Techniques & Training
"The Rest of the Story"
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
A couple of weeks ago, I linked to the story of a thug who showed no remorse about killing a couple of musicians.
Well, it seems that there was more to the story, and Jim Jacobe (www.jimjacobe.com) sent me a link to an article on the U.S. Concealed Carry Association website. It's the "other side" of the incident - the mother and the instructor of one of the victims.
It is a must-read. (You'll have to scroll down their page just a bit for the article, titled "No Safe Places", by Don Myers. It's worth the effort.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
|
My muckraking safety articles
Monday, July 21, 2008
I've been asked to provide a
permanent link to my articles on the failings of gun safety rules.
Happy to oblige; I've added them to the Library as well.
The original article: "On Safety"
Followup article: "Following the safety rules religiously"
Please read them and consider them carefully. Of course, I'm always happy to hear comments from readers!
-=[ Grant ]=-
The original article: "On Safety"
Followup article: "Following the safety rules religiously"
Please read them and consider them carefully. Of course, I'm always happy to hear comments from readers!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as Evil.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Go read this article over at Xavier's place. NOW.
Then take the time to read this terrific piece over at Michael Bane's hangout.
Then spend a bit of time considering the intersection of the two. You'll be safer and more confident for doing so.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Illustrating the concept
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
A reader sent me this link to an old Richard Davis "Second Chance" video. The video has Davis shooting a fellow - who is wearing one of Davis' vests, of course - with a .308 rifle and himself with a .44 magnum revolver. The reader's comment was "if this doesn't show an energy dump, I don't know what it shows."
I agree. With the second part of the statement, at least. Going back to our "Stopping power" series, as I pointed out the term "energy dump" is nonsensical - energy isn't "dumped", it is used to do work.
What is the work in this case?
First, I can guarantee that the bullet itself was grossly deformed in its contact with the vest material. It takes energy to deform the bullet, and that energy only comes from one place: the bullet itself.
Second, there is a huge amount of work being done by that slug. It is trying to part and sever the fibers in the vest material, which are quite tough and designed to resist such force. The bullet does manage to defeat some of the fibers - which is why it's buried between the layers of cloth - but the energy required to do that job, again and again (there are many layers in a vest) rapidly depletes the bullet's stored energy. The result is that all of the energy is used up doing the work of penetrating the vest.
Again, the bullet's energy wasn't "dumped" - it was used. Understand the difference, and terminal ballistics won't seem so mysterious.
(Notice also the second myth busted in the video: that a bullet has enough energy to knock a man down. As you can see, even full-power .308 NATO, at near contact distance, isn't sufficient to knock over a man standing on one foot. Again, there is nothing mysterious at work - simply basic physics.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
The "Holster of the Week" Club
Monday, May 19, 2008
Last week I promised a story. I heard this from "the horse's mouth", and if you knew this particular horse the story would not surprise you...
Anyhow, I happen to know a fellow (I'll call him "Ted") who, back in the '70s, was a Detective in a very large eastern police department. He had just been promoted from patrol, which meant that for the first time in his career he got to dress in plainclothes.
Ted and his more experienced partner were headed to lunch one day. They worked in a not terribly good part of town, and picked a restaurant in the vicinity of their last call. They pulled up in front of the restaurant, just behind a taxicab.
As they were exiting their unmarked vehicle a male climbed out of the cab ahead of them. He drew what Ted described as "a chrome-plated automatic", and started firing at another person who was still in the back seat of the cab.
(Allow me to digress as I explain that Ted, taking advantage of his now much looser dress requirements, had taken to wearing all manner of holsters. He alternated between a shoulder holster, crossdraw, strong side hip, appendix, and even ankle. He made the decision about which one to wear almost on a whim each morning. I'm sure you're beginning to see where this is going.)
Ted, who was exiting on the curb side of the vehicle, was in direct line of sight of the suspect. Being the gung-ho young cop that he was, he yelled "police, freeze!" as he reached for his gun. The perp turned toward the source of the command, and seeing two witnesses in suits raised his pistol in their direction and started firing.
Here's where the story gets interesting: Ted habitually reached for the spot where his uniform belt had always placed his gun. Of course, it wasn't there! I wish I could convey the level of comical panic that he did, but the gist is that he started patting himself all over, trying to find his gun while at the same time diving for cover behind his car door. "I couldn't remember where my gun was," he exclaimed to me. "I suddenly had the horrible thought that maybe I'd left it on my dresser!"
In the meantime his older and wiser partner simply drew his "snubby" revolver from the crossdraw holster he always used, and proceeded to drop said perp in his tracks. Ted found his gun just in time to help clean up the mess.
