Latest Defensive Pistolcraft

Jon Low had published a new Defensive Pistolcraft prior to my leaving on my vacation, but with trying to get things done before I left, and then catching up on some matters after getting back, I'm only just now getting to his post. Before continuing, though, I want to publicly thank him for referencing some of my posts and comments.

    Now, getting to the stories and his comments. First up, it is not infrequent to read accounts of police conducting raids at the wrong addresses. You would think that with multiple officers all being given the correct address and being able to see the incorrect address on the structure being raided that this wouldn't happen, but as I've noted before, raids and police shootings often resemble feeding frenzies. Anyway, Jon has some recommendations for such situations:

    One of those Ring door bells, https://ring.com/doorbell-cameras[,] attached to the front door or the wall next to the front door would have gone a long way to keeping the residents safe.  All of my neighbors have them installed.  You can see and talk to the guys outside without having to open your door.  Generally best to stay away from your front door, as the bad guys can and do shoot through doors.  

     Police are human. They make mistakes. No sense compounding the mistake and getting killed.  The officers might get convicted. The wife might get a big civil settlement. But, the husband is still dead. How could he have avoided getting killed?  

1.  Don't answer the door. Let the police get a warrant. They would not have been able to. Call 911 and tell the dispatcher that there are men claiming to be police at your door trying to make entry.  "Are they really police officers?"  Impersonating a police officer is a common thing.  

2.  Leave via the back door.  Leaving is always a good idea.  Go to a movie theater and see the new "John Wick Chapter 4" movie.  No, as a matter of fact, you don't have to get involved in the drama.  My father (who was a prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge) often said, "You can always walk away."  And it's true!  

3.  Answer the door from your smart phone, using your remote door bell video and audio system.  Lot's of them on the market, cheap as dirt.  

[4].  Answer the door from a side window, balcony, etc.  

And some practice tips:

     Hopefully, you have had expert training before practicing to ensure that what you are practicing is correct.  

     Practice should be planned (have a list of things to do and execute to your list), deliberate (as opposed to casual), and intentional (attitude, concentrate on what you are doing without distraction).  

     If you are practicing a new skill, practice should be slow to ensure you are doing it correctly and not engraining bad habits.  If you are practicing a skill you know well, practice should initially be slow to make sure you're doing it correctly (not unintentionally engraining bad habits).  

     You must keep a highly detailed journal.  

     Before going to practice, write down what you are going to work on at the practice session.  (What are you going to accomplish?  If you don't know, STOP!  THINK!  {Ya, I kow it's hard.  Don't hurt yourself.}  If you don't have any goals, you're wasting your time. )  

     During the practice session, execute the things on your list.  

     After the practice session, write down what you did at the practice session.  Write down what worked, and what didn't work.  Write down what you will be working on at the next session based on the results of this session.  

     Otherwise, you're wasting your time.  Wasting time can be fun, especially when doing it with someone hot.  Just don't confuse it with practice.  Only practice will improve your performance.  

     "I went to the range today with the guys and shot a thousand rounds, while drinking a cooler of beers, and grilling burgers and hot dogs.  What a great day of practice.  I'm ready for war.  NOT!"  

     If you're going to practice, you're probably going by yourself.  Or, possibly with your coach.  Team practices make sense for team sports.  Shooting is an individual sport / art /skill/ combat skill.  Going with friends is distracting.  If you want to accomplish your goals for the day, best to go by yourself.  You're not being anti-social.  You're being serious.  

I don't think that going with a friend (emphasis on the singular) is necessarily a bad idea. I learned more about shooting by going with a friend of about equal skill level and having games or contests to shoot small targets under a time limit than all the aimed target shooting I've ever done (e.g., shooting at a can or shotgun shell hull to try and bump it up a short slope to see who would be first to get it to a ledge; or setting up a line of bowling pins and drawing and, starting from each end, see who gets the most down the fastest). One of the reasons I learned to appreciate the 1911 is because it is one of the best quick draw and shoot firearms out there. 

    But that said, Jon is right in saying if your "practice" shooting is just aimless plinking, you aren't going to get much out of it beyond the mental and emotional catharsis that just comes with shooting. And you won't know if you are getting any better without using a journal of some sort to record information. And if you are wanting to shoot a longer ranges, you will need to record a lot more information in order to learn the proper dope for your rifle and the ammunition. You can get by without a journal or records early on because you are just learning the gross skills, but in order to fine tune what you are doing, you need the records so you can analyze the patterns and spot problems. It also helps to record yourself or, during dry fire practice, watch yourself in a mirror. Repeating something wrong 1000 times is useless; you want some incremental improvement as you practice.

    But back to practicing around other people. What I've found inhibits my practice is where I have to instruct or monitor other persons for the majority of a shooting session. There is some benefit because in order to teach them, I have to really think about what I do which works and explain it/demonstrate it, but mostly it is babysitting. It is one of the reasons that I stopped going shooting with my father-in-law: I discovered that I was only invited along on those occasions where he and his sons needed someone to watch their kids and/or teach their kids to shoot. The other was that after a few years of constant excuses on why he couldn't go shooting on most occasions, I realized that he would go shooting with me or my kids only if one of his sons or their children were also going. I don't know why he favored the grandkids from his sons over the grandkids from his daughters (he was the same toward the kids of his other daughters), but that was how he was. 

    Anyway, sorry about getting sidetracked there. But back to Jon Low's post: it is full of good stuff so be sure to read the whole thing.

A Couple Videos Testing Two Methods Of Purifying Water

The Realist directed my attention to these two videos. The first examines pond water under a microscope before and after boiling. As the author notes, the boiling doesn't remove debris (dirt, etc.) in the water, so you will want to filter with a cloth, but the boiling does destroy the microorganisms.

VIDEO: "Boiling Water vs Germs Under Microscope (Does boiling pond water kill bacteria?)"

CloseIntel (1-1/2 min).

In the second video, the author does a before and after examination of water after going through a Life Straw. The author describes finding some debris after pumping it through the Life Straw but did not see any evidence of microbial life.

VIDEO: "Testing The Lifestraw Under Microscope"

CloseIntel (2 min.)

Bombs and Bants Live! Ep 83 (Streamed 4/26/2023)

VIDEO: "Bombs and Bants Live! Ep 83" (51 min.)

