason Mosher published an article at The Mag Life blog titled "Secondary Defense: Are You Ready?" that raises an issue that probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow among the concealed carry community, but can be quite contentious in the prepping/survival/militia community: what is your primary weapon and what is your secondary weapon.
Mosher writes:
For many of us, the perfect self-defense weapon is some type of CCW handgun. Something that can be easily concealed and carried on our person, but not so large that it becomes a nuisance or gets in the way. But is there a need for a larger weapon during a major incident?
Most self-defense incidents take place at 20 feet or less and last only a few seconds. That does not mean there has never been an incident that could last longer and involve more people. In the past, there have been large-scale incidents that significantly increased the danger for people in affected areas, such as natural disasters like floods, hurricanes, and tornados as well as riots and civil unrest. If an incident is unfolding that could become deadly, why not be prepared? Transition to a weapon that is more accurate, holds more ammo, and is easier to control under stress. I refer to this as a secondary defense weapon.
To some, the rifle is the primary weapon and that’s fine. But for this article, I will refer to larger weapons as secondary, and the daily CCW as primary. That does not mean a secondary weapon cannot transition into a primary weapon when things go bad. And unfortunately, they can go bad. Let’s look at some types of firearms that could be beneficial for a secondary defense weapon and how to be prepared with it.
The rest of the article explores reasons why you might want to carry something offering more firepower than your handgun, his thoughts on what make good "secondary" weapons (he has an AR15 for home defense, but prefers some flavor of PCC when out and about), and training.
As I've noted before, the emphasis among preppers and survivalists tends to run the other direction with a rifle or carbine considered primary and handguns secondary. The thinking here seems to arise from a combat perspective, heavily influenced by military practices and considerations. In those situations, the ability to strike at a distance is paramount. But absent a full blown societal collapse with a complete absence of law and order placing you on a combat footing, is that realistic?
When we prepare, we aren't only, or even necessarily, preparing for the end of civilization, but other disasters, big and small and in-between. We cannot overlook the here and now and focus on the post-SHTF to the exclusion of everyday preps. And this applies equally to weapons and our training. As Fernando "FerFal" Aguirre explains in his book, Surviving the Economic Collapse:
Rifles are terrific but they are not your main weapon. Again, here's the difference between a soldier or a SWAT member and you.
A soldier carries his rifle because it's his job to do so while at war. SWAT guy has his rifle when doing his thing as well but both soldier guy and SWAT guy do NOT carry their rifles when they go pick up the kids at a friend's birthday party. And yes, the bad guys will attack you at that birthday party, or some other ridiculously unlikely circumstance.
That's the way it is my friend. Understand that while I'm writing this tonight there are thousands staying awake in their beds thinking about possible plans and ideas to rob people like you and me.
(Surviving the Economic Collapse, p. 155). Massad Ayoob similarly wrote:
For you, it won't happen on a battlefield where the nearest Soviet soldier is 600 meters away behind a French hedgerow. For you, it will happen at point-blank range. Studies by the FBI show that the great majority of shoot-outs occur at a range of 7 yards or less, and more commonly at about 7 feet. And this is among police, whose statistics include running gunfights on the highway and long-distance gunfire exchanges with snipers and barricaded felons.
The civilian, almost always, will fight his opponent face-to-face. In that close space he won't be able to bring a rifle or shotgun up before the attacker can take two steps forward and stab, club, or disarm him, or fire his own illegal gun. ...
(The Truth About Self Protection, p. 346). Ayoob also discusses the downsides to using a rifle at close quarters, such as the lack of mobility, the overpowering flash and stunning noise, and the need for two hands.
For most of you reading this post, the issue is probably academic: you have both handguns and long arms, have honed your skills with both types of weapons, and have collected magazines and accessories for both. You also understand that different situations call for different responses and different weapons. Most of the time, your primary weapon--the one you reach for first--is the one you have on you. If you have the time and opportunity, you may instead access the long arm--particular if you live in a rural location and are responding to a disturbance in the corral or barn.
But for someone new to prepping, I think discussing the difference and assigning a priority is important because it will dictate where he or she will allocate scare money and other resources. For such a person, I would content that your primary weapon should be, where available, a good quality handgun, extra magazines (or speed loaders if you choose to use a revolver), a good supply of ammunition, and practice. Your rifle is secondary...at least for now. With that mind, if you are just starting out with putting together a battery of defensive weapons, my general suggestion is to first obtain a handgun and some ammo, and start practicing and learning to use it for self-defense. Then, as you expand your preps, look to get a defensive rifle.
