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."
"For you, it will happen at point-blank range." Massad Ayoub.
ReplyDeletePoint Blank Range: The maximum distance at which a bullet strike on a target can be made from the muzzle to that distance, with a center hold on that target, with a specific firearm using specific ammunition.
Hollywood has corrupted "point blank range" to mean "right in front of the gun" and Ayoub gleefully succumbs to the corruption.
So does nearly everyone else.
"Point Blank Range" is "point blank range" no matter what corruption is applied to the definition, but it quite negtively affects the perception of those attempting to learn proper useage of firearms. What we need is a new term to define "right in front of the gun" and stop misusing "point blank range."
So, what will it be?
It can take a long time to clear up misused terms. Look at how long we had to suffer the consequences of "the Greatest Generation" not being able to tell the difference between an en bloc clip versus a magazine and thus using the term "clip" to refer to magazine (even some of the WWII training films use "clip" to refer to magazine). I only rarely see or hear people making that mistake now, but even 15 years ago it was still common.
DeleteAs far as a replacement term, "close up" is probably as good or better than any other. Terms such as "face-to-face" or "arms length" would not be accurate. "Close quarters" might work but its definition of being in tight confines suggests being inside a structure or conveyance or something like a tunnel.
Maybe primary weapons(plural)? Depends on the when and where, don't it?
ReplyDeleteI'm having this vision of you decked out with multiple handguns similar to the pirate Black Beard.
Delete