More fun and frolics

Tiger McKee Has Passed Away

I heard from Jonathan Low that Tiger McKee has passed away. McKee founded and taught at Shootrite as well as being a prolific writer for numerous publications as well as a regular contributor to the Tactical Wire blog. American Handgunner has an In Memoriam article.

VIDEO: When Societies Commit Suicide

VIDEO: "A Study of Decadence(When Societies Commit Suicide)."

Whatifalthist (30 min.)

Bombs and Bants Live! Ep 82 (Streamed 4/19/2023)

VIDEO: "Bombs and Bants Live! Ep 82" (44 min.)

POTD: Camping in a Train Wreck

Sometime you may need to find shelter where you can find it. The producer of this video, who does a lot of videos on stealth camping, spends the night camping in an old box car left over from a 1950's train wreck outside of Whistler, B.C.

VIDEO: "Train Wreck Camping"

Steve Wallis (30 min.)

Article: "How the Tonga eruption rang Earth ‘like a bell’"

  The January 15, 2022, Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai volcanic explosion near Tonga was the largest natural explosion ever recorded (i.e., since the 1960s when scientists started deploying a network of sensors and satellites--the 1815 Tambura and 1883 Krakatoa explosions were more powerful). It was, the article states, an order of magnitude larger than the explosion of Mount St. Helens in 1980. But as the Popular Science article referenced in the title explains, there was a mystery: why were there not more damage and deaths? The article noted that it devastated Tonga but it only caused four deaths in the archipelago. The island nation's disaster response played a role, as did the fact that Covid-19 lockdowns meant that there were no tourists. But the saving grace for Tonga was apparently geographic. 

    The main island located 40 miles south of the eruption is surrounded by shallow seas and coral reefs. The shallow seas meant smaller waves; and the coral reefs also seemed to shield the island. Conversely, the article explains, the isle of Tofua, about 55 miles northeast of the eruption, is a volcanic caldera and sits in deep waters with sharp, mountainous coasts that offer no protection from an incoming tsunami. As a result, it may have been struck by waves more than 100 feet tall. But as Tofua is uninhabited, there was no loss of human life.

Imminent Means Imminent

    First up, as always, I am not your attorney and this is not legal advice.

    One of the requirements for using deadly force in a self-defense situation is that you are faced with an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm. But I've seen two stories in the same number of days where a homeowner did not appear to understand that very basic concept. 

    The first occurred last Thursday evening when a 16-year old black male, Ralph Paul Yarl, was shot by an elderly white homeowner after ringing the wrong doorbell, the media is reporting. According to reports, Yarl was picking up two younger brothers from a friend's home at around 10 pm when went to 115th Street instead of 115th Terrace and was shot twice after ringing the doorbell. 

    NBC News relates:

    “Whoever was inside took a little longer than he anticipated to respond, and so he just waited at the door,” Merritt, told NBC News on Monday, citing a formal statement Yarl gave to law enforcement investigators from his hospital bed Friday.

    “He heard rustling around going on in the house and then finally the door was open,” the attorney said. “And he was confronted by a man who told him, ‘Don’t come back around here,’ and then he immediately fired his weapon.” 

    The teen was shot in the head, which cracked his skull and left him with a critical, traumatic brain injury, Merritt said. While the teenager was still on the ground, the homeowner opened fire a second time, striking Yarl in the upper right arm, he added.

Supposedly Yarl ran to three different homes before being helped. Some of the reports indicated that even then he was forced to lie on the ground with his hands over his head, but the Daily Mail is reporting today that actually a good Samaritan resident of the neighborhood rushed over to Yarl and held his hand while other neighbors helped with trying to stop the bleeding. Yarl's relatives have already tried to make this into an incident all about race, which seems to be successful as they have already raised over $1 million and have had plenty of celebrities signal support. 

    NBC News also reported that "Police Chief Stacey Graves Sunday said that while shooting did not appear to be racially motivated, she did 'recognize the racial components of this case.'" But the Daily Mail article cited above stated: "Clay County prosecutor Zachary Thompson confirmed there was a racial factor in the attack - after the teenage music scholar was shot twice, in the head and arm, after ringing the wrong doorbell when he went to pick up his younger brothers." In any event, on Monday the "prosecutors filed two two felony counts against the white homeowner, Andrew Lester, 85: assault in the first degree and armed criminal action." NBC adds: "Lester faces a maximum punishment of life in prison in the assault charge and three to 15 years for the alleged gun crime, Thompson said."

    I'm sure that there is more to this story than we know. For instance, it might very well turn out that Yarl started pounding on the door or shouted or made threats if the door wasn't opened. Perhaps he made some furtive movement or did something else that made Lester fear for his life. But the fact remains that Yarl, who was unarmed, was on one side of a door (probably locked) from the homeowner prior to the homeowner opening the door and shooting him, so it will be difficult for the homeowner to convince a jury that he reasonably believed he was facing an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm. 

    The second new story is even more egregious. As CNN reports, "[a] 20-year-old woman [Kaylin Gillis] was shot and killed Saturday after she and three others accidentally turned into the wrong driveway while looking for a friend’s house in rural upstate New York, authorities said."  The homeowner, 65-year-old Kevin Monahan, has been charged with second-degree murder. Quoting the local sheriff, CNN relates:

“It’s a very rural area with dirt roads. It’s easy to get lost. They drove up this driveway for a very short time, realized their mistake and were leaving, when Mr. Monahan came out and fired two shots,” Murphy said, adding that the area has poor cell phone service.

Gillis' friend drove to a nearby town and called 911 but it was too late for Gillis. The article continues:

    Police officers later responded to the home from which shots were fired and found Monahan to be uncooperative, Murphy said, adding he “refused to exit his residence to speak with police.”

    He was taken into custody hours later with help from the New York State Police Special Operations Response Team, according to a press release from the Washington County Sheriff’s office.

    No one is believed to have exited the car and there was no interaction between Monahan and anyone in the vehicle before shots were fired, Murphy said.

    “There was clearly no threat from anyone in the vehicle. There was no reason for Mr. Monahan to feel threatened,” Murphy said.

Not having the same celebrity appeal as Yarl's family, Gillis' family has only been able to raise $50,000 for funeral and other expenses. 