For those of you that already have a small battery of firearms, don't neglect the handgun. Focusing on the rifle while ignoring the handgun is like skipping the first aid kit because there is a hospital nearby. Until the SHTF, loss of rule of law, the handgun is your primary weapon.
This is not to discount obtaining a rifle or shotgun. They have their place and, as I've said many times, I believe that this nation--the United States--will see another civil war. But I don't know when. It could be tomorrow, or 100 years from now. The burglar or mugger, though, is always with us.
Looking at it another way, consider this. A soldier or a SWAT officer, or similar, relies on his rifle as his primary weapon as he deploys on a mission or operation. If something goes wrong with his rifle, he transitions to his pistol. For you, at least while we still have rule of law, may not have any warning of danger, and you most likely will not be carrying a rifle--even if you typically have one as a "trunk gun." You will have your handgun first, and then if you have time and ability and need, will transition to your rifle. Exactly the opposite of the soldier.
Note: Portions of this were previously published in my post "The Top 5 Firearm Myths Among Preppers."
Thursday, December 15, 2022
Tuesday, December 13, 2022
POTD: Delamar Ghost Town, NV
 |
| Source: Atlas Obscura |
 |
| Source: Van Life Wanderer (which erroneously lists it as being in Idaho) |
For more information, see this Travel Nevada webpage.
Rotating Your Carry Ammunition
 |
| (Source) |
I saw a good article at The Truth About Guns on rotating your carry ammunition, discussing the issue for both revolvers and semi-autos because they have somewhat unique issues and need to be treated slightly differently.
The article begins, as you would expect, discussing the reasons why you want to regularly rotate or replace your carry ammunition: contamination of the powder or primer by oils or lubes, corrosion, or (if using a semi-auto) bullet setback being the main reasons.
Oils, as the article explain, can be drawn into a cartridge around the bullet or primer by capillary action and breakdown the powder and/or priming. You shouldn't have excess oil in the chamber or cylinder of a handgun anyway, but even minimal amounts over a long period of time can cause problems. The author relayed a story where ammunition carried (stored?) in a revolver over a number of years were duds which the author put down to contamination by oil. Frankly, it could just as likely been a matter of moisture from humidity: even if you don't live in a naturally humid part of the country, a carry piece is going to be exposed to excess humidity by virtue of it being carried in close proximity to your body.
Corrosion can be another issue. Although the article doesn't delve into this much, I've seen ammo that has corroded over time. You might think that corrosion will mostly impact semi-auto firearms because it will interfere with the cycling of the firearm. But the cylinders of a revolver are machined to tight tolerances and so corroded ammunition may stick hindering extraction from the cylinder. In any event, corrosion will typically be the result of high humidity which takes us back to the first point raised above concerning contamination.
The final issue discussed is bullet setback: i.e., that each time you empty and rechamber a cartridge into your carry gun, there will be some pressure on the bullet going into the chamber that will over some period of time push the bullet back into the casing potentially causing dangerous pressures if the round should ever be ignited.
The author gives some advice on how frequently to replace your carry ammunition. For revolvers, he recommends rotating them out every three to six months. For semi-autos he recommends that you "rotate out the round in the chamber every three to six months." But, he adds:
For rounds in the magazine carried in the gun or spare magazines carried every day, rotate that ammunition annually or after about 12 months of carry. All of this rotated out ammo should find a home in a box or bag in your range bag.
Test fire the rounds to ensure they fire and function. If they misfire, hangfire or have malfunction issues, investigate further to find and fix the causes. You may need to clean more often, or use (significantly) less lubrication after cleaning.
The recommendation changes depending on who is writing the article. This article at Concealed Nation recommends once per year. This article at Police 1 recommends a carry rotation of 6 months to 1 year, which seems to be the standard advice. Winchester recommends a twice per year rotation for law enforcement officers using its duty ammunition, but for its civilian customers states: "While ammo is proven to last for decades if kept in controlled conditions, be on the safe side by refreshing the ammo in your concealed carry gun each year." An article at the Clinger Holster blog suggests every 6 months or less. And Mike V. at Everyday Carry Concealed suggests that "[a]ny round in the chamber should be rotated quarterly, while magazine ammo should be done at least annually. I also recommend you rotate ammo in your revolver quarterly, because of the increased exposure of the rounds." And Luke McCoy at USA Carry recommends that the top round--the one repeatedly cycled through the gun--be replaced at least once per month while acknowledging that the ammunition that simply sits in the magazine could in theory last indefinitely.