Ted told me that this incident convinced him to carry his gun in the same holster and in the same place every day. His advice to me was that I should do likewise - and I always do.
A firefight, gentle readers, is not the time to try to remember where you put your gun, or where your bullets are landing relative to your sights. Standardize on your load and your holster, and practice regularly so that you can quickly draw and reliably put your shots where they need to go!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber, Part 9
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
(For convenience, you can
access all the installments
at this link.)
Stick with what works
You've all heard of the "Gun of the Week" club, right? That's the term used to describe an "enthusiast", the guy (gals are too smart to engage in such nonsense) who carries or competes with a different gun every time he goes out. (Closely related is the "Holster of the Week" club. I'll post an amusing story about that, soon.)
There is also the "Bullet of the Week" club. Some folks read the gun magazines assiduously, loading up with the latest and greatest "stopper" from the current issue. The next issue (or possibly a competing magazine) tells them about yet another new bullet, and off to the gunstore ammo shelves they go!
There are problems with this approach. Aside from the fact that one is unlikely to see any major performance differences between modern designs from major makers, there is a reliability issue. If you're shooting an autoloader (an affliction which elicits my sincere sympathies), you need to fire a minimum of 200 rounds of your chosen ammunition to ensure reliability. That's a lot of ammunition to buy and shoot every time you change loads!
Even with a revolver, you should shoot a full box of that ammo to ensure ignition reliability in your gun, especially if you've had action work performed.
The other issue is with the sights on your gun. Fixed sights, as featured on both revolvers and autos, will not shoot all ammunition to the same point of aim, necessitating on-the-fly windage or elevation corrections. Trying to remember whether this week's ammunition choice shoots up or down, right or left, relative to the sights is hard enough. Imagine trying to do that with someone lobbing rounds into your personal airspace!
If you have fixed sights, you should regulate them to match the load you'll be using - then use that load, and only that load, for "serious" use in that gun. If for some reason you change the standard load for that gun, have the sights adjusted to shoot to point-of-aim for that load.
That's why I say "stick with what works." Pick a decent load that proves itself to be reliable in your gun, have the sights regulated properly, and just use it. Constantly switching between different bullets gains you nothing, and may in fact cost you in a dynamic self-defense incident. Pick one load, practice with it, and use only that bullet in that particular gun.
I go even further - I've standardized on one load for all my .38/.357 guns, and I've regulated all of them to shoot that load. That way, I don't have to maintain a huge stock of ammunition to fit a bunch of different guns.
I think this finally does it for the "Self defense, stopping power, and caliber" series. I'm just about "talked out"! I hope that it has given you some insight into the task of selecting a gun/cartridge for your self defense needs.
Stay safe, make sensible choices, and practice. It's all you can do - but, as it happens, all you can do is enough!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Stick with what works
You've all heard of the "Gun of the Week" club, right? That's the term used to describe an "enthusiast", the guy (gals are too smart to engage in such nonsense) who carries or competes with a different gun every time he goes out. (Closely related is the "Holster of the Week" club. I'll post an amusing story about that, soon.)
There is also the "Bullet of the Week" club. Some folks read the gun magazines assiduously, loading up with the latest and greatest "stopper" from the current issue. The next issue (or possibly a competing magazine) tells them about yet another new bullet, and off to the gunstore ammo shelves they go!
There are problems with this approach. Aside from the fact that one is unlikely to see any major performance differences between modern designs from major makers, there is a reliability issue. If you're shooting an autoloader (an affliction which elicits my sincere sympathies), you need to fire a minimum of 200 rounds of your chosen ammunition to ensure reliability. That's a lot of ammunition to buy and shoot every time you change loads!
Even with a revolver, you should shoot a full box of that ammo to ensure ignition reliability in your gun, especially if you've had action work performed.
The other issue is with the sights on your gun. Fixed sights, as featured on both revolvers and autos, will not shoot all ammunition to the same point of aim, necessitating on-the-fly windage or elevation corrections. Trying to remember whether this week's ammunition choice shoots up or down, right or left, relative to the sights is hard enough. Imagine trying to do that with someone lobbing rounds into your personal airspace!
If you have fixed sights, you should regulate them to match the load you'll be using - then use that load, and only that load, for "serious" use in that gun. If for some reason you change the standard load for that gun, have the sights adjusted to shoot to point-of-aim for that load.
That's why I say "stick with what works." Pick a decent load that proves itself to be reliable in your gun, have the sights regulated properly, and just use it. Constantly switching between different bullets gains you nothing, and may in fact cost you in a dynamic self-defense incident. Pick one load, practice with it, and use only that bullet in that particular gun.