    In this latter case, the homeowner's actions are even less defensible: he killed someone in a car in a driveway (what actually sounds more like a short road or path) apparently in the process of turning around. There was nothing to indicate the two women in the car posed any sort of imminent harm to the homeowner. 

Tips On The Marlin 60

I saw this article, "TFB Armorer’s Bench: Commentary on The Marlin Model 60," at The Firearm Blog. The Marlin Model 60 is a semi-auto .22LR rifle that uses an under barrel tube magazine, similar to what you see on lever actions. It was introduced in 1960 and went on to become one of the most successful firearms designs in history in terms of the numbers sold. It originally featured a 17-round magazine but this was reduced in the 1980s to 15 rounds to comply with New Jersey law. The barrel length was also reduced from 22 inches to 19 inches so that the barrel would not extend past the end of the tube magazine.

    The Model 60 was upstaged by Marlin's own Model 70 (which used a detachable box magazine) and the Ruger 10/22, but it is my understanding that it remained popular overseas. Production ceased in 2020 when Ruger acquired Marlin.

    Because the Armorer's Bench column focuses on gun maintenance and repair, the article primarily focuses on common issues with the rifle. Unsurprisingly to me, many of the issues identified by the author have to do with the older style feed throat (the piece that guides the cartridge from the magazine and into the chamber). The older feed throats were of a cast metal, and included as part of the casting the extractor. It was also cast in to halves which were roughly riveted together. The author notes that in most of the older models he's inspected, the ejector had broken off. Also, he notes, the two-pieces of the old style feed throat can separate over time and cause feeding issues.

    These issues are probably why one of my most popular posts is "Replacing the Feed Throat on a Marlin 'Glenfield' Model 60" where I describe replacing a feed throat in an early Model 60 with a modern part. The modern feed throat is a one piece design, and the cast ejector has been replaced looping one tail of the lifter spring around to the top of the feed throat to also serve as the ejector.

    Another issue he describes is the buffer (which is just a plastic piece) cracking or disintegrating with age. I haven't had any issues with mine (cross my fingers). And there are few others.

    Anyway, if you own a Model 60, this is a useful article.

VIDEO: "5 Signs A Civilization Is About To Fail"

The five signs, per the video, are: (1) climate change, (2) environmental degradation, (3) inequality and oligarchy, (4) complexity, and (5) external shocks of some sort. 

    While the video describes the climate change as "global" it doesn't have to be global. For instance, the Chaco Canyon culture collapsed because of drought but there is no evidence that it was global in nature.

    Environmental degradation includes things such as loss or decline in soil quality due to farming and/or irrigation, pollution, loss of vegetation, and so on. A good example of this is Mayan civilization that had cut down so much forest land that they were having difficulty getting the wood for the fires needed to make the plaster with which they coated their stone structures. Their collapse is also believed to be related to a loss of nutrients in the soil due to over farming. 

    Inequality and oligarchy essentially results in an impoverished citizenry with little investment in the continuation of the nation. In fact, the need for cheap labor generally leads to a nation being replaced by a country with a polyglot of peoples.  In the Roman Empire, this shows up with the many small farmers throughout Italy being replaced with large plantations owned by the extremely wealthy and worked by slaves. The result was the creation of a welfare state and moral decadence. 

    Complexity refers to how that term is used by Joseph Tainter. As the complexity increases (i.e., cost or energy input goes up) the state will eventually reach a point where it encounters negative returns (i.e., the cost or energy input is greater than the benefit derived from a particular law or bureaucracy or military) and this makes the system unstable and prone to collapse. Which leads to the final point.

    An external shock to push everything over the edge. Frankly, the external shock could be climate change or environmental degradation. But climate change or environmental degradation also leads to the negative returns on complexity. Sort of an egg and the chicken argument. But external shocks could also be war or disease or economic collapse.

VIDEO: "5 Signs a Civilization is about to Fail"

The Pixel (6 min.)

This Is Why We Carry ...

The article is "Police Search for Suspects After Brazen Assault in Rocky Hill Driveway" and is from Rocky Hill, Connecticut, a suburb of Hartford. The video at the link shows your typical street thug breaking into someone's car when the vehicle owner suddenly comes out of his home and gets into a physical altercation. The thug breaks loose, but instead of running, immediately attacks the homeowner. Two of his thug buddies then run up and they start stomping and kicking the homeowner. 

New Weekend Knowledge Dump ...

 ... from Active Response Training. I always try and highlight a few of the links, so here goes:

• A Michael Bane podcast. I haven't had time yet to listen to the podcast (it's 52 minutes long), but Greg comments:

Michael Bane discusses how the “doctrine of the reasonable person” may no longer be the legal standard we have to overcome before exercising our rights to self defense in today’s increasingly tribalized world.  This is important information to consider.

•  An article analyzing whether .22 LR, .22 Magnum, .25 ACP, and 5.7x28mm are good defensive rounds. I have a couple disagreements with the article and/or conclusions. First, the article starts off talking about "mouse guns" and "micro pistols," but then includes the 5.7x28mm. All of the 5.7 pistols of which I'm aware are full size (i.e., duty sized) handguns. And, as becomes apparent from his discussion of the Fort Hood shooting, the 5.7 is in a completely different class from the other calibers discussed in the article.

    Second, the author states:

I will just pass right over the .25 ACP. Despite the compactness of some of the pistols that use it, it offers nothing the .22LR doesn’t, ballistically, and does so at greater cost, less availability and fewer options for pistol choices.

Well, the .25 ACP may not offer better ballistics but it does offer something potentially much more important: because of the cartridge design and the fact that it is centerfire, it offers more reliable ignition and operation.

• If you have a revolver for self-defense, Greg has linked to a truly excellent article from Firearm News entitled "Self-Defense with a Revolver: Fundamentals and Tips." I've printed it so I can keep it as a reference. 
• An article I found interesting was one from the Tactical Professor that tested whether a handgun with a longer barrel was more accurate at self-defense distances and easier to recover from shot-to-shot. The test was performed using revolvers of different frame sizes and barrel lengths, but of the same caliber. One of the short barreled revolvers did the best.
• An article from Massad Ayoob on the importance of being able to use your support hand to shoot and manipulate your handgun. Besides the fact that you might injure your hand (unrelated to a self-defense shooting) and have your hand/fingers in a splint, cast, or sling at the critical time, Ayood also points out:

Let’s say you want to take care of yourself and your loved ones in life-threatening emergencies. Any smart carrier is going to work on “weak-hand only” shooting (and reloading and malfunction clearing) due to the high percentage of wounded good guys in gunfights taking the hit in their dominant hand or arm.

