Gun & Prepping News #20

 Just some articles that caught my attention for one reason or another: 

• First up, Jon Low has a new Defensive Pistolcraft newsletter that you should check out.  Jon includes a lengthy excerpt from Gabe Suarez on why super fast split times are not that important and might actually be detrimental in a gun fight. I like to think of it like driving too fast at night where you are actually "outrunning your headlights"--driving so fast that you cannot perceive let alone react to something that comes within the range of your headlights. In this regard, Jon quotes Suarez as follows:

In my experience, street gunfighting performance doesn’t benefit from lightning fast split times and focusing on them may detract from success.  A student that is focusing on getting the predetermined number of rounds out of his pistol, ostensibly as fast as possible, is not able to read what his adversary is doing (notice I didn’t say “target”) and adapt.  Shooting at the precipice of failure requires mental focus on staying on the trigger and the sights to the exclusion of everything else.  And therein lies the problem. 

Suarez also notes that the speed shooting impairs accuracy. 

     Now because we are not advocating lightning fast shooting and lighting split times does not mean we are advocating being slow.  Read that again if you didn’t get it the first time.  But I am advocating heavily for accuracy over speed.  

     The other matter is that the focus on sub .20/.25 split times require both the shooter and the target to be in fixed points and stationary.  And those of us who’ve done this for real as well as watched videos of real fights know that is extremely unlikely.  If you stand still at such intervals, you will either get shot, or both of you get shot.  When everyone is moving those split times hover as long as .50, and that is just fine.  

     So my opinion on split times - ignore them as they are irrelevant for street fighting.  Focus on perfect accuracy and physical smoothness and you will develop the skills to win the street gunfight with confidence and grace.  

On a completely different subject, Jon includes a lengthy excerpt from a discussion on electronic warfare in the Ukraine conflict used to protect infantry from drones. 

For all the technological progress, war is circling back to its comfort zone:  infantry battles.  You’ll see a difference today, of course.  The infantryman moving on the battlefield in 2025 is more likely than not to be carrying bulky tech-laden contraptions strapped to his back.  These electronic-warfare boxes, equipped with cooling fans, batteries and protruding aerials, are modern-day flak jackets.  Without them, soldiers would be defenceless against the drones that hover and hunt from above.  Similar arrays of mushroom-like boxes and aerials stick out from the roofs of any vehicle approaching the front lines.  

It is a counter-point to an essay I saw yesterday arguing that the era of the infantry is over because of drones. 

    In any event, Jon has many more tips, links, advice, and so on, so be sure to check it out.

• "Fudd Friday: Bring Back Pump-Action Rifles"--The Firearm Blog. Since the successful designs seem to be built off of or modeled on shotgun actions, it shouldn't be too hard. The advantage is a fast and fairly compact action for a woods rifle compared to using a semi-auto; and you don't have to break your shooting hand grip to cycle the action as with a lever action. The article doesn't discuss the disadvantages, but I've read from other sources that the actions can loosen up over time depending on the amount of shooting and the power of the round. 
• "The Best Two .380 Carry Loads?"--Firearms News. The author recommends the 99-grain Federal Tactical HST load ("which," he notes, "is the load which will pass the FBI Ammunition Protocol") and the 60-grain Black Hills HoneyBadger. The author clarifies:

When I write “passes the FBI Protocol”, know that I mean the bullet will penetrate ballistic gel blocks a minimum of twelve inches, whether you’re shooting them into bare gel blocks, blocks covered with the FBI standard “heavy clothing”, or through various barriers (plywood, drywall, sheet metal, auto glass) into the gel blocks. 

The HST Micro also seems to do well in the tests I've watched, although it has a lower velocity than the Tactical loading. The Tools & Targets YouTube channel has done quite a few gel tests of .380 ammo, using both a full sized .380 and pocket sized .380s if this is a topic that interests you. (He tests a lot of other handgun calibers and loads, too).

• "A 25 Round Shotgun Practice Routine"--That Shotgun Blog. Since most shotgun shells are sold in 25-round boxes, the author developed a series of defensive shotgun drills that, together, use 25 rounds. The author has linked to videos illustrating a couple of the drills.
• "Tips & Techniques: A Speedloader For .22s"--American Rifleman. For those who have to singly load shells into a .22 rifle or revolver, the author suggests using the magazine for an M1911-style .22 Long Rifle pistol as a way to carry spare ammo in the field. "The slim magazine can be conveniently carried in a pouch or pocket, with the rounds protected, and individual cartridges can be thumbed into a single-shot chamber, the magazine tube of a rifle or the loading gate of a single-action rimfire revolver," the author writes, adding: "Many popular rimfire pistol magazines do not lend themselves to easily thumbing the top round out into a tube or cylinder, but I have found the M1911 conversion magazines to be ideal." He recommends the 14-round ProMag magazines.
• "Shots Fired with GLOCK-Aimpoint"--The Tactical Wire. Years ago, Glock had adopted the Shield RMSc footprint as the standard for mounting optics to its handguns. But Glock apparently partnered with Aimpoint to develop a new proprietary mounting method where the optic housing "noses into the front slide cut, drops into the slide cut and it’s retained by a non-optic rear sight that has a clamping ledge," tightened down with a pair of screws. In other words, because it is wedged in under slanted cuts in the slide, the slide bears most of the force upon recoil rather than a set of screws as with standard mounting cuts. The question I have is how common is it for the mounting screws of a pistol sight to shear off?
• "Senior Citizen Handguns"--Guns Magazine. The author has some suggestions for those with impaired hand strength and dexterity, such as those suffering from arthritis, on issues such as recoil (e.g., switching from a .45 to a 9mm), weight (selecting a light weight revolver like the Ruger LCR), and some suggestions as to different sights (e.g., Advantage Tactical sights or an optic) and methods of carry (e.g., moving from a strong side carry behind the hip to a cross-draw or using a different type of shoulder holster). 
• "Learn About Body Armor"--Shooting Illustrated. Basically just an overview of the advantages to body armor and changing public perception toward civilian ownership and use of body armor.
• "Soft Loops for Fixed Blade EDC"--Jerking The Trigger.  The author writes: "Soft Loops, especially those with Pull-the-Dot snaps, are an oft-forgotten and VERY underrated way to carry small to medium-sized EDC fixed blades" as it allows the author to "move the knife to my belt, freeing up space in my pockets or on my waistband for other tools." 

There are also other great upsides to soft loops. They are compatible with almost any sheath as long as it has a single rivet or hole that can accept a Chicago screw and is narrow enough to wrap the loop. They can also be used as dangling belt loops for larger knives. They last pretty much forever as long as they have real Pull-the-Dot snaps. 

• "Preview: Lunatec Mist, Shower & Drink Bundle"--American Rifleman. A camping/hiking water bottle that can be pressurized and sprayed through a hose and nozzle to help with cleanup and personal hygiene. It comes in three sizes: 750 ml, 1000 ml, and 1,500 ml.
• "Portable Propane Heaters"--Blue Collar Prepping. A review of the Mr. Heater Portable Buddy Heater for use in camping. 
• "Best Manual Hand Crank Grain Mill Choices versus Budget"--Modern Survival Blog. The author gives his recommendations for hand cranked grain mills--an expensive option (roughly $600), a medium priced option (roughly $300) and a more budget friendly version (about $100 or so)--as well as an electric grain mill.
  