I go even further - I've standardized on one load for all my .38/.357 guns, and I've regulated all of them to shoot that load. That way, I don't have to maintain a huge stock of ammunition to fit a bunch of different guns.
I think this finally does it for the "Self defense, stopping power, and caliber" series. I'm just about "talked out"! I hope that it has given you some insight into the task of selecting a gun/cartridge for your self defense needs.
Stay safe, make sensible choices, and practice. It's all you can do - but, as it happens, all you can do is enough!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber, Part 8
Monday, May 12, 2008
(For convenience, you can access all the installments at this link.)
"So, smarty pants - what gun should I get?"
I receive many emails asking, in essence, what the "best" self-defense caliber might be. (Those emails, in fact, have served as the motivation behind this series.) The correspondents are probably expecting sage advice, the wisdom of years, a sort of Ballistic Oracle. What they get is a non-commital "it depends!"
If you take nothing else from this series, take this: there is no such thing as "best" - there is only "suitability for purpose."
Why is that? As we learned in the first parts, there is a pretty large envelope - caliber, weight, and velocity - of performance criteria that have shown themselves to work well. Thus, any cartridge you select within that envelope is likely to do the job, as long as you do yours.
That's the most important part: that the gun in question enables you to do your job. It is the first place you should start. You need to be honest with yourself, accurately assess what you can and cannot handle. Remember that a self-defense scenario often will call for multiple, rapid, precisely-placed shots. Can you do that with the guns that you're considering? Really? Be honest with yourself!
I see many people who are talked into a gun that is touted as a "better stopper", but who are unable to handle it to the standards given above. Most of this is technique, and technique can be learned, but everyone has some upper limit. Remember: only accurate hits count, and you should strive to maximize your hit potential. As we've explored, power is irrelevant if it doesn't get to something important!
Once you've passed that hurdle, the choices almost make themselves. In any given cartridge, if you pick a hollowpoint load in the middle of the caliber's normal weight range, you'll generally have most of what you need. There are exceptions, of course: at the lowest ends of the energy spectrum (say, standard .38 Specials) penetration becomes an issue, so you should tend to the heavier rounds. At the other end (the heavy magnums), the more powerful loads often need lighter bullets to limit penetration and enhance expansion.
For everything else, stay away from the lightest and heaviest bullets, pick a decent hollowpoint, and you'll most likely be just fine.
The most important part of this whole selection process is to practice with the load that you've chosen. If the cartridge/gun combination is "too much" for you to do so, that's a sign that you need to pick something else. You need to practice with your safety/rescue equipment, and if you can't or don't want to, then you will be less prepared to face a deadly encounter. The old trick of practicing with Specials while carrying Magnums on the street has been thoroughly discredited, because it doesn't allow the user to get used to the dramatic difference in handling between the two.
(This isn't to say that you have to do all your training this way; I do a lot of work with light loads when I'm diagnosing a trigger control issue, or to help develop a specific skill. When I've got them down, though, I switch to my carry load and train extensively with that.)
So, what do I carry? Most of the time, I load up the trusted and proven .38 Special +P 158 grain all lead semi-wadcutter hollowpoint. I've spoken with many people who have actually used this load against an adversary, and to a person they were all very satisfied with the ballistic effect. Massad Ayoob tells me that his research showed police agencies who switched from that load to hot autoloading cartridges did so not to get "better" bullets, but to get "more bullets." I'm confident in it's abilities, and in my ability to handle the cartridge from any gun under any conditions.
This is a tradeoff for me. For instance, I really like the .44 Special. It's a great round, but in a concealable gun I just don't handle it as well as other calibers. I'm honest with my limitations; increasing joint pain, particularly in my elbows, is beginning to limit what I can handle, which means that the sweet .44 Special is no longer a good choice for my primary caliber.
In fact, a hot .357 Magnum from a Ruger SP101 is easier for me to control than a .44 Special from a small gun, and the Magnum has become to be too much for me in a normal range session. I like the .357 too, but I have to admit to myself that if I want to live relatively pain free, I can't shoot it from my carry guns any more.
The result is that I've picked the most effective round that falls within my limitations, and practice with it extensively. I think that is the most rational way to approach this whole topic!
Next time, we'll explore some less obvious considerations when picking your "ideal" self defense cartridge.
<--- Click here for the previous episode ..................... Click here for the next episode --->
-=[ Grant ]=-
Series index: "Self defense, stopping power, and caliber"
Monday, May 05, 2008
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber, Part 7
Monday, May 05, 2008
(For convenience, you can access all the installments at this link.)