Besides which, you might have someone grab your dominant arm in a fight. 

• Finally, check out the video from Active Self Protection, "Switched-On Concealed Carrier Wins Insane Gun Fight Against Moto Robber." Some good lessons. 

The Pelvic Shot

Dave Spaulding has published an article at Guns & Ammo titled "Pelvic Shots: Fight Stoppers or Self-Defense Fiction?" This appears to be an expanded version of an article he had published on his now-defunct Handgun Combatives blog, and which I mentioned back in 2017. I've come across numerous articles that have discussed this topic (in more or less detail) over the years, some of which I list below:

• "The truth about 'stopping power' – Anatomy First" by Aaron Cowan, Breach Bang Clear.
• "Pelvic Shooting, the Best Worst Option" by Aaron Cowan, Monderno.
• "Winning Deadly Force Encounters"--Blue Sheep Dog.
• "Self Defense Training....Pelvic shots are catching on! What are the implications?"--SNAFU.
• "Vital Points: Shot Placement, Incapacitation And Conventional Wisdom" by Massad Ayoob, Guns Magazine.

    The theory of the pelvic shot is similar to shooting dangerous game (e.g., a charging bear) in the shoulder, which is to break the bones of the joint or leg in order to anchor the game in place--safely away from the hunter--and allow the hunter to then follow up with a second and more accurate killing shot. Of course, you can probably already see where the theory breaks down when applied to a human attacker, which is that it works against dangerous game because that type of animal is trying to get to the hunter with its teeth and claw--i.e., contact weapons--not a firearm or other ranged weapon.

    Spaulding illustrates this point by relating the story of a murder attempt on the famous gun slinger, Bat Masterson, where Masterson was shot in the pelvis. Spaulding relates (bold added):

    The most "famous" pelvic shot/wound ever recorded historically, probably belongs to western lawman, buffalo hunter, gunfighter and legend Bat Masterson. In 1875 in Sweetwater, Texas, Masterson was involved in a shootout with Corporal Melvin King (U.S. Army) involving either hard feelings over a card game or the affections of a woman, historians go both ways on the issue. I know, I know, the shooting involved liquor, gambling and a woman, hard to believe those three would result in a fight, right?

    Near midnight, Masterson left the Lady Gay Saloon accompanied by Mollie Brennan and walked to a nearby dance hall. Masterson and Brennan sat down near the front door and began talking. Corporal King, intoxicated and angry over the night’s events (either losing at cards or Brennan's attention to Masterson), saw the two go into the dance hall and watched them through the window before he approached the locked door. King knocked and Masterson got up to answer it. As he did, King burst into the room with a drawn revolver and a string of profanity.

    While stories as to exactly what happened vary, somehow Brennan found herself between the two men when King fired (whether she was trying to protect Masterson or simply trying to get out of the way is unknown). The first shot narrowly missed her and struck Masterson in the pelvis taking him down. King’s second shot hit Brennan in the chest and she crumpled to the floor.

    At this point, Masterson raised himself up and fired the shot that killed King. Some say Bat Masterson walked with a cane the remainder of his life due to the severity of the pelvic wound while others say he merely used it as an excuse to keep an impact weapon with him at all times — a weapon he was known to use with great effectiveness. What can be said is that Masterson was seen throughout his later life without the cane.

Now, it is arguable that if Brennan's second shot had struck Masterson rather than Ms. Brennan, it would have been Masterson that died. But it does illustrate that even a successful shot to the pelvis cannot be counted on to take someone out of the fight. Moreover, based on his recovery, it also illustrates that such a shot is not necessarily crippling, particularly when using a handgun.

    On the latter issue, Spaulding quotes the following from Dr. Martin Fackler's comments on the pelvic shot:

Other than soft tissue structures not essential to continuing the gunfight (loops of bowel, bladder) the most likely thing to be struck by shots to the pelvis would be bone. The ilium is a large flat bone that forms most of the back wall of the pelvis. The problem is that handgun bullets that hit it would not break the bone but only make a small hole in passing through it: this would do nothing to destroy bony support of the pelvic girdle. The pelvic girdle is essentially a circle: to disrupt its structure significantly would require breaking it in two places. Only a shot that disrupted the neck or upper portion of the shaft of the femur would be likely to disrupt bony support enough to cause the person hit to fall. This is a small and highly unlikely target: the aim point to hit it would be a mystery to those without medical training — and to most of those with medical training.

    Both of the articles from Aaron Cowen also discuss why, anatomically, a pelvis shot is not ideal. From his excellent Breach Bang Clear article, Cowen explains (bold added):

    The last ideal area of the body to target is the lateral pelvis. Also called the pelvic girdle, this area is comprised of very dense bones designed to support weight, resist omnidirectional forces and assist in the generation of movement.

    The number of vital organs located in this area is zero, as in none. The pelvic girdle has seen a resurgence in popularity as a place to intentionally target. Some even saying they would shoot here before trying for the chest (which makes zero sense). The pelvic area does contain arteries. Unfortunately those are small targets and very, very few people can even point to their general location, let alone target one.

    The aorta enters the pelvic region, branches out into the iliac arteries which move through the pelvic girdle to become the femoral arteries, essentially an inverted “y.” While it’s very true that ballistic trauma to this area can cause immobilization via the breaking and shattering of bones, it is highly unlikely to cause incapacitation in a reasonable amount of time. One of the most recent studies into pelvic gunshot trauma found that out of over 2,800 gunshot wound related patients, 42 had suffered trauma to the pelvic region, only 18 of those resulted in fractures to the Ilium and only 7 of those actually required surgery. 

    That is not exactly reassuring.