• "6 Uphill Hiking Tips to Prevent Your Legs From Turning Into Jelly"--Popular Science (via Get Pocket). The tips are: (i) take a trail using switchbacks over a straight trail; (ii) take shorter steps; (iii) use trekking poles; (iv) take a break when you need it instead of pushing yourself too hard; (v) don't forget to eat; and (vi) train for your hike by practicing on real hills or, at least, a step machine. 
• "The 12 Best Pocket Knives, According to Our Editors"--Field & Stream. Some different options, some of which you may not have considered before. The article discusses the general criteria they used and provides advice on what you might want to consider when picking out a knife for yourself. 
• "The Best Walkie Talkies of 2025, Tested and Reviewed"--Outdoor Life. Short version:

•     Best Overall: Oxbow Gear Renegade 2.0
•     Best Long Range: Rocky Talkie 5 Watt
•     Best Value: BAOFENG GT-18
•     Best for Emergencies: Cobra RX680
•     Best for Kids: Moico
•     Best for Hiking: Rocky Talkie Mountain Radio

•  "Chilling map reveals where 75% of US population could perish in event of a nuclear attack"--Daily Mail. 

    Every populated city on the East Coast, Midwest, West Coast and South could be targeted, killing up to 250 million Americans - about 75 percent of the country's population, according to the map.

    Parts of California, most of the East Coast and regions in the Midwest would experience severe fallout, radioactive debris that falls to the ground, forcing them to shelter in place for more than three weeks to survive.

    Only Western Texas, parts of Nevada, Michigan and Wisconsin would avoid being instantly obliterated on impact.

The far northern California, far southern Oregon area still looks pretty good. Most of California, however, looks like it will become dead lands.

Newsweek: Fallout Map

Newsweek recently published an article entitled "Map Shows Safest US States to Live During Nuclear War" with the following graphic:

Before you get excited because you live on the West Coast, I would note that the fallout pattern is only modeled on attacks against the major ICBM fields in Montana, North Dakota and Nebraska, but doesn't include any other targets. Of course, in a nuclear war, there would be a great number of other military and civilian targets and you would want to consider possible fallout from those areas. For instance, for me living in Southwest Idaho, I would be concerned of attacks on the naval yard and submarine pens in Bremerton, WA, as well as McCord and Fairchild AFBs in Washington, Mountain Home AFB in Idaho, and Hill AFB in Utah. And, of course, California is chock full of military installations that would be hit, including Naval Base San Diego, Edwards AFB, and Vandenburg AFB, among others. Nevada has a few, not the least of which is Nellis AFB. While it is less likely that Southwest Idaho would get fallout from those targets in California and Nevada, it is possible. 

    That said, the ICBM fields would probably have the greatest intensity of ground burst attacks and so would produce the greatest amount of fallout.

Some Weekend Reading

Active Response Training has released a new Weekend Knowledge Dump. A few things that jumped out at me.

• First, he links to where you can download a free PDF of Stephen Wenger's 3rd Edition of Defensive Use of Firearms. There is also information on ordering a print copy of the book.
• Next up is a link to a PDF of a trauma guideline entitled "Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Injury Response Part 3: Medical Management of Radiation Exposure and Nuclear Events."
• An article from  W. Hock Hochheim on "Home Invaders At My Home!" He includes a good anecdote of when he and his wife were almost the victims of a home invasion, and also goes over the three most common types or tactics of home invasion. 

The only issues I had with the article was Hock's terminology that he defined at the beginning of the article. I'm sure that he intended it to make clear what he was talking about, but he did not use the common definitions of the terms; and I believe it would just add confusion down the road if someone were to adopt his definition of the terms and later used those terms and definitions when interacting with a police officer or prosecutor in describing the crime. 

 

The main issue I had was that he defined "burglary" as "[w]hen your residence or business is broken into and no one is at home or work, that is just a burglary NOT a robbery. Robbery is different." This is completely wrong. Burglary is entering an occupied building with the intent to commit a felony. In some jurisdictions it may only apply to residences, but I believe most jurisdictions extend it to include businesses or commercial buildings as well. Conversely, breaking into an unoccupied building would be breaking and entering. Also note that burglary is a separate crime from the theft, robbery, assault, kidnapping, murder, etc., that a criminal might do after entering the building. Finally, I would point out that robbery is theft accomplished by the use or threat of force (whether armed or unarmed) and does not require entry into a building--you can be robbed on a sidewalk or in a parking lot, for instance. Obviously, these are just common definitions and there might be differences between these and the specific legal elements required by a particular jurisdiction, so check you state and local laws if you want to know the elements or definitions used in a particular jurisdiction.

• An article on "Low Light Concerns – Normal Human Beings," which addresses the needs of a normal person (rather than law enforcement or military) for weapon mounted lights. As to incidents outside the home, the author notes that Tom Givens (Rangemaster Firearms Training Services), who has kept track of his students' armed force encounters, found that none of his students needed any sort of light because the incidents in which they were involved were almost all robberies--i.e., there was always some light because the criminal also needed the light to pick out and approach his targets. Turning to inside the home, the author turns to Claude Werner (The Tactical Professor) who keeps track of incidents of mistaken identity shooting; and while Werner recommends a light of some sort, he insists it should be a separate handheld light, not a weapon mounted light.
  
• An article entitled "Murder as measuring stick" that delves into the problem with using murder as a proxy for overall violent crime. The issue isn't over the short term, but over the long term as advances in medicine and the widespread use of cell phones to call emergency services has resulted in far fewer deaths relative to the number of incidents of violent crime. Thus, comparing murder rates between now and, say, the 1960s as a proxy of violent crime in the 1960s would be inappropriate. And it would be worse the longer the time scale. (Although he doesn't mention the book, I wonder if this is meant as a criticism of the methodology used by the author of The Better Angels of Our Nature, who used murders as proxies for violence in past centuries). The author notes, for instance (footnote omitted):

Taking this into account, I would estimate that a murder today represents 4-5 times as much crime and disorder as a murder in 1960, and probably 10 times as much as a medieval murder, with the early 20th century somewhere in between. As such, today’s murder rate being comparable to that of 1960 represents a colossal failure of justice, with overall crime and disorder being several times higher than it was two generations ago.  

Using murder as a proxy for violent crime also fails when comparing between cultures. Again, by way of example, although the U.S. has a much higher murder rate than other industrialized countries (although I would note that this is only when considering the largest population counties), the article points out:

But international victim surveys with a consistent methodology show the US to have similar overall crime rates as Canada or Europe. The major reasons for the high American murder rate are probably Americans using highly-lethal guns (rather than knives or fists) and blacks (who are responsible for more than half of US murders) being more likely to commit impulsive murders rather than property crimes.

• Finally, Greg links to the "Before Mace, a Hatpin Was an Unescorted Lady’s Best Defense" article I had posted about a few days ago.
  

Step-by-Step Guide To Surviving A Nuclear Attack

 A couple weeks ago, writing about Israel's attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria, I warned that the intention of the attack was to provoke Iran to respond with an attack against Israel and, thereby, give Israel the excuse to broaden the war and, perhaps, even drag the United States into the conflict. 

    While we may not know the intent of Israel's attack, it had the predicted result as we saw this weekend with Iran launching as many of 170 drones, of which 70 to 80 were shot down by U.S. aircraft operating out of air bases in Saudi Arabia and Jordan.  Some 30 cruise missiles and 120 ballistic missiles were also launched from Iran. The Israeli Defense Forces claim that none of the drones or cruise missiles made it to Israeli territory and all but 5 of the ballistic missiles were shot down by U.S. or Israeli forces. 