There Is No Such Thing as a Magic Bullet
What does that mean, you ask?
One of the last bastions of the snake oil salesman is in the field of ammunition promotion. Claims that would make Professor Harold Hill blush are the norm, and are repeated in gunstores, shooting ranges, and deer camps across the country. They sometimes even make their way into magazines and the internet - though the latter's instant exchange of information has helped to quell the worst of the hyperbole.
Still, many hold on to their belief in "magic bullets", hoping that there really exists something that will transform their .25ACP into an elephant killer. (I exaggerate, of course, but one ammo maker used to claim that their product for the little .25 had the same "one shot stop" percentage as a .45. That, my friends, is a true belief in magic.)
Like many fables, the legend of the Magic Bullet has its roots in reality. As Arthur C. Clarke said, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." In the bullet world, that advanced technology is the hollowpoint bullet.
The hollowpoint, as we've learned, is a good mechanism to control the penetration and wound profile of any given cartridge. Sometimes, it can work what seems like a miracle - transforming an otherwise unremarkable cartridge into a respectable "stopper."
One of the best examples of this is the .30 M1 Carbine cartridge. Many servicemen had experience with the little Carbine in World War II and Korea, and they either loved it or hated it. Those that hated it often complained about a lack of "stopping power" - enemies who were hit often didn't go down with alacrity. (Some even claimed that the rounds "bounced off" the heavy wool coats worn by the opposition. That wasn't true, and was easily shown as such, but when someone is running toward you screaming his head off, a lack of convincing ballistic effect makes the distinction unimportant.)
The .30 Carbine, as it turns out, is a penetrator. Its sleek bullet usually went straight through the target, making a quick-closing wound and doing little damage along the way. (Sound familiar?) After the war, one of the ammo makers got the bright idea of stuffing a semi-jacketed hollowpoint into the casing. When they did that, the entire complexion of the carbine changed.
The penetration was now more controlled, and the expanded bullet had a much larger frontal area that did more damage along its path. So changed was the round that Jim Cirillo, the famous member of the New York Stakeout Squad, proclaimed it one of the two most effective weapons in their entire arsenal - the other being the formidable 12 gauge shotgun. High praise indeed!
He wasn't the only one who made note of the "enhanced" Carbine. The late Gene Wolburg, wound ballistics expert and one of the most knowledgeable people in the field, once said that his home defense weapon of choice was the M1 Carbine loaded with that semi-jacketed hollowpoint.
It may have seemed like magic to the servicemen who had bad experiences with the round, but the effect of the hollowpoint loading was simple physics. It did its job better - it just happened to be a lot better.
A "magic bullet", in contrast, appears to violate the laws of physics, or so skews its sales copy that you think it does. For instance, magic bullet purveyors play up the "energy" of their load, to the exclusion of everything else.
Now, understand that energy is the result of multiplying the mass of the projectile by the square of it's velocity. Without boring you with the math, what that means is that a small change in velocity makes a big change in the energy of the projectile. In other words, if you drop the projectile weight you can up the velocity, which will make a huge increase in energy figures. Sounds great, right?
Well, as we've already studied, energy isn't everything. A light projectile might be moving very quickly, but when it contacts solid matter it loses velocity quickly. That translates into shallow wounds. (Remember the last installment, where we looked at the .357 Magnum? Same thing, only worse.) The projectile needs weight as well as velocity in order to penetrate well, and if you sacrifice enough weight for more speed, you'll fail at the First Task: reaching something important.
Exotic bullets that claim to do something others can't should set off your B.S. detector. Any cartridge that proclaims a "massive energy dump" as the wounding mechanism or pushes velocity over everything else is probably vying for a magic bullet award. Personally, I'm not going to trust my life to that kind of ammo!
What I'm getting at (and have been for this entire series) is that there is nothing mysterious, nothing magic about the way a bullet works. It has to get to something important, and it has to do rapid and significant damage when it gets there. That's it. Any claims that seem to skate around the topic should be looked at with great skepticism, for there is truly no such thing as a "magic bullet."
<--- Click here for the previous episode ..................... Click here for the next episode --->
-=[ Grant ]=-
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber, Part 6
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
(For convenience, you can access all the installments of this series at this link.)
"What would I want with a reputation? That's a good way to get yourself killed!" - Jason McCullough, "Support Your Local Sheriff" (my favorite movie of all time!)
What about "reputation"? Some cartridges or loadings have reputations for better effectiveness than others. Sometimes that's valid, but other times it may not be.