    This is not to say that you should completely discount the pelvis shot, as Spaulding goes on to explain, but that it should not be at the top of your places to shoot someone. Obviously, we try to shoot the center of mass of a target. Thus, if all we can see of a target is a foot, we would shoot the center of the foot. Likewise, if the center of mass that is visible to us is the pelvis or pelvic girdle, we probably should take that shot. But as Cowen remarks:

The pelvis is a viable target barring a better one to shoot at, but it’s not the magical incapacitation button some people sell it as. My feeling is that the popularity of pelvic shooting is because on the vast majority of ranges across the US, the pelvis is the point of aim when practicing hip shooting because the range will not allow higher angle shots. It certainly isn’t because there is a wealth of examples of pelvic incapacitations, because those examples are very rare. I don’t discount the pelvis as a place to shoot, though I would only choose it if other areas of the body were not available to me( or if it was the first stop on my way up the body). Any other methodology is snake oil. Dirty, nasty snake oil.

    Of course, that doesn't mean that a pelvis shot is completely useless, either. In his article, Massad Ayoob writes:

    Jim Cirillo was a good friend of mine from the early 1970’s until his death, and I learned a great deal from him, his partner Bill Allard, and other members of the legendary NYPD Stakeout Squad. In Jim’s Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights (Paladin Press) he said, “We found that whenever we shot gunmen in the pelvis or butt, they were knocked off their feet. They could still be dangerous, but at least their aim would be disturbed.”

    Obviously, an offender wielding a knife or club would be out of action at that point since—without mobility—they could no longer approach to stab or strike. And even a downed gunman would now be stabilized and much easier to hit with a (hopefully) fight-stopping brain shot if he tried to shoot from the ground. More recently, a retired SEAL with extensive combat experience told me pelvic shots worked dynamically for him and his colleagues.

    Can the pelvic hit fail? Of course. A mere hairline fracture of the pelvic girdle—or just a neat, round hole drilled through it—can’t be expected to have much immediate effect. A bullet that merely chips the top off the ileac crest is about like shooting the tail fin off a 1959 Cadillac, it simply won’t break down the whole machine. But put a powerful handgun bullet close to where the pelvis joins the femur, and instant collapse is highly likely. Ditto a bullet that smashes the sacrum. Pelvic shots may not guarantee “1-shot stops,” but neither do head or center chest shots. ...

    All this brings me back to the Bat Masterson example. The shot to the pelvis certainly put him on the floor and "disturbed" his aim. It seems to have given the shooter the chance to get off a second shot (which, unfortunately for him, was squandered by his striking a bystander); and if Masterson had been armed with a knife, may have been enough to keep him from reaching the shooter. But it didn't stop Masterson from using his own firearm to kill his attacker. Thus, like Spaulding and Cohen conclude, the pelvic girdle is a third rate target behind the thoracic cavity or head, and probably should be limited to those occasions when it is the only shot available to you because it is what is visible, or you can't bring the firearm to bear on the chest or head (e.g., being forced to fire from the hip). Some have also suggested the pelvis as a good target where the chest and/or head is protected by body armor and ballistic helmet. 

Bombs and Bants Live! Ep 81 (Streamed 4/12/2022)

VIDEO: "Bombs and Bants Live! Ep 81" (52 min.)

Despite John's best efforts, the Mrs. was able to explain the Great Vowel Shift, plus a lot more frolics and fun.

The Glock 28 Is Here: Is It Too Little Too Late?

 If you have been following firearms news, you may have heard that Glock is finally releasing the .380 ACP Glock 28 in the United States. (See, e.g., this article from Gun Digest or this video from TFB TV). For those that don't know, the Glock 28 is basically the Glock 26 but in .380 ACP rather than 9x19mm, and was apparently designed to be marketed and sold in those countries where civilians were not allowed to use military pistol cartridges. 

    For some reason, it was not sold in the United States prior to this release. The articles and videos discussing the weapon have all asserted that it was because the weapon did not pass the "sporting purposes" test used to keep certain military and "Saturday Night Special" types of weapons out of the country. That doesn't really make sense to me since G28 is the same size, weight (I think it is 1 oz. less) and configuration as the Glock 26, including finger grooves and a thumb rest to make it more sporty. But maybe the caliber played a role of which I'm not aware or that 1 oz. made all the difference. I suspect that Glock simply made a decision not to import it to the United States for some reason, and that was that.

    In any event, it is now being manufactured in the United States in limited numbers, so that whole issue of the "sporting purposes" test is moot. But I nevertheless find it interesting that the G28 is being sold is a third generation weapon, rather than being updated to the newer 4th and 5th generation designs, and apparently lacks any provision for mounting an optic. Maybe this is for the California market, but I don't know. 

    In any event, because it is an older generation of Glock it seems somewhat obsolete compared to Sig's P365-380 or, even, Beretta's new 80X Cheetah. This, combined with the fact that it is only being distributed through TALO Distributers makes me believe that it is intended for the collector market--those people wanting copies of each model of Glock ever produced--rather than the defensive shooter.

    But it highlights something that I've seen with Glock being behind the curve on innovation. Glock was slow to come out with a single stack 9mm when those were popular (and when it did come out with a single stack, it did so in .380). In the military pistol trials, it played it so safe that it didn't even deliver features specifically requested by the military. And now that there is growing interest in higher capacity .380s, Glock's response was to throw an old design onto the market and see how it does rather than developing a new design or updating an old design.

    Finally, while most people seem to have liked it during testing, Mrgunsngear had significant enough issues with extraction that he was sending it back to Glock for repairs:

VIDEO: "New Glock 28 380ACP Review"

Mrgunsngear Channel (21 min.)

The McDonald's Diet

    This morning I came across this headline at the Daily Mail: "I'm eating nothing but McDonald's to lose weight... with VERY surprising results." The gist of the article is that in February, Kevin Maginnis, from Tennessee, started on a challenge to eat nothing but McDonald's food for 100 days. At the time he started, he weighed 238 pounds. 44 days in, he has lost 34 pounds and lowered his cholesterol. It isn't a hog fest:

Per the rules he set for himself, he is only allowed to eat half of what he orders, but he has free reign to get whatever he wants, including dessert. He also adheres to eating just three meals a day without snacks and drinking water instead of soda. 

He adds:

'I'm never depriving myself. I’m eating McFlurries, I’m eating cinnamon rolls, I’m hitting Big Macs, I’m eating French fries,' he told Today. 'I’m just delaying myself because I’m going eat the whole thing. I’m just not going to eat it all in one sitting.'