Justin Carroll, writing at Lucky Gunner, has an excellent and detailed article on the subject and he writes:
I reached out to several big-name ammunition manufacturers while conducting research for this article, and the only specific guidance I got was this: you should rotate your duty ammunition every six months. I think this is a great guideline, but it’s still only a guideline. If you handle your gun a lot and load/unload often, you should change your ammunition more often. If your gun is a pure home-defense tool that doesn’t get cycled that much and rarely leaves a climate-controlled environment, you can safely extend that number to a year or more.
Even though I only own revolvers these days, I rotate my self-defense ammunition every 90 days. This is because I am inherently a “gun guy” and tinker with my gun a lot. I shoot it and dry practice often which means my guns get unloaded and reloaded frequently. My guns also get cleaned regularly which means my carry ammunition is in constant contact with oil, a notoriously effective primer-killer. Do you own assessment and consider your own use-case. And, when in doubt, inspect your ammunition and see if it’s time to change it out.
With a revolver, the primary issue will be contamination from oils and/or moisture. Thus, you can probably err on the side of longer time periods before rotating the ammunition (although I think it should be a moot issue since you should be doing at least some practice with your carry ammo and might as well shoot up what was in your firearm when you do so).
The more serious problem, I believe, is with bullet setback in a semi-auto, which is mostly going to be related to how often you empty and rechamber each cartridge and the process for doing it. One thing you have to keep in mind is that setback is generally a slowly and then suddenly proposition, especially with the 9x19 as it uses a slightly tapering case. The reason is that as the bullet is pushed back, it will also loosen. So the same pressure that might only push the bullet back a 1/10,000 of an inch the first time, might push it back 1/1000 inch sometime later, and may eventually just push it completely loose and jam it back into and compress the powder in the casing. And you may not even be aware of that final catastrophic time since you can't see what happens to the bullet once it slides into the chamber. Is it safe?
So really, it isn't so much a question of how many months (unless you simply leave the cartridge in the chamber all of the time) but the number of times you are chambering a particular round. I don't have any hard data on this (i.e., I'm just pulling the number out of thin air, tempered a bit by my own observations over time) but I would be leery of cycling an individual cartridge more than 10 to 15 times, especially in the tilt-barrel Browning type of action where the bullet is more likely to be forced against the roof of the chamber when feeding. In my experience, this is a much more significant factor in inducing bullet setback than the bullet contacting the feed ramp. I don't have as much experience with fixed barrel systems, and none with rotating barrel systems, and it may be possible to go longer with such systems.
Saturday, December 10, 2022
The .380 ACP For Self Defense
Earlier this year, I saw an article by Kat Ainsworth titled "380 ACP: Is It any Good for Self-Defense?" (Alternate site here). Well, it's better than a sharp stick, I thought to myself. But I went ahead and read it and came across this line:
Holy crap, Batman! That wouldn't happen with a *real* cartridge.
Oops. Maybe it can.
Alrighty, so is the .380 any good? It seems to depend on who you ask. As we saw above, some people are dead set against .380 even for a concealed carry piece. Conversely, others, like Mike V. (writing at Everyday Carry Concealed), Layne Simpson (writing at Shooting Times a few years back) and Richard Mann (writing at Shooting Illustrated in 2017) thought it was perfectly capable of being a good defensive round with modern bullet designs. Others are a bit more nuanced. In his article, "Colion Noir: Should You Carry The .380 For Defense?" (which I think was secretly a rebuttal to Ainsworth's article above), Jim Davis relates:
And:
Greg Ellifritz has observed that with .380, you can get good penetration or decent expansion, but not both. That’s why so many gun writers have labeled the .380 cartridge as “marginal” over the years. It meets some of our standards, but not all. It will probably work fine in the “average” gunfight. But if any barriers must be defeated, if your attacker is wearing heavy clothing, or if you have to take a cross body shot that penetrates the arm before reaching the vital organs, there is a much higher incidence of failure as compared to the standard “service caliber” weapons.