    Four missiles hit Israel's Nevatim Air Base, where Israeli F-35s are based, the U.S. officials said, adding this base was likely Iran's primary target, as it was believed to have been an Israeli F-35 that carried out a deadly strike on an Iranian consulate in Syria's capital on April 1. 

* * *

    The IDF said several other launches were made from Yemen and Iraq, but none of those weapons  crossed into Israeli territory. Dozens of rockets were also fired from Lebanon toward northern Israel early Sunday morning, and Israel carried out airstrikes against Hezbollah targets across Lebanon. 

 As CNN notes, "it was an operation that seemed designed to fail — when Iran launched its killer drones from its own territory some 1,000 miles away, it was giving Israel hours of advance notice."

The symbolism of the attack did the heavy lifting. Rather than fire from one of the neighboring countries where Iran and its non-state allies are present, this was a direct attack from Iranian territory on Israeli territory. This compromised Iran’s ability to damage Israel because it robbed the operation of the element of surprise.

Moreover, "[o]nly a small handful of locations were attacked, including a military base and an area in the Negev desert, injuring a Bedouin child, while the [iron] dome fended off one of the largest drone attacks in history." Israel, nevertheless, has vowed to respond. 

    Iran, as we are constantly told, is on the verge of developing or manufacturing nuclear weapons, while Israel likely has hundreds of nuclear weapons; and, if certain Israeli politicians and military leaders are to be believed, at least some of these are aimed at Western capitals "to take the world down with us [i.e., Israel]" should Israel face an existential military loss. Something termed "the Sampson Option." As one Jewish scholar stated:

What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away—unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans—have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?

Thus there is a non-zero chance that this situation could escalate to a nuclear exchange; one which could result in Israel striking out at Western countries in a final act of retribution against humanity. 

    So with that long introduction out of the way, it is perhaps timely that the Daily Mail ran an article on "The experts' step-by-step guide to surviving a nuclear attack: How to stop your skin melting, why to keep your mouth open so your eardrums don't burst, use soap [sic: shampoo] but not conditioner, and what you REALLY need after the blast..." The article is aimed at a British audience, so references to locations are those in the U.K., and the article assumes private residences using brick or cement blocks instead of the wood frame construction common to the U.S. 

    The article explains:

The first thing to make clear: you can't outrun a nuclear bomb. As newsreader Peter Donaldson warned in his Cold War-era message on behalf of the BBC in the event of a nuclear attack: 'Remember, there is nothing to be gained by trying to get away.'

Also, you may have only a few minutes warning, and the nuclear weapons likely to be used by a power such as Russia will probably have a yield of 1 megaton. 

    According to modelling by the website NukeMap, a single bomb on this scale would likely kill everyone and destroy all buildings within a 1.4 mile 'heavy blast radius.

    As far as seven miles from the impact zone, anyone outdoors can expect third-degree burns, with exposed limbs requiring amputation.

So you must find "suitable shelter".

... Your best option is the basement of a large, multi-storey concrete building with as few windows as possible — these will shatter within seconds of impact.

    If you have no access to a basement or underground car park, head for the most structurally integral point in a building, such as the central staircase in a block of flats, away from exterior walls.

    The greater the density of material you can put between yourself and the blast, the better your chance of survival.

    A lead-lined bunker is the ideal — but not possible for most. In the 1980 Government pamphlet Protect And Survive, families were urged to bundle themselves into kitchen cupboards in their homes. This theory remains sound.

    Avoid hunkering down in a timber structure such as a shed. This would be like seeking safety in a bonfire. Stay away from long corridors and hallways, too, which will only serve as wind tunnels for the imminent 'pressure wave'.

    Keep away from tall furniture such as wardrobes, as these will likely topple. Lie face down, with your arms and hands tucked under your body. The United States Centre for Disease and Control Prevention advises this as the best position to shield exposed skin from the oncoming 'thermal pulse' (a blast of heat energy).

    When the bomb hits, the first thing you'll notice from your position on the floor is a dazzling burst of light. In clear weather, this 'atomic flash' can permanently blind someone 10 miles away, burning through their retinas.

    At night, when our pupils are dilated, the 'blinding radius' is even greater. Do not look up. Shortly after the first flash, a second one will appear as light previously trapped behind the bomb's 'shockwave' escapes.

    Within ten seconds of impact, a fireball 5,700ft across, with a temperature five times hotter than the sun's core (which is 15 million degrees Celsius) will roar across the landscape. As it rises rapidly, it forms into a terrifying mushroom cloud. Then you can expect the pressure wave — an unstoppable battering ram of highly compressed air travelling at 784mph, faster than the speed of sound. Irwin Redlener, an American expert in public health and disaster response, advises keeping your mouth open 'so your eardrums don't burst' as a result of the sudden increase in pressure.

    The thermal pulse will ignite any flammable materials within several miles of Ground Zero, including dry leaves, curtains, newspapers and clothes.

    Wearing pale colours will reduce the risk of your own clothes catching fire, as they will reflect rather than absorb this heat.

    Within ten to 12 minutes, lethal radioactive debris known as 'fallout' will begin to rain down from the sky like a sandstorm.

    It's time to make a decision: stay put and trust in the integrity of your shelter, or make a break for it, hoping to escape the fallout zone — which could stretch as far as 250 miles from the blast.

    In all but the most extreme circumstances, it's best, as the Government recommends in its current official slogan, to: 'Go in. Stay in. Tune in.'

    If you have an electric car, this will be useless due to the electromagnetic pulses (EMP) — sharp bursts of electricity — emitted by the bomb, which have caused voltage surges and destroyed components. In any case, few roads will be passable and cars for several miles from Ground Zero are just scraps of charred metal.

    But if you do decide to flee, travel upwind to avoid being chased by the fallout cloud.

    If your upwind course takes you towards Ground Zero, travel cross-wind instead.

    High doses of radiation melt the body from the inside. Vomiting begins within 30 minutes of exposure and is followed by diarrhoea and loss of consciousness. Death can take just hours.

    At lower doses, symptoms of radiation poisoning include severe weight loss, internal bleeding, hair loss, hypotension (low blood pressure) and total loss of bowel control. Terminal cancers such as leukaemia may develop.

    You must therefore try to prevent radioactive material from entering your lungs.

    Cover your nose and mouth with a cloth or ideally a P2-grade face mask. Breathe through your nose: mucus-covered nasal hairs are capable of filtering 95 per cent of foreign particles exceeding five micrometers in diameter (0.005mm). Wear glasses or goggles. Stick cotton wool in your ears and cover any open wounds.

    If you remain in your shelter, try to ensure it is as secure as possible. Seal off any units — such as air conditioning and fireplaces — that let in air from the outside. This is your home now. Place mattresses against shattered windows and cover door frame gaps with gaffer tape.

    Do not go looking for loved ones or pets. Buildings have been destroyed, corpses litter the roads. Going outside will inevitably end in panic, disorientation and death.

    Anyone who hopes to join you in your shelter must decontaminate. Nobody can touch them or their clothes until they've washed, ideally with warm water and soap.

    Check their body for third-degree burns: the nerves beneath their skin may have been destroyed, rendering the wounds painless. Shampoo should be used to clean hair, but under no circumstances use conditioner. According to the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, conditioner contains compounds known as 'cationic surfactants' that trap and bind radioactive particles to the scalp. For the same reason, do not use any body lotions, creams or moisturisers.