His results were not really all that surprising to me, though. 

    In 2004, documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock released his film, Supersize Me. The film supposedly documented his going on a fast-food diet for 30-days where he ate and drank nothing but for what he bought from McDonald's. Equally important to where he ate was how he ate: supposedly, anytime he was asked if he wanted to "supersize" his order (i.e., an extra large servings portion no longer available) he would agree. He also claimed that the McDonald's food was addictive. He went on to gain 24 ½ pounds and reported other health problems. Unfortunately for Spurlock, no one has been able to replicate his experience. In fact, based on what he has said about his diet, it appears that it would have been impossible for him to have actually had a caloric intake as high as he claims (5,000 calories/day). But while he made general claims, he refuses to release his actual data on what he ate. 

    Spurlock's experiment is questionable and his conclusions appear to have been debunked, but the Supersize Me film had such broad support amongst the media and popular culture at the time (it was widely shown in schools, for instance) that people still believe Spurlock and his conclusions. 

     One of the best sources for refuting Spurlock was the 2009 documentary Fat Head from comedian Tom Naughton. (See the video below). Naughton followed Spurlock's diet as set out in Supersize Me--against his doctor's advice, by the way--and his results were quite different (and even shocked his doctor): he lost 12 pounds and his total cholesterol went down (although his HDL remained the same). He then conducted a different experiment, which Wikipedia summarizes:

At the end of his experiment, Naughton details an additional experiment inspired by his research into the lipid hypothesis. In this second experiment, he cuts out most sugars and starches from his diet for a month, eating foods such as cheeseburgers without buns, eggs and bacon fried in butter, steaks, Polish sausage, fruit in heavy cream, and green vegetables in butter. He uses coconut oil to fry onions for his cheeseburgers and eats fried shredded cheese as a snack. As a result, Naughton says that his energy level and mood have suffered no deleterious effects, despite him often working until 2 AM on a large programming project with a tight deadline. At the end of the month, his overall cholesterol has dropped from 222 to 209, with his LDL having dropped from 156 to 130 and his HDL having increased from 49 to 64.

Unlike Spurlock, Naughton was not addicted to McDonald's food--in fact, he was quite turned off by the stuff by the end of his experiment. 

VIDEO: "Fathead (1080p) FULL MOVIE - Documentary"

Gravitas HEALTH | Free Movies (1 hr 46 min.)

    Others have tried McDonald's diets as well with similar results:

• "Woman says 'McDonald's diet' took off weight"--NBC News (2005). It reports: "Inspired by the documentary “Super Size Me,” Merab Morgan decided to give a fast-food-only diet a try. The construction worker and mother of two ate only at McDonald’s for 90 days — and dropped 37 pounds in the process." She restricted herself to a 2,000/day diet.
• "Man Who Lost 60 Pounds from Eating McDonald's Every Day for Six Months Debuts Documentary"--Delish (2018). This involved one John Cisna, a science instructor at Colo Nesco High School. He did his experiment in 2014, but released a documentary in 2018.

He ate breakfast, lunch, and dinner for 180 straight days—all at McDonald's. But Cisna carefully chose his meals, counting calories (limiting his daily intake to 2,000 calories) and incorporating moderate exercise four to five days each week.

• "Man claims he lost weight eating nothing but McDonald’s for 30 days"--Metro (2018). Ryan Williams limited himself to a 2,500 calories/day for the first week and 2,300 after that, plus a 1-hour workout each morning. He lost 16 pounds.
• "This University Professor Ate at McDonald's for an Entire Month and She Didn't End Up Supersized"--INC. (2018). Drexel University professor Nyree Dardarian "set a target of 1,400 calories worth of McDonald's food each day, with 200 non-McDonald's calories each day that she could use however she liked. She also kept a daily log of her food and activity for the month of June 2018." Her non-McDonald's intake was reserved for wine or beer. 

At the end of her 30-day McDonald's diet, Dardarian's results were completely different than those experienced by Morgan Spurlock. She gained just one pound, her blood chemistry remained within normal values, and she didn't experience the mood swings and other mental and physical problems Spurlock did. She did experience some intense cravings for regular, non-McDonald's food choices, however.

The takeaway is that Supersize Me seems to have fallen victim to the reproducibility crises, not helped by his refusal to release his diary of what he ate and how much. The other main takeaway is that its not the fast food as much as it is caloric intake. Those that kept calories to 2,000 or so combined with moderate exercise experienced health benefits.

New Defensive Pistolcraft Post

Jon Low has a new Defensive Pistolcraft post up and available for you to read. If you don't already know, these are a compendium of links to articles or videos, often with short excerpts, and with added commentary by Jon. Now, although I haven't trained with Jon, I have followed his blog for many, many years and corresponded with him and he has good information. And by that, I mean that you can trust him to provide you with the straight scoop on any topic. He is an experienced firearms trainer but also constantly updates his skills and knowledge, including following advances in training and taking classes from others. Although he doesn't think it important in a trainer, other do, so I would point out that he does have a military background as well as private security. Something that is important, in my mind, is that he has experienced a defensive shooting and gone through (and survived) the legal aftermath. And, most important of all, he has a great deal of integrity. 

    In short, he is a solid source of information. So if he picks out an article or video, recommends a product or technique, or comments, you can be sure that he has thought about it and based his selection or comments on good, solid information. You might not fully agree with everything he says, but what he says is an honest appraisal based on the best available information. 

    I always like to highlight certain links or comments just to give you a taste of what is in the post, so here are a couple from his latest:

• Jon links to an article at Conflict Manager Magazine by Rory Miller and Terry Trahan on the issue of aggression. If you don't know anything about Rory Miller you should: he has written several books on the topic of violence and analyzing violence, including Facing Violence: Preparing for the Unexpected, which I consider a must have reference for anyone seriously interested in self-defense and understanding how to identify the signs of violence before it starts. In any event, the article discusses aggression and why it can be bad in a self-defense case because it is an emotion, but also notes that sometimes we need some emotion to get through our social programing that teaches us to be peaceful and passive. The authors recommend another emotion: decisiveness.