He also states that "[a]lthough the.380 ACP isn’t a ballistic powerhouse, I’m more worried about the reliability of the guns chambering this round than I am its lack of ballistic performance," and goes on to relate problems (and problem guns) he has encountered in the classes he teaches. And he ends his article with a quote from Dr. Gary Roberts' taken from a wound ballistics briefing for the FBI:
Handguns, by their nature, are a trade-off between effectiveness and comfort/concealment. How far you are willing to go to achieve that comfort and/or concealment will probably dictate how small of a gun you will carry. For instance, I can't ever see myself carrying one of the tiny North American .22 revolvers for self-defense. I doubt I would ever use a .32 ACP pistol, for that matter. But I am perfectly willing to carry a small or compact sized .380 or a snub-nosed .38 Special.
According to the gunsmith and now-retired police Sergeant and US Army veteran Tim Crawford, his experiences made up his mind fast on the cartridge:
Never 380 ACP as a defensive round. I made a run one night on a guy who had been shot 7 times with a 380 ACP. It was a drug deal gone bad. [After being shot] the guy whooped the shooter’s a** and took his gun away from him. Made my mind up on it. And the guy lived.
Holy crap, Batman! That wouldn't happen with a *real* cartridge.
Before the call that changed Timothy Gramins’ life forever, he typically carried 47 rounds of handgun ammunition on his person while on duty.
Now, he carries 145, “every day, without fail.”
Gramins detailed the gunfight that caused the difference in a gripping presentation at the annual conference of the Assn. of SWAT Personnel-Wisconsin in 2012.
At the core of his desperate firefight was a murderous attacker who simply would not go down, even though he was shot 14 times with .45-cal. ammunition – six of those hits in supposedly fatal locations.
Oops. Maybe it can.
Alrighty, so is the .380 any good? It seems to depend on who you ask. As we saw above, some people are dead set against .380 even for a concealed carry piece. Conversely, others, like Mike V. (writing at Everyday Carry Concealed), Layne Simpson (writing at Shooting Times a few years back) and Richard Mann (writing at Shooting Illustrated in 2017) thought it was perfectly capable of being a good defensive round with modern bullet designs. Others are a bit more nuanced. In his article, "Colion Noir: Should You Carry The .380 For Defense?" (which I think was secretly a rebuttal to Ainsworth's article above), Jim Davis relates:
[Colion Noir] begins by explaining that, when he first came onto the gun scene, everyone told him to make his life fit around his gun. For some people, that’s fine, but not for Colion because although he loves guns, he does not want them to dictate his entire lifestyle.
He carries a Ruger LCP II for self-defense sometimes when he’s going to his mailbox which is “a bit of a ways” from his house. He has to walk to it and he does so at varying times, including after dark. He likes to keep his .380 Ruger by the door so it’s convenient for him to slip into his pants or the pocket of a hoodie and “Call it a day.” He doesn’t have to go and put a holster on or jump through hoops to go out the door. In short, it’s convenient. And after all, there are times when it’s just nice to have convenience.
That little .380 slipped into a pocket is a lot better than simply not carrying a pistol at all. It’s easy and fluidly fits Colion’s lifestyle. It works, and so he does it. I’ve done a similar thing with my .38 Airweight revolver; I might be running to the corner store and want to have something with me, so I slip the .38 into my pocket rather than gear up. I suspect that most of us who carry firearms have likely done something similar.
And:
Colion believes that at the end of the day, having a .380 is “better than nothing. Whether it’s a .22, a .380, a .44 Magnum, whatever the case may be, it’s going to be better than nothing.” He adds that the .380 has a good reputation as a self-defense gun, and he mentions that the former governor of Texas used a .380 to kill a coyote when it attacked his dog as he was jogging a few years back. “He got the gun that fits his lifestyle, he was going for a jog, he needed something small, and so he took his Ruger LCP. I’ve even done that.”
Colion Noir admits it is not ideal. “I’m not going to lie to you and say, ‘this is all you need’, because there are a couple things you have to think about too. There are always trade-offs…when I carry the LCP II in my pocket, I don’t have a round in the chamber because there’s nothing covering the trigger guard.” He explains that if he has to use the pistol, he must rack the slide when he draws it. As he said, definitely not ideal. Colion acknowledges that there are pocket holsters, but he does not use them because it adds too much bulk in his pocket. He admits it’s a trade-off and he will have to rack the slide to get a round in the chamber, and that’s just the reality of it.