    Use a damp cloth to wipe inside your ears and across your eyelids, where radioactive dust can settle. Scrub under your fingernails, making sure not to break or damage the skin. Gently blow your nose. Place any used towels, cloths and clothes into a bin bag: seal this and place it out of reach.

    Burns should be covered with a dry dressing and left unchanged for at least a week. Remember to breathe: adrenaline is your friend, but panic at this time could be fatal. ...

 And, ironically given the intended U.K. audience, the article advises: "You may want to arm yourself with knives, machetes and bludgeons for protection if you venture out — and a gun if you have one. Do not rely on the police or army to maintain order: the only currency from now on is likely to be brute strength."

    Power lines, phone masts and internet cables will likely be useless. If you have access to a battery-powered radio, tune it to any frequency with signal.

    Survivalist Cresson H. Kearny's 1986 guide to surviving a nuclear war urged people to 'listen only periodically' and preserve battery life by ensuring the radio is played 'at reduced volume'.

The article then moves on to food and water:

... A healthy person can survive without food for up to three weeks provided they drink about three pints of water per day.

This will obviously vary according to climate and activity. Three pints may be adequate in someplace cool like Britain but be wholly inadequate in much of the United States in summer months. 

    Begin by carefully rationing any reserves of bottled water available to you. Many buildings and homes have dedicated water tanks: these will be safe to drink from. So is water held in the flush mechanism of a lavatory, but do not drink directly from the bowl.

    You might also find water in tinned foods such as beans and soft fruits.

    The Government advises drinking mains water only as a last resort — it is likely to be contaminated. Please note: water that contains radioactive particles is not made safe by boiling. However, it can be safely filtered through clay soil, which you might find in some indoor pot plants.

    If you possibly can, take iodine tablets to protect against thyroid cancer caused by radiation exposure. As Dr David Brownstein, a specialist in thyroid conditions, explains: 'If there is enough inorganic, non-radioactive iodine in our bodies, the radioactive fallout has nowhere to bind. It will pass through us, leaving our bodies unharmed.'

    If you can't source supplements, iodine-rich foods include seaweed and potato peel.

    As the days drag on, your mind can become as much of a prison as your shelter. If you have a battery-powered light such as a torch, use it sparingly to aid your circadian rhythms. Try to stay awake during the day and sleep through the night to avoid becoming disorientated.

    Two weeks after impact, the radioactive fallout will have declined to just one per cent of its original strength. It is now safe to come out.

    But what sort of a world will you find? The worst-case scenario is that global nuclear war has created a dense sheet of fog, formed of dust and smoke, which has settled so high in the atmosphere it does not come down.

    This sheet prevents sunlight from reaching earth. Temperatures in Britain will drop to as low as -25c, even in July.

    This is the 'nuclear winter', a theory established by academics — including the late Carl Sagan — in a 1983 paper, in which they concluded: 'The possibility of the extinction of Homo Sapiens cannot be excluded.'

    With crops destroyed, citizens will turn to the Millennium Seed Bank in Sussex, which preserves 2.4 billion seeds in deep underground caverns. [The U.S. government supposedly has 20 seed banks].

    With no sunlight and limited electricity, crops that grow in shade will be prioritised, such as spinach and chard, as well as root vegetables such as carrots, leeks and parsnips.

    In the short term, with contamination rendering most farmland barren, crops that can be grown without soil, such as micro-greens, will be important.

    Any animals with radiation sickness will die and should not be consumed.

    Any animal that appears healthy can be slaughtered for food — but do not eat the thyroid, kidneys or liver, as they will certainly be contaminated.

    A study published two years ago in the Nature Food academic journal estimates that in the event of a nuclear winter, five billion of the world's eight billion population would die from famine.

    The first few weeks, therefore, are only the beginning. A nuclear winter will likely see the breakdown of civilisation as we know it. Seeds will be worth more than gold. Sunlight will be a memory.

    But if our species does survive, then eventually — years down the line — the deadly smog will lift, the light will break through and humanity will have a chance to begin again.

Weekend Reading

Both Jon Low and Greg Ellifritz have new posts rounding up articles and videos on self-defense, shooting, and related topics. 

    First up, Jon Low's new Defensive Pistolcraft newsletter from October 31, 2023. As always, he offers a mixture of links, excerpts of interest, and his own commentary/experiences. A few of the latter:

•      My posting of the incident in the parking lot of my apartment complex was not to indicate what a badass or dumbass I am.  The intended purpose was to demonstrate that an immediate attack (or counter-attack, depending on your perspective) will usually take your enemy by surprise and cause a flinch / startle / flight / freeze reaction.  

     As Matthew S. Little says, that is sufficient to win. Of course, you have to press your attack.  Gouge his eyes (this should always be your first target), bite anything that comes near your mouth (bite hard to crush bone), stomp on the side of his knee, stomp on his foot near his ankle (the small bones in the foot are easily broken, not the toes, he may be wearing steel toed shoes), Karate chop or hammer fist to the side of his neck (vagas nerve), cupped hands clap to his ears (hard enough to break his ear drums and cause loss of balance, vertigo), knee to the testicles, palm strike to the nose, etc.  If you can get behind the enemy, blood choke (you will only have to stop the blood for 8 seconds, probably much less).  Practice with a non-cooperative training partner.  At least visualize.  

     As Matt says, to the untrained, this will appear brutal or excessive.  It is not.  Natalee Holloway kneed Joran van der Sloot in the testicles, but did not follow up with the suggestions above.  (Because she assumed that he would stop.  BAD assumption.)  So van der Sloot punched her in the face and then smashed her head with a brick.  You must keep on fighting until the enemy is incapacitated (which might mean dead).  You cannot expect the enemy to give up.  That is not reality.  

 

     There are idiots who will advise women to submit on the assumption that being raped is better than being murdered.  BAD assumption.  Joran van der Sloot was in prison in Venezuela for murder of a woman that he had raped.  So if you submit to rape, you will be murdered.  Criminal predators don't leave witnesses.  

•  John mentions that he recently finished the "Handgun 3" class taught by Jonathan Leverette and has some thoughts/lessons learned from the class, including the following:

     Leverette showed us a prone technique that U.S. Army Special Forces were using at Fort Campbell (he had been there recently teaching a class).  The standard prone is on your belly facing toward the target with both elbows on the ground and bent to bring the pistol sights up to your line of sight (eye to target).  This takes muscle tension.  Relax and the pistol drops down.  The SF guys were looking for a position that would allow them to stay in position indefinitely (and sleep in position if need be).  No the urban prone (lying on your side) does not meet their requirements either.  So they came up with a position where the body is angled at about 45 degrees to the target line.  Extend the firing side arm.  Rest the head on the firing side shoulder / upper arm (ya, it depends on your build, but remember what type of person we are talking about) like a pillow.  You ever play golf? or baseball?  Interlock your firing side little finger with your support side index finger.  Support side thumb is pointing up along the grip.  Make a fist with the support side hand to elevate the pistol.  Open the support side hand to lower the pistol.  You have to experiment because everyone's anatomy is a little different.  Yes, you will be able to sleep in this position while

keeping your pistol on target.  

 Also check out what he learned about getting back on target after a long day of shooting the handgun.