    Decisiveness encompasses explosive motion, violence of action, speed of perception, processing and execution, all working towards a goal. The difference between decisiveness and aggression is that decisiveness is aimed at an objective, professional goal: to escape or to disable or to handcuff or to… Aggression is aimed at an internal goal. An emotional goal. Usually to assuage fear. As a rule, novices use force because they are afraid, they use as much force as their fear dictates and they continue to use force until the fear dissipates.

    In a word, aggression makes you stupid, not decisive.

    And this goes into language again, because being stupid is generally safer and more effective than being passive. And if you equate stupid with uncivilized, well, most civilized people don’t fight very well.

Jon adds his comments as well, so be sure to read the whole article and Jon's comments. He also links to a couple other articles on mindset.

• Jon links to an article on protecting against school shootings by Marcus Wynne and adds:

If your child's school policy is to "lock down" or "shelter in place", know that the persons who wrote the policy are idiots with no knowledge, experience, or training in the subject; and are advocating criminal stupidity. 

  

     The correct solution is always for the child to flee.   

 

     The correct solution is always for the adults to be armed and to fight the assailants. If they are not willing to fight, they are WRONG!  If they are not trained to fight, they are WRONG!  If they are not armed, they are WRONG!   

 

     If you don't understand this, take Ed Monk's class.  Unfortunately, Marcus Wynne

is no longer with us.  

• Jon links to an NRA Women article on "Running Away the Right Way." The gist of the article is that you don't want to be blindly fleeing as this could get you into an even worse situation, but be running toward something--a means of escape, other people, or some other location that offers safety--while being conscious of your surroundings and what is going on. One of the points raised in the article is the following:

Learn the difference between resource predators and process predators, and when you’re clearly dealing with a resource predator who just wants your purse or your car or your wallet, understand that your best option is to comply. Throw your purse or your keys and then run in the opposite direction. He’s got what he wants and you’re getting farther away from danger by the second.

That's probably true in many (most?) cases, but as Jon points out:

     You are never "clearly dealing with a resource predator".  Any predator can easily change into a "process predator".  If your gait is enticing to the predator he will want

to rape or sodomize you.  If the predator perceives that you have shown disrespect to him, he will attempt to kill you.

• Another link is to an article from Armed Citizens Network on "Defending Against Empty-Hand Attacks." Jon excerpted the following bit which I think everyone that carries a concealed weapon needs to understand:

[Discussing the concept of drawing a gun in a physical, close-contact situation] First, if someone has already grabbed you, you are too far behind the curve to be able to get a firearm – especially one from concealment. We really do have to be prepared to use defensive tactics to make time and space. The average police officer needs 1.7 seconds to get a gun out of a triple retention holster and make a retention shot.

This is why people like Greg Ellifritz, who teaches combined firearms and empty-hand techniques, advocates for carrying a small fixed blade knife at the 12 o'clock position. 

• Finally, as someone that has recommended that your EDC should include a nail clipper, I was glad to see this: "Keep your fingernails cut short and filed smooth.  Ripping a fingernail or losing a fingernail in training can ruin your day."

Anyway, there is so much more there that you need to check out the whole thing.

POTD: Abandoned French Morgue

 These photographs from from the Daily Mail, "'I'll never forget the smell of the human heart': Rotting organs stored in jars lie among remains of morgue abandoned 13 years ago in eerie images captured by explorer in France." The structure had been used as a mortuary and as a pathology school for medical students, according to the article, but was closed in 2010 due to funding cuts. Based on the photographs, furniture, equipment, and even specimens, were left behind. 

This is supposed to be the outside view of the structure, but it seems too small for what is pictured on the inside. Maybe its like the Tardis on Doctor Who and is bigger on the inside. Or, more likely, an associated structure but not the main building.

One of the views of the interior.

VIDEO: The Myth Of A Pocket Full Of Brass

There is a persistent rumor that one of the officers involved in the 1970 Newhall Incident had, under pressure and consistent with his practice sessions, dumped the empty brass during a reload into his pocket. This has been used as an example of a "training scar". Unfortunately for those wanting to use this example, it is not true, which the video below discusses in detail as well as some real world lessons that can legitimately be learned from the Newhall Incident.

VIDEO: "Gunfight Myth: Pocket Full of Brass"

Lucky Gunner Ammo (12 min.)

Bombs and Bants Live! Ep 80

VIDEO: "Bombs and Bants Live! Ep 80" (47 min.)

Ruger Super Wrangler Convertible Revolver

Source: Ruger

    First up, this is not a review because gun companies don't send me new products to review. Rather, I am relying on this article--"First Look: Ruger Super Wrangler Convertible Revolver"--from Shooting Illustrated, a couple other items I've seen published about this revolver, my experience with the standard Wrangler Revolver, and my more general experience with .22LR firearms.

    With that said, I think this is an exciting product because it mimics the Ruger Single-Six revolver, but for a heck of a lot less. Unlike its immediate predecessor, the Wrangler, the Super Wrangler has a steel cylinder frame, sports a slightly longer 5.5 inch barrel, and comes with two 6-round cylinders: one for .22 LR and one for .22 WMR (aka .22 Magnum). It also has adjustable sights and the front sight can be replaced. Like its predecessor, however, rather than being blued or stainless, it comes (or will come) Cerakoted in three colors: black, bronze, and silver (which is actually more of a dark gray). This means that the MSRP is much lower than the $799 for a Single-Six, coming in at $329.

    I picked up the Wrangler .22 revolver the first time I saw it at a gun store, which was about two months after its release was announced. I wanted the bronze, but my only choice at the time was the silver or black, so I took the silver. And I shot it quite a bit since, and it has always worked flawlessly. I've appreciated the fact that, when opening the loading gate, you could move the cylinder in either direction. I've only three complaints about the original. 

    First, I was disappointed that it didn't come with the .22LR and .22WMR cylinders like the Single-Six, but because the Wrangler used an aluminum cylinder frame (and some sort of zinc alloy for the grip frame), it just wasn't up to shooting .22 WMR. On the other hand, this did make it fairly lightweight.

    Second, being in the same style as a Single-Action Army (SAA) revolver, the sights were rudimentary: a fixed front blade and a gutter rear sight. Fine for plinking at short range, but certainly not a target weapon or something that you might use for hunting ground squirrels or jack rabbits. 

    Third, there was one cylinder that was bored just slightly smaller than the others that made it a bit harder to load a cartridge. 