The LCP II is Colion’s “Going to the mailbox” gun; his “Sometimes I take it running” gun. He uses a different gun for going out, and yet another kind as his bedside gun. In short, it “depends on what your lifestyle requires”, and he uses different tools to suit the task that he has at hand. Seems like a sensible approach to me, picking the right tool for the right job. He admits that he knows people who carry the LCP .380 as their full-time defensive pistol because it fits their lifestyle.
“At the end of the day, what it boils down to is, a gun that you always carry with you all of the time is going to be better than the biggest gun that you leave at home.”
Greg Ellifritz has observed that with .380, you can get good penetration or decent expansion, but not both. That’s why so many gun writers have labeled the .380 cartridge as “marginal” over the years. It meets some of our standards, but not all. It will probably work fine in the “average” gunfight. But if any barriers must be defeated, if your attacker is wearing heavy clothing, or if you have to take a cross body shot that penetrates the arm before reaching the vital organs, there is a much higher incidence of failure as compared to the standard “service caliber” weapons.
He also states that "[a]lthough the.380 ACP isn’t a ballistic powerhouse, I’m more worried about the reliability of the guns chambering this round than I am its lack of ballistic performance," and goes on to relate problems (and problem guns) he has encountered in the classes he teaches. And he ends his article with a quote from Dr. Gary Roberts' taken from a wound ballistics briefing for the FBI:
Many small, easily concealed semi-automatic pistols which are recommended for law enforcement backup or concealed carry use fire .380 ACP or smaller bullets. While these small caliber handgun bullets can produce fatal wounds, they are less likely to produce the rapid incapacitation necessary in law enforcement or self-defense situations.
Handguns chambered in .380 ACP are small, compact, and generally easy to carry. Unfortunately, testing has shown that they offer inadequate performance for self-defense and for law enforcement use whether on duty as a back-up weapon or for off duty carry. The terminal performance of .380 ACP JHP’s is often erratic, with inadequate penetration and inconsistent expansion being common problems, while .380 ACP FMJ’s offer adequate penetration, but no expansion. All of the .380 ACP JHP loads we have tested, including CorBon, Hornady, Federal, Remington, Speer, and Winchester exhibited inconsistent, unacceptable terminal performance for law enforcement back-up and off duty self-defense use due to inadequate penetration or inadequate expansion. Stick with FMJ for .380 ACP or better yet, don’t use it at all. The use of .380 ACP and smaller caliber weapons is really not acceptable for law enforcement use and most savvy agencies prohibit them. While both the .380 ACP and .38 spl can obviously be lethal; the .38 spl is more likely to incapacitate an attacker when used in a BUG role.
BUG–Infrequently used, but when needed, it must be 100% reliable because of the extreme emergency situation the user is dealing with. Generally secreted in pockets, ankle holsters, body armor holsters, etc… Often covered in lint, grime, and gunk. By their very nature, usually applied to the opponent in an up close and personal encounter, many times involving contact shots. A small .38 spl revolver is more reliable in these situations than a small .380 ACP pistol, especially with contact shots or if fired from a pocket.
Handguns, by their nature, are a trade-off between effectiveness and comfort/concealment. How far you are willing to go to achieve that comfort and/or concealment will probably dictate how small of a gun you will carry. For instance, I can't ever see myself carrying one of the tiny North American .22 revolvers for self-defense. I doubt I would ever use a .32 ACP pistol, for that matter. But I am perfectly willing to carry a small or compact sized .380 or a snub-nosed .38 Special.
[Reprinted with changes from my July 5, 2022, Docent' Memo].
Friday, December 9, 2022
Weapon Retention Techniques for Handguns--A Compendium of Articles.
 |
| (Source) |
Because police officers are routinely forced to interact at close or contact distances with criminal suspects, the majority of the articles pertain to law enforcement. But one of the consequences of this is that the articles almost universally assume that (1) the firearm is being openly carried and (2) the person is using a holster utilizing multiple retention systems making it difficult for someone to snatch the weapon in the first instance.