• He mentions several stories and incidents to remind readers that if attacked, you are on your own: the police are going to be too far away and too slow to react. In an active shooter event, they likely will set up a parameter rather than intervene to stop the shooting.
• Jon comments about a couple articles from Claude Werner (the Tactical Professor) on carrying with an empty changer (no, Werner does not recommend it; he just recognizes that some people will insist on carrying that way and instructors should, therefore, know the techniques):  

     You're not going to have time to chamber a round in combat.   

 

     Even if your situational awareness has allowed you the time, you may not be able to.  You may not have a second hand available.  You may not have a table edge or wall corner or boot heel or holster edge to rack your slide on with one hand.  You may be  under observation and the time to chamber a round could get you shot.  What good is your sub-second draw to first shot? if you have to expend time chambering a round.  I could go on, but you get the idea.   

 

     If you cannot safely carry your pistol with a round in the chamber, you need to get yourself a correctly designed pistol.  Or you need to get training to fix your thinking.  

 Amen.

    Second up is Greg's Weekend Knowledge Dump for this week.  A few of the articles referenced:

• I'm going to mention the link to the Rangemaster newsletter first because it touches on topics for which Greg has other links in this week's Knowledge Dump: dryfire practice, and using buckshot loads for a defensive shotgun.
• Greg links to a good article on equipment for dryfire practice.
• Greg links to an article on shotgun terminal ballistics, noting that you need at least 00-buckshot to still have sufficient penetration at 50 yards.
• An article with some basic tips/tactics to teach your daughter for self-defense. One of these is a foot stomp, which Greg points out has never worked in all the self-defense for women classes he has taught where he has taken the role of the aggressor. My guess is that they are either too small/weak to deliver an effective blow, or are just doing it incorrectly (see Jon's comments above as to foot stomps). Note that the article Greg cites isn't as much about how to do the techniques, but what techniques to use. For instance, it mentions eye gauges, but not how to best do them to cause actual harm (i.e., hand coming in low so the attacker doesn't see what you are doing and close his eyes first--I'll see if I can find a better explanation from someone that has taught it).
• An excellent article on basic footcare. While it is targeted to the hiking/backpacking crowd, it would also be useful for preppers/survivalists.
• An article on the dangers poised by nuclear explosions--something that should concern all of us since a lot of countries are rattling their sabers. The article, unfortunately, doesn't have much about protecting or reacting to a nuclear explosion other than a few bits of kit to help with not breathing in fallout.
• A handy article with prepping tips for when travelling. 

And more, so be sure to check it out.

Is There A Difference Between Survivalists And Preppers?

JCD at Mason Dixon Tactical seems to think so. In his article, "Distractions And The Difference Between Preppers And Survivalists," he writes:

    I’ve always believed that there is a difference between “Survivalists” and “Preppers”. If you’ve seen Episode 3 of “The Last of Us”, you’ll notice when Joel asks Bill, “Were you a “Prepper” before things fell apart?”, he replies with, “Survivalist.“. From what we see in his already stocked preparations at the beginning of the episode, he proves that, while continuously striving to improve his “Position” (his home) after things fell apart.

* * *

    To me, “Preppers” are the guys that want to acknowledge that the world is coming apart, but only in a theoretical/peaceful way. They come across as not having a realistic understanding of what SHTF means as a threat to their physical lives. Those of us that have been overseas, especially in a combat zone, understand what people are willing to do to their fellow man when they don’t get what they want. Imagine what they’d do when they can’t put food in their child’s mouth.

    The last three years have shown the depravities that American society will allow without consequences. When anarchist/terrorist groups (and that’s what they are) have “Mostly peaceful protests”, and burn the towns down that they’re protesting in, where are the Citizens who live there? A few will do the right thing, but a large majority of Citizens won’t step up to stop it, or they’ll say they don’t want to get involved because they’ll be prosecuted (à la Kyle Rittenhouse). Realistic or not, it’s a cop out. The “Prepper” mindset won’t fix that situation, but the “Survivalist” mindset can.

    A “Survivalist” has a more realistic opinion of how to deal with the world in a “Post-Apocalyptic” world (Like it or not, that’s what we’re in now). The “Survivalist” mentality has a militant aspect to it, because those types of skills will be needed during situations like the riots that have already occurred in several areas in the Country.

    The term “Prepper” reminds me of what I read from the Economist, Howard Ruff in the 1980’s (“Prepper” wasn’t a term in popular use back then). If memory serves, he recommended you get a 20 Gauge shotgun for hunting, and that’s it. He wasn’t worried about your neighbors trying to steal your preps, let alone, roving bands of parasitic marauders. ...

Later, he further expounds on his idea:

Although Ragnar Benson and Duncan Long were practitioners and writers of “Survivalism” (As opposed to “Prepping”), I always thought Bruce Clayton was the most down to earth of the three. God knows there were many others, that I won’t list here, but I read Bruce Clayton’s, book, “Life After Doomsday” in 1981, right after reading Cresson Kearny’s seminal work from 1979 titled, “Nuclear War Survival Skills”, (Both were in my public library) and both were a big reason why one of my Military MOS’s (Military Occupational Specialty) was “NBC”-Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Warfare (Which is now called “Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Warfare” -CBRN. 

     I thought Bruce Clayton’s book, gave out the template for what a Survivalist was and does. To begin with, his chapter called, “To Have and to Hold”, had not only recommendations for firearms selection, but it talked about (and briefly showed) the rudimentary skills and set ups needed to mount an adequate defense of a Retreat, and what you might have to defend against.

    He covered all the basic skills a Survivalist needs for surviving SHTF. Included within those pages are Defense, Shelter, Food (to include gardening), Medical, and Commo gear recommendations, and there’s even a chapter on whether to “Bug Out” or not. If you couple the info given in this book with “Nuclear War Survival Skills”, your knowledge on SHTF survival, and specifically, nuclear war survival goes up exponentially, and it could very well be needed shortly. 

In short, then, it appears that JCD distinguishes between the two terms by how serious is the person doing the preparing.

    Other authors have also grappled with the difference between a "prepper" and a "survivalist". I did a quick search online and came across many articles on what is the difference between a prepper versus a survivalist, some of which I've examined below. And I didn't even try to look at any videos on the topic!

    One of the first articles I came across was at Retevis.com that also asserted that "preppers" and "survivalists" were, in fact, different. Unlike JCD, who seems focused on whether someone's attitudes toward defense and defensive preparations, the author of the Retevis article believes that the difference is in the focus on training versus gear or supplies. He writes:

The goal of both survivalists and preppers is to make it through a socio-economic collapse of society. A survivalist hones his or her base survival skills to be ready for such an event. While a prepper stocks up on resources to survive an event like that. 

He continues:

    Preppers are more focused on stockpiling supplies in order to survive through an emergency situation. They’re more focused on survival “stuff.” If a person was to walk into their home, it’d be easier to spot the prepper than a survivalist and the preparations that they’ve made. 

    A prepper is considered more serious as far as preparations go and they will spend more money in the process. 

    Preppers tend to gather enough non-perishable foods, tools, and supplies. This is so that they can continue living comfortably within their homes, even long after the emergency is gone.

    However, there is a degree of difference in how far a prepper is willing to go. There are preppers out there who take it to a whole other level and go to even further lengths by creating bug-out locations far away from their homes to ensure their survival.   

    Survivalists may gather supplies, but they’re more interested in living off of their surrounding resources rather than being bunkered down to a particular location. They are more of a minimalist type of individual, while preppers may take on a hoarding approach when it comes to survival items. Take note that survivalists often believe that “less is more,” while a prepper believes that “more is better.”  