    This new model takes care of the first two issues, at least.

    Now, in a world with a multitude of quality semi-auto .22 pistols, you might wonder why you would want a .22 revolver, particularly one that is single-action only. 

    Well, to address the why of a revolver, I think there are two main points, the first of which is reliability. Twenty-two rimfire, particularly of the .22LR variety, is not known for rock solid reliability. There are brands and levels of quality out there that go bang every time, but particularly with the bulk packs, it is not unusual to have a few duds in the box. And then, as I've related before, I had a bulk pack of some Federal .22LR where about every third round was a dud. In a semi-auto, a dud is a stoppage that must be cleared. With a revolver, you just keep going to the next round.

    The second is directly related, which is that specialty ammunition that might not correctly cycle through a semi-auto will work fine in a revolver. For instance, I saw a video recently of someone testing the Federal Punch .22LR ammo which, because of the shape of the bullet, was not reliably feeding and chambering in their semi-auto. But (and I've shot some through a revolver), it presents no issues in revolvers. And if you think you might want to use a .22 as a kit or trail gun, or live somewhere you can and will be disposing of pests like snakes or rodents around your property, you probably will make use of the shotshell ammunition which works much better through a revolver.

    As to why select a single-action revolver, there are a few reasons that come to mind. The first is when training new shooters, particularly youths. There is added safety in their having to manually cock the hammer before each shot. I also think the deliberate and slower nature of shooting and loading makes a greater impression on their mind than quickly blasting through a bunch of rounds.

    Second, there is a certain additional reliability that comes from the simple mechanism of a single-action revolver over even a double-action revolver. The trigger mechanism is much simpler (and, at least in theory, more robust) than a double-action revolver. And because the cylinder uses a completely different mechanism to lock into place, you don't have the worries of the cylinder rod loosening while shooting and locking up the cylinder.

    Now, with all that said, I have to admit that my "kit gun" is a double-action revolver--the S&W Model 317. But I chose it because its extremely light weight, is substantially smaller than most .22 revolvers (even smaller than the Ruger Bearcat), has relatively good sights, and has a greater capacity (8-rounds) than other .22 revolvers. But it is no plinking or target revolver. The Super Wrangler, with its larger size and adjustable sights, might serve well for not only target work, but also hunting. Particularly when matched with the more potent .22WMR cartridge.

For My LDS Readers: "Does this mean the wrath of God comes next?"

VIDEO: "Does this mean the wrath of God comes next??"

Consider the Truth (10 min.)

The host of the video, above, picked up on a comment that President Nelson made hear the close of his talk at the end of this Spring 2023 General Conference. Specifically, Pres. Nelson quoted from 1 Nephi 14:14 about the power of the Lord descending upon the Saints and that they were being "armed with righteousness and with the power of God" and that this is in the process of happening. 

    The host notes that the very next verse--1 Nephi 14:15--states:

And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was poured out upon that great and abominable church, insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the nations and kindreds of the earth.

In fact, the next several verses are about God pouring out His wrath on "the mother of harlots, which is the great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil". Consequently, the host speculates that perhaps Pres. Nelson's comment was a warning that God is about to pour out his wrath. 

    I still think that the war of Armageddon is still a ways off--at least a decade or more--just because of all that must first occur. For instance, the city which is the latter-day Babylon--the harlot of Revelation 17--still has not been revealed even if we are surrounded by its "religion"; and the Beast or Antichrist has not been revealed, let alone prosecuted a war against Israel. 

POTD: "Exploring the Pine Barrens"

So my "picture" of the day is another moving picture. The producer of the video is exploring a couple sites in the pine barrens of New Jersey. He and is friends set off down an old railroad spur (it wasn't clear to me whether it was still used or not) to where they can then split off and follow an old road to the remains of an abandoned town (Fries Mill), and then on to the more modern remains the New Jersey Silica Sand Company, some sort of concrete manufacturing facility. 

    The ruins aren't all that interesting, but I found the trek down the railroad line to be interesting because it shows what travel along one might be like. Also, at one point, one of the gang was sent off to try and find some additional ruins and got lost; and although he texted his Google location to the producer/narrator, the location was wrong. They were finally able to link up with the lost guy, but this illustrates a situation where loud audible signals would have been useful, such as using one of the super loud whistles intended for signaling or, if they'd taken firearms, some gunshots.

VIDEO: "Exploring the Pine Barrens - The Ruins of Fries Mill"

Part-Time Explorer (20 min.)

Phosgene Has Consequences

From Legal Insurrection: "Half of the CDC Team Investigating East Palestine Spill Fell Ill With Symptoms Similar to Residents." Who would of thunk? 

An official familiar with the workers’ illnesses told CNN that while it’s unclear what caused their symptoms, members of the team found it suspicious they became ill at the same time with the same symptoms.

VIDEO: Field Stripping A 1911 Pistol

VIDEO: "How To Field Strip A 1911"

GUNS and American Handgunner (7 min.)

Video: "Explaining American Civilization"

 An interesting review and explanation of the United States' origins, the primary groups and cultures in the U.S., and where we are headed (see especially starting at 38 min.).  As he notes, the primary divide today is between the left leaning coastal cosmopolitans that want to make the U.S. into an atomized individuals free from the restraints of history, culture and religion (much as California has become) and the interior peoples that want the U.S. to stick to its roots. The reason, he explains, that the social justice warriors want to convince Americans that there is no such thing as "white culture" is because white culture represents the greatest obstacle to their goal of absolute power. And he seems to agree that the primary driver for immigration and outsourcing manufacturing to foreign countries is to drive down U.S. wages and weaken the middle class.

VIDEO: "Explaining American Civilization"

Whatifalthist (43 min.)

POTD: The Ghost Town of Metropolis

The video below gives a history and current condition of the town of Metropolis, Nevada. It was a boom town established in Elko County that briefly flourished in the early 20th Century--even having a relatively large hotel, school, and bank, all constructed of brick and concrete--then died, mostly due to lack of access to water. It was finally completely abandoned in the 1950s according to the video. Given the dry climate, surprisingly little remains, but this may be a result of the harsh winters. 

VIDEO: "The Ghost Town of Metropolis - Nevada's Garden of Eden"

Part-Time Explorer (12 min.)