Neither is the case with most concealed carriers. Holsters generally have some means of preventing a firearm from falling out such as a friction fit, a retention ("thumb-break") strap, or, if made of Kydex or similar, molded to hold the trigger guard. These types of holsters are intended to maximize speed of the draw stroke and any retention system in them is simply to keep the weapon from falling out of the holster. Some of these holsters, because of the angle in which they are carried, may be more difficult for someone to snatch, but are not really designed for that purpose.
For these reasons, the best method for the civilian (i.e., non-law enforcement) carrier to avoid having his or her pistol snatched is to conceal the weapon. If the criminal does not know of the pistol, he or she cannot snatch the pistol. Moreover, not only does good concealment prevent the criminal from snatching the pistol, it gives the concealed carrier an advantage on when and how to bring a weapon into play, potentially providing the opportunity to get inside the criminal's OODA loop.
Nevertheless there are instances, whether by exposing the weapon or in the midst of a struggle, that an attacker may become aware of the weapon, and then attempt to snatch the weapon or block the draw. Obviously, in such cases, it would behoove you to know something about weapon retention. And if you decide to openly wear a handgun in public you really should both invest in a retention holster designed to foil a weapon snatch and be proficient in countering a weapon snatch.
And now for the articles:
- Bertomen, Lindsey J. "Training day: Gun retention techniques", Police One (12 Oct. 2018).
- Brickner, Mike. "The Weapons Retention Drill: Stop a Bad Guy from Getting Your Gun", U.S. Concealed Carry Blog (20 June 2017).
- Ellifritz, Greg. "Your Tactical Training Scenario: In-Hand Weapons Retention", Active Self Protection Blog (6 Jan. 2020).
- Farooqui, Nik. "Defeating Gun Grabbers | Effective Pistol Retention Techniques", SWAT Magazine (no date).
- Fasnacht, Tim. "Training in unconventional weapons retention", Corrections 1 (5 Nov. 2013).
- Harbison, James. "Real World Weapon Retention", Police Magazine (1 April 2019).
- Hightower, Tracy. "Defending Your Firearm, Your Life Depends On It", Tactical Response Blog (no date).
- Johnson, Richard. "Don’t Give Up Your Gun: Tips for Weapon Retention", Imminent Threat Solutions Blog (28 July 2011).
- Mastison, Fred. "Weapon Retention Techniques To Beat A Gun Grab", The Armory Life (28 June 2019).
- Mastison, Fred. "How to Defend Yourself – ABC’s of Weapon Retention for CCW", Ammo Land Shooting Sports News (30 March 2018).
- Periatt, Christopher. "Real World Weapon Retention Tactics", Police Magazine (29 Jan. 2016).
- Seeklander, Michael. "Weapon Retention, Disarms, and Strikes (Part 1)", Shooting Performance Blog (3 April 2014).
- Staff writer. "Handgun-Retention Tactics", American Cop (1 Oct. 2014).
- Swanagon, Joshua. "Get A Grip: Firearm Retention," American Outdoor Guide (8 May 2017).
- Wagner, Jim. "Most 'Experts' are Wrong about Surviving this One: Gun Retention", Blackbelt Magazine (22 April 2021).
Thursday, December 8, 2022
Ayoob: The Necessity of High Capacity Magazines
VIDEO: "Massad Ayoob: The necessity of high capacity magazines. How many rounds are needed? Critical Mas 45"--Wilson Combat (8 min.)
Ayoob raises four main points why civilians need access to magazines of 10 rounds or more. They are:
- Multiple attackers. He notes that unlike in the past where car jackings and home invasion robberies might just be perpetrated by a single criminal, we have seen criminals working in groups become common. So, even if you wind up with a low round count per criminals, you can quickly go past 6 or 10 rounds with multiple attackers.
- Criminals wearing body armor. Another point he makes is that it is becoming increasingly common for criminals to have body armor. If you do find yourself in an armed engagement with such a criminal, you might be through several shots before you realize the problem and adjust your tactics or point of aim.
- Better trained or tactically aware criminals. Ayoob notes that we are seeing criminals taking better advantage of cover and concealment. Like the issue with body armor, even if you are facing but a single criminal, you are likely to expend more rounds either because of missed shots or having to put down some covering fire.