The author also contends that preppers, on the whole, are more group and community oriented while survivalists tend to be loners, but also acknowledges that there are exceptions. And he observes that survivalism is a lifestyle while prepping is a lifeline.  Under his criteria, Bill from "The Last Of Us" and Bruce Clayton would probably be considered preppers, not survivalists. 

     Survival Sullivan has also weighed in on this topic, and his take is similar to that of the Retevis author. He describes the survivalist thusly:

    A true survivalist stockpiles far more skills than supplies. If the gear or weapons cannot be carried on their back or in a rucksack, it is not a part of their SHTF plan.

    Instead of stockpiling massive amounts of shelf-stable like preppers, survivalists plan to fish, snare, forage, and hunt for their meals. While rural preppers also grow up learning a lot of these same food acquisition skills that can be employed during a disaster, they are not relying on them either solely or as heavily as a survivalist.

And, he adds:

    Inside the home of a survivalist you would not discover a large pantry lined with long-term food storage buckets, solar generators, a healthy stockpile of fuel, or heavy outdoor cooking supplies. A survivalist is a whole lot more of a minimalist than a prepper.

    Lightweight and dual use items are the primary survival tools for a person who belongs to this type of self-reliant mindset. A survivalist will have guns, make no doubt about that, but he or she will not be packing an arsenal of firearms on their back. Knives, lighters, firestarters, Life Straws, and similar lightweight gear will be in their bugout bag.

Conversely, about the prepper, he writes:

    Preppers stockpile shelf-stable goods, homesteading and off grid style supplies, and often raise livestock to help them live (and thrive) during disasters both large and small.

    Preppers develop skills to help themselves and their families survive a massive natural or man-made disaster and the societal collapse that will surely follow by either bugging in or bugging out to a retreat they have been creating to live in during a SHTF event.

    Unlike survivalists, preppers are primarily focused on supply stockpiling because they know store shelves will empty within hours of a disaster, and relying on help to arrive from the government could quickly turn them into nothing more than part of the death toll tally.

    In addition to stockpiling shelf-stable food, water, and water purification supplies, preppers also “horde’ massive amounts of either store bought powdered milk or dehydrate their own – especially if they live in a rural area and raise their own goats or cows.

    Like homesteaders, preppers spend a significant amount of time putting up food from their gardens and grocery store sales, as well as purchasing copious amount of long-term food storage buckets.

Under his criteria, Bill from "The Last Of Us" and Bruce Clayton would also be considered preppers, not survivalists. 

    This theme of stockpiling versus living in the wilds crops up over and over again. At Top Outdoor Survival, the author similarly states that "[a] survivalist hones his or her base survival skills to be ready for such an event. While a prepper stocks up on resources to survive an event like that."

    At Farm Homestead, the author argues that the difference is a matter of different views and preparations on how long a disaster and recovery will last. In her mind, the survivalist believes that such an event will be temporary and so, while having the knowledge and gear to bug out, doesn't have long term preparations, but "[a] prepper likes to be prepared to go beyond just short-term survival. Their goal isn’t simply survival, but self reliance."

    At Urban Survival Site, the author indicates that "[p]reppers are focused on stockpiling supplies to use when bugging in or at a bugout location – and having the skills to use them," while "[s]urvivalists are more heavily focused on the skills they possess to get them through an SHTF scenario – with usually no more stockpiled preps than can be carried in a rucksack on their back." The author of Survival Cache has a similar view. Ditto the author of Healing Harvest Homestead who defines the prepper as someone who has prepared to survive a disaster, typically through stockpiling supplies, but views the survivalist as someone with the skills to live completely off the land.

    The Atomic Bear also distinguishes between "prepper" and "survivalist" based on the ability to live off the land and amount of supplies. That is, "[a] survivalist is someone who knows how to survive, often in the woods.  However, a survivalist is not limited to a wooded territory. Any environment from the desert to the rainforest to the tundra is survivalist’s terrain." But "a prepper is someone who believes a disaster is forthcoming and prepares themselves for it through the stockpiling of essential items for survival such as food, water, and guns."

However, a prepper is much more than a glorified stockpiler. A prepper is also someone who can survive in the woods, who knows how to make a fire, who can procure food, track and hunt game, find good sources of drinkable water, can build a shelter, and improvise tools. A prepper is someone who if all the conveniences of the 21st century were taken away would still be able to survive. 

He continues:

Both are very, very similar. The main difference is total self-reliance and the length of preparation. You can also think of this in terms of specialist and generalist. A survivalist specializes in the basic needs of humans: food, water, and shelter. A prepper takes the survivalist role and expands it to include long-term survival in terms of a world-wide disaster. A prepper has additional skills beyond the basic “bush-master.” He or she may be able to fly a plane, has martial arts and weapons training, some medical training in order to be able to utilize medicines, and perhaps tactical and leadership training in order to form an ad-hoc militia of some sort. A bunker is also in a prepper’s wheelhouse of tools to employ to better prepare for a cataclysmic disaster. 

    At Always Ready Prepper, the author indicates that the difference is that "Preppers tend to stockpile supplies within a bunker" and "prefer[ ] to stay in a location where they can stay safe from the wilderness," whereas "survivalists train themselves to survive in the wilderness" and "[t]heir goal is to be constantly moving instead of being locked away." 

    At Two Way Radio Community a writer states:

A prepper is prepping for the world, they are prepping for the disasters and some terrible things happened, so they try to stock foods, water, seeds, guns, first aid, and other goods in shelters to save a life. However, the survivalists try to learn some skills and techniques to survive and fit the changes. They always learn how to shoot, how to use tools, and learn more about geography. So, from this point, Preppers and survivalists are different.

The author also considers preppers to be group or community oriented and survivalists to be a "lone wolf".  

    At Modern Survival Online, the author writes:

A prepper seeks to get the tools and supplies needed to react to disasters and emergencies. A survivalist changes their lifestyle according to what response they anticipate would be required to survive the same situation. Preppers are more concerned with accumulating provisions and gear, where survivalists are more concerned with skillsets and lifestyle choices.

So, as you can see, definitions or the terms can vary, but the majority seem to view a prepper as someone who stockpiles supplies and plans on staying at one location (whether their home or retreat) while the survivalist is viewed as someone who, after a disaster, is willing and able to move around, make use of natural resources, and live off the land.

   I'm old enough to remember some of the development and evolution of terms, as well as having read some of the early "survivalist" books. "Survivalist," as a term referring to those preparing for a nuclear war, economic collapse, or, more generally, the end of the world, has been around since at least the early 1980s. I don't remember who popularized the term, but I remember at one time coming across a discussion of the term (I believe it was Mel Tappan) talking about whether to use the term "retreater" or "survivalist" because the distinguishing characteristic was having a survival retreat. However, and this is key, there were many that subscribed to the survivalist philosophies that did not have the means to uproot themselves from the cities or the suburbs and move to a rural retreat.

    The problem that arose is that, over time in the 1980s and 90s, the term "survivalist" started to take on serious negative connotations in the media and among the public at large because of its association with what we would now call domestic terrorists who either used "survivalist" to describe themselves or had the term applied to them by an ignorant (or malicious) media. (See here for a more in-depth discussion on the origins of "survivalism" and some of the groups with which it became associated).