- Bad guys on drugs. Ayoob thinks the problem of criminals on drugs such that they don't feel pain and/or are jacked up as if on adrenaline has gotten worse with newer drugs and opioid epidemic. I can't say one way or another--particularly when you consider the effect of drugs like PCP that gained notoriety in the 1980s. But that aside, meeting someone on drugs and/or alcohol that can seemingly "soak up" bullets without an immediate, noticeable effect is very real and there are real world accounts of such individuals taking well in excess of 10 rounds to drop.
Related post: "Whether To Carry An Extra Magazine".
Wednesday, December 7, 2022
Buy Quality Survival Gear
VIDEO: "Stop Buying Cheap Survival Junk! Prepper School Vol. 49"--SensiblePrepper (61 min.)
There is a lot of survival gear and tactical gear out there ranging from the cheap (in both quality and price) to the very expensive, with a lot in between. Unfortunately, for most of us, budgets do not allow us to purchase everything we want let alone the highest cost versions of what we want.
On the other hand, we don't want to buy junk. "Buy once, cry once" is a well known saying for a reason.
As the video above points out, if you have something--a tool or weapon--for survival, if you use it you will be abusing it. Cheap items will break; quality items will not (or at least there is a far less chance of it). And, as also pointed out in the video, even if you can make do with the lower quality item, things will be easier with a quality bit of gear (as experience with hand and power tools has probably already taught most of us). The term used in the video that I really liked was the admonition that you purchase tools and kit that is "usable" in a survival situation.
"Usable" cuts both ways. A cheaply made item may not be usable because it breaks or doesn't function correctly when you attempt to use it. But an expensive item may not be "usable"--even if well made and fully capable of effective use--because the owner is reluctant to use the item lest it be lost or damaged. For instance, the host related an anecdote from a Navy SEAL friend who, when his unit was deployed to South America for some drug interdiction work, the team members left behind their most awesome and expensive knives (several thousand dollars each according to the host) and took the more standard Ka-Bars and such rather than risk damaging or losing their expensive knives.
In a similar vein, a recent article at The Truth About Guns advocated "Carry a Nice Gun, You’re Worth It" as the author attacked the commonly heard admonition to carry a gun that is cheap enough that you won't be afraid of losing it (e.g., to a police confiscation should you be involved in a lethal force incident). He instead suggests that you "[c]arry the most reliable pistol that you shoot the best, can conceal comfortably enough that you’ll carry it regularly, and can afford."
In short, you don't need a $500+ custom knife, a Staccato semi-auto pistol or Korth revolver, or the multitude of expensive optics, lights, and so on out there. So, for instance, the host and guest in the video above note that a Glock knife will serve as well or better than many custom knives in the survival role; and the host likes Olight products and believe they will serve most people as well as more expensive options from Surelight or Streamlight. And using my firearm examples, a Glock, Walther or HK polymer framed striker fired handgun will probably serve you as well as a Staccato; a S&W or Colt revolver will probably do everything most of you will need a revolver to do. Because otherwise you are paying significant amounts of money for very small incremental increases in performance.
I've seen many articles that discuss the same with optics: that once you get to a certain price point (it depends on the brands being tested, but appears to be the $700 to $1000 range), the increase of performance with more expensive models is marginal.
And you also should be realistic about what you are going to be doing with the gear. I have been looking at battle belt/war belt setups over the last several months and there are some really nice rigs out there, but the difference between the mid-tier products and the more expensive high-tier products is often whether the belts have been certified for helicopter operations or rappelling. Realistically, though, how many of us--even if everything were to go full Mad Max--would ever find ourselves dangling from the side of a helicopter or fast roping down to the roof of a building? For most preppers, it would literally be a waste of money to buy the highest tier battle belts. I suspect that much the same can be said in general about load carrying equipment and plate carriers.
Now some things you aren't going to be able to save much on. One example commonly given is night vision. The reality is that Russian surplus night vision sucks and digital night vision just isn't quite there. I'm still without night vision equipment for this reason: I haven't scraped together the funds for a good night vision system and am unwilling to waste money on the cheap systems.
Similarly, for another example, in looking at hand cranked grain mills, it looks like you have a choice of cheap plastic or something that costs a few hundred dollars or more. And while there are videos that show you how to make your own Berkey style filter, Berkey filter systems are pretty much the standard in their class. Chain saws, power tools, and most hand tools are the same. This is really where "buy once, cry once" applies.
Tuesday, December 6, 2022
Monday, December 5, 2022
Saturday, December 3, 2022
Friday, December 2, 2022
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)