     "Prepper" came into use in response to the negative connotation that became attached to "survivalist" and as an alternative term to "survivalist". Although I'm not sure when I first heard the term "prepper" I'm relatively certain it wasn't until after 2000, but it seemed to follow from the use of the term "preps" and "prepped". Ergo, a "prepper" was a person who had "preps" or had "prepped".  It describes, however, the same philosophy as gave birth to the "survivalist" movement during the Cold War--a desire to be prepared and able to survive a calamitous disaster that will disrupt the normal flow of goods and services, financial services, and utilities, whatever the cause. So, in this sense, the term "survivalist" and "prepper" are synonymous. And if I had to identify a difference, it would be that beside those preparing for a long term WROL and TEOTWAWKI, "preppers" includes people focused on short term disruptions, a few days or weeks. 

    But at the same time as the "survival retreat" movement was growing, there was also an increased interest in the outdoors and being able to survive in the wilderness. I don't know if this was an outgrowth of the hippie movement, the popularity of movies like Jeremiah Johnson and Grizzly Adams, or just a reaction to the general chaos, pollution, and crime of 1970s and 80s urban America, but it was very real. And so the term "survivalist" has also referred to those trained and/or experienced in surviving off the land or living under primitive conditions in austere environments. (See also this article exploring the differences between bushcraft, survivalism, and prepping). 

    I personally wouldn't actually mind having clear terms to distinguish between the wilderness survival expert and the person preparing for a disaster/nuclear war/economic collapse. And that seems to be the trend if the articles I related above are a guide. But while I sympathize with those that don't want to be lumped together with the person that throws a carton of Raman noodles and a case of water bottles in their closet and calls it good,  I don't see any real value in trying to use the two terms "survivalist" and "prepper" to distinguish between groups within the disaster/nuclear war/economic collapse preparing community, and I will probably continue to use both terms when referring to such people. 

POTD: Abandoned Ames Department Store

This video is a bit different than most because the intro and outro show what the stores were like in their heyday, and gives you some background on the Ames chain. A couple things in particular to note once it gets to exploring the department store. Because of the limited amount of glass around the entrance, the store is much darker than, for instance, an abandoned grocery store that we looked at several months ago that had windows down the entire width of the store front. Also, and we've seen this in other larger retails chains, is the distances inside the building. This can be a factor both in whether your flashlight can cast a beam far enough to pick out details on a far wall, or, in a post-SHTF, you had to use your weapon against an attacker or vicious animal that happened to be in the structure.

VIDEO: "ABANDONED AMES (90s retail goodies inside)"

Ace's Adventures (20 min.)

Here are some articles that have been collecting in my in-box:

• "A 12-Month Preparedness Checklist" (Part 1) (Part 2) by Reltney McFee, Survival Blog. Not all prepping is repeated each month--some things will be seasonal or need less than monthly attention. The author of this series describes a year in his prepping, providing lists of activities or preparations for each of the months.
• "Power Outage Grocery List: 23 Items to Get"--Modern Survival Online. A list of items and an explanation as to why each is a good selection. All of the items listed require no preparation (i.e., can be eaten cold) or only require minimal preparation such as adding water (hot or cold, depending on the item).

1.Freeze-dried Food

2. T.V. Dinners (referring to the smaller shelf-stable offerings by Hormel similar to an MRE entree).

3. Peanut Butter

4. Instant Oatmeal

5. Cereal

6. Powdered Milk

7. Pop Tarts

8. Crackers

9. Instant Coffee

10. Tea

11. Drink Mixes

12. Honey

13. Granola / Energy Bars

14. Candy

15. Nuts

16. Canned Vegetables

17. Canned Fruit

18. Canned Beans

19. Instant Rice

20. Instant Potatoes

21. Canned Chicken

22. Canned Tuna

23. Spam

• "Here Are 30 Foods That Will Last 25 Years"--Modern Survival Online. Moving beyond the basics of wheat, beans, and honey. For those worried about proteins and fat, in addition to powdered milk, the author includes the following on his list: hard salted meats, Pemmican, bullion cubes or powder, and ghee ("a special type of clarified butter that originates from the Indian subcontinent, and though it is an important component in a cuisine from that region it’s also attracting fans as a healthy alternative to typical cooking oils and common butter").
• "Gardening During Disasters"-- The Prepper Journal. The author discusses different ways to deal with shortages of water for your gardens based on actual strategies used in different countries or areas of the world.
• "Getting Food After Your Storage Runs Out"--Modern Survival Blog. Just a list of thoughts or considerations to keep in mind for raising your own crops, raising livestock, fishing, hunting, foraging, and bartering.
• "How to Clean a Catfish"--Field & Stream.
• "The RANGE-R Card"--Blue Collar Prepping. A review of the RANGE-R card from Black Hills Design which is a small card that allows you to estimate range based on the perceived height of a person or other common objects or vehicles. 
• "This is How Strong Paracord Really Is"--The Survivalist Blog. As the author notes, "Authentic type-III or '550 paracord' that meets the original military specifications will have a minimum breaking strength of at least 550 lbs (249.47 kilograms)." Unfortunately, not all paracord is the same--there are different types or ratings, there are, unfortunately, lots of fakes out there, and it may be damaged by exposure or other factors. The article discusses how to spot problems and a method for testing your paracord's strength.
• "EMP How Long Does It Disable My Electronics"--Modern Survival Online. A generalized discussion of EMP and the factors that could contribute to your electronics merely needing to be rebooted or being destroyed. I remember reading with some interest when the EMP Commission's report came out that some of their testing only resulted in devices shutting and just had to be restarted (e.g., an automobile they tested comes to mind). So I guess the gist of this is that don't assume that an EMP will necessarily zap everything. 
• Related: "So, Do EMPS Affect Batteries?"--Modern Survival Online. The short version:

No, the majority of batteries will not be affected by an EMP of any size. This applies to lead-acid, alkaline, nickel metal hydride, and lithium-ion batteries. Any electronics attached to the battery, such as a charge controller, will be ruined.

• "Multiple Layer Faraday Cage Shielding For Better EMP Protection"--Modern Survival Blog. The author did some testing and experimenting to see what worked best (better?). His conclusions:

• Relying solely on a galvanized trash can for EMP protection may not be enough at approximately 40dB attenuation.
• Multiple layers of shielding / protection may increase overall EMI attenuation (EMP protection).
• Multi-layer shielding such as wrapped aluminum foil inside galvanized trashcan may help to meet MIL spec (Insulate contents and layers from each other).

• "SurvivalBlog: Infectious Disease in the TEOTWAWKI World, Parts 1 to 6, by Militant Medic"--American Partisan. American Partisan did us the favor of providing the web addresses to all 6 parts of the cited articles on infectious disease (i.e., he has the addresses, but they are not links that you can just click--you will have to highlight the address and either copy it to your address bar or right click and choose the "go to web address" option). The author of the series indicates that he is a physician that has been practicing for 11 years. Although this is a valuable resource, recognize that it is just a summary of a very complex subject. Think of it as an introduction for which you will need to follow up in more detail. The first few parts go over germs and the different types of veterinary/pet antibiotics you can get and for what they should be used. The last two articles discusses specific diseases/infections and the appropriate antibiotic. 
• "Emergency Preparedness: Factors to Consider Before Bugging Out"--The Mag Life. An excerpt:

    The disadvantages to bugging out are many. First, though you may miss your bug-out window if you delay, historically true bug-out events are relatively rare. I lived in a large urban area during the food shortages, increased crime, civil disorder, and protests of 2020, but none of these events ever approached the need to bug out from our residence. The threat was present but did not outweigh the advantages of sheltering in place.

    Your residence’s resources are the next consideration. Before you leave your home, recognize the advantages that will be lost bugging out. Even without services, your home provides shelter, space, a familiar defensible location, large storage capacity (food, water, medical supplies, clothes), beds, and some waste management and cooking supplies. The decision to bug out takes your entire residence’s resources and familiarity and reduces them to what you, your family, and (if included) your vehicle, can transport.

• "Dakota Fire Hole: Step by Step How To Build One"--Modern Survival Online. This, as you might already know, is a small fire pit or hole which is connected under the ground to a second hole which provides the needed air flow. The result is that you can hide your fire below the surface of the ground.
• "How to Start a Fire"--Outdoor Life. A very detailed article on this subject. An excerpt:

    There are four stages to building a fire: fire preparation, fire starting, fire maintenance, and fire extinguishing. 

    Fire preparation is the act of locating a spot to build a fire, clearing debris from around the central hearth that could accidentally catch, and assembling all the components you need prior to starting. 

    Fire starting is the act of striking a match, scraping a ferro rod, catching a piece of tinder on fire, or otherwise initially igniting your fire. Fire starting is where the three requirements for fire, heat, air, and fuel must come together in the right ratio to burn properly. These requirements are often referred to as the “fire triangle” and when a fire is not burning well, you can troubleshoot which of the components is lacking. 

    Fire maintenance requires you to stoke the fire, add fuel to it as necessary, position logs to achieve more or less flame, and otherwise keep the fire going as long as you need it to burn.  

 

    Fire extinguishing is the process of dowsing your fire, moving the firewood to the outside of the fire ring, making sure there are no hot spots left behind, and making sure the fire is no longer burning. Your fire should start with an understanding of the final stage first as it is not wise to build a fire you cannot put out. 

The article goes on to discuss different types of fire lays, fuel, different tools for starting a fire, common mistakes, and more. 

• "Prepper's Toolbox: Adhesives"--Blue Collar Prepping. Give recipes and instructions on making a traditional flour paste and pine pitch glue.
• "Leave a Message"--Blue Collar Prepping. In a disaster, you might be able to call, text, or email someone. The author goes over various ways to leave messages for others, both historical (such as hobo codes) and modern and some supplies you should keep on hand.
• "Edible Survivors" by James Thompson, Unz Review.  In 1972, an airplane carrying the 45 team members of the Uruguayan rugby team, families and friends crashed high in the Andes mountains. The survivors were forced to cannibalize the bodies of the dead to survive. It's a long article, but worth the read. A relatively short excerpt:

    What was required of survivors in this situation? Everything, one might assume.

    Roberto Canessa summed up the essentials:

    Team spirit, persistence, sympathy for others, intelligence and, above all, hope.

    Their situation was parlous. They were in this dreadful situation because of pilot error. The navigator was at the back of the plane playing cards, the pilots were over-confident, and did not bother to check the one instrument which would could have saved them: their wristwatches. Had they done so they would have realized they were turning North far too soon, and had not allowed for the headwinds against them. They had not yet gone far enough West, were not yet out of the Andes, and mistakenly descended North into the high mountain peaks. After hitting a mountain which tore off the wings, the fuselage careered down a glacier and slammed into snow.

    They had many dead, and many injured they had to care for. It was reasonable to believe that planes would come to search for them, and some of those planes could be heard and seen overhead for the next 8 days of search, though they found nothing. Temperatures went down to -30 Centigrade at night, so to keep from freezing to death was essential. Body warmth was their sole source of heat as they huddled together in the remains of the fuselage. Most of them had never seen snow, and had no idea how to survive in high altitudes.

    Some days later, when a small group ventured out into the snowy desolation, they all suffered from the bitter cold, one went snow blind, and the lack of implements to help them through the snow showed how helpless they were. Not encouraging. Staying put and waiting for rescue seemed better.

    How to survive?

    Intelligence is what you use when you don’t know what to do. (Carl Bereiter).

    To provide drinking water, Fito Strauch worked out that snow collected in an aluminium shell would catch the sun’s rays and provide a trickle of meltwater, which they shared in very small gulps. He also designed improvised sun glasses to combat snow blindness. They used seat covers as protective clothing and footwear.

    Roy Harley improvised an antenna so that a transistor radio they found hidden in a seat could provide them with news, the first being that the search had been abandoned. He also tried to get the batteries and remains of the radio receiver to build a transmitter, a task which understandably proved impossible. The batteries they found were of the wrong voltage to power the available equipment, even if they had been able to assemble it.

    The survivors who had found the rear of the fuselage came up with an idea to use insulation foam from the rear of the fuselage, sewed together with copper wire, and waterproof fabric that covered the air conditioning of the plane to fashion a sleeping bag. Nando Parrado and Carlos Paez led the work on this.

    Those with medical knowledge did a triage of the wounded, including removing a shaft of metal from a person’s intestines.

    In short, when they did not know what to do, they improvised, and innovated. Such knowledge as they had of medicine, mechanics, navigation and engineering was put to good purpose.

    When Nando Parrado, Roberto Canessa anid Antonio Vizintin set off on their final rescue mission, they had no technical gear or clothing, no compass, and no climbing experience. Vizintin went back after 3 days, because there was not enough food.

    As a matter of painful observation, and guidance from the few who had medical knowledge about the Krebs cycle (the body can convert protein into sugar, and fat into protein, so that on a meat only diet they could survive without malnutrition), it was obvious to the starving survivors that they needed to eat energy rich protein to survive. In ordinary conditions, warm temperatures at sea level, 2000 calories of food would be sufficient. Under sedentary conditions in the cold high glacier, 3,600 to 4,300 calories would be needed. For highly strenuous work in the cold, like climbing up a mountain, 4,200 to 5,000 calories would be required. (British soldiers training in Norway get 5000 calories, and an officer told me “You have to stand over them at breakfast to make sure they eat it”).

    The fact that the world had abandoned them within a few days made them better able to feel justified in abandoning the taboo about not eating human flesh. Initially they spoke about this in whispers, then in small group deniable hypotheticals, then finally in open discussion. Not all agreed, though the lack of any rescue plans was an eventual clincher for most. For everyone’s protection, a small group made the first cut in the actual bodies, and gave it to others to further cut and dry the flesh strips in the sun, so that all could eat without knowing whose flesh it was.

    So, survivors needed to solve an existential calculus: they could live only on the bodies of the dead, their only source of fuel (and protein). In order to just wait for rescue, and to do the daily tasks on which their immediate survival depended, they needed about 4000 calories each. They had to count the bodies, count the survivors, and count the days. When there were more survivors, before the avalanche which killed 8, each body supplied food for three days. (One survivor was 85 kilos before the crash, and below 38 Kilos when rescued, a typical drop in body mass). To complicate matters, the escape party needed 5000 calories each per day of travel, extra clothing taken from others, and relief from doing daily tasks as they built up their strength.

    Every day of preparation depleted combustibles, but every day they waited reduced the chance of snow falls, and improved conditions for the escape party. One survivor had said that it never snowed in December, but in the early days of that month there was a massive snowstorm, which did not seem a good omen. Canessa argued for a postponement of another week. There were 16 alive and 27 dead when the three-person team set off on 12 December.

    At all stages, the group tried to reason their way out of the life and death puzzle box in which they were incarcerated. For example, they selected those they though most likely to survive the journey, (based on physique and, crucially, strength of character) and altered the selection as circumstances changed during preparations.