Let's take the mighty .357 Magnum, one of my very favorite cartridges. The 125 grain semi-jacketed hollowpoint loads have the reputation of being superbly effective; some believe that they are the "best" manstoppers ever made. I've talked with people who have actually used them in real shootings, and they were very happy with the performance. But there are instances of stupendous failures.
For those who hold that energy is everything, this may come as a shock. How could all that power possibly fail? Simple - if it doesn't do both of the Twin Tasks!
Let's consider what happens with the 125 grain Magnum loads. Leaving the barrel at nearly 1500 feet per second, the bullet enters the target with a huge reserve of energy. As the hollowpoint fills with fluid and starts to expand, it uses up some of that energy to grow dramatically in diameter. The increase in diameter means more resistance in the tissues, which uses more energy and further slows the bullet. Because the relatively light weight of the slug doesn't have great momentum, and thus not a lot of stored energy, it doesn't travel very far before it finally runs out of steam. The result can be a shallow wound - one which doesn't reach something the body finds important.
This is the "ugly secret" that proponents of the .357 125 grain JHP don't want to talk about. Shallow wound profiles with these "barn burner" loads are not unheard of, and occasionally prove to not be as effective as expected. As one noted trainer once told me, when they work they are superb - but when they fail, they fail spectacularly!
Suppose you've decided that you'd prefer something a bit more predictable, but want to retain the superb performance of the round - is there a solution? Yep! Simply go to a slightly heavier bullet, one which carries a tad less velocity and a bit more momentum. Winchester, for instance, has the 145 grain Silvertip bullet, and Speer is now making a 135 grain Gold Dot Magnum load. Both are obviously designed to retain the Magnum's reputation as a fight-ender, but do so on a more consistent basis.
This is a good illustration of the tradeoffs involved in cartridge selection. Speed isn't everything; bullet size isn't everything; bullet weight isn't everything. It's a combination, a concert of all of those (plus good handling qualities as defined by the shooter) that make a round effective. One can't simply say "I've got a Magnum" or "I carry a .45" and smugly claim that one has the "perfect" self defense gun. While it may work, there is always the chance that it may not; handguns, after all, are underpowered things.
Through intelligent selection, you can dramatically improve the performance envelope of your chosen gun, regardless of the cartridge it shoots.
<--- Click here for the previous episode ..................... Click here for the next episode --->
-=[ Grant ]=-
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber, Part 5
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
(For convenience, you can access all the installments of this series at this link.)
More energy can be a good thing - as long as it actually does something useful.
Last time we discussed the concept of the hollowpoint as a way to increase the frontal diameter of the bullet in the target. I also introduced the idea that it takes energy to expand the bullet, energy that is also needed to push the projectile into something that it needs to reach.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. If we want the bullet to expand, it doesn't happen by magic. Somewhere the energy has to be found to deform the metal used in the bullet, and that energy can only be found in the bullet's own movement. If there is too little to start with, then there won't be enough to continue the bullet on its path.
If the cartridge has insufficient energy, when the bullet expands it will stop forward movement too rapidly, resulting in very shallow wounds that may or may not be effective. This tends to explain the lack of expanding bullets for the venerable .38 Special cartridge - there just isn't enough energy to drive a bullet deeply into the target and expand it at the same time.
How do we get around this problem? Well, the first alternative is to simply switch to a cartridge with more energy. In the case of the .38, we could bump up to the .357 Magnum. The .357 certainly has enough energy! Of course, that energy reserve comes at a price: greatly increased recoil and muzzle blast.
The other alternative is to make a higher energy version of the cartridge we already have. This time-tested tactic results in what's know as "+P" ammunition, which is the designation for a cartridge loaded beyond what is considered "normal" pressure. The idea is to increase the energy delivery of that cartridge to accomplish a specific task. Generally, it works pretty well!
You'll see criticisms on the internet of some +P loadings, usually centered on the idea that "it's not much of an increase in power." If you consider what we've explored in this series so far, you'll realize that it doesn't have to be a "lot" - it just has to be "enough"! If a cartridge at normal pressure can't quite deliver an expanding bullet to where it needs to, but a +P version does, then that is sufficient for the task at hand.
Remember: if the energy doesn't do something useful, then it is wasted from our perspective.
Get away from the idea that you need vast increases in power for defensive applications. You simply need enough power to perform the Twin Tasks. Is it better to have an large reserve amount of energy on tap? That's a question that only you can answer, after being honest about your own abilities and needs.
In the next installment we'll bring together the things we've discussed, and look at the tradeoffs you need to consider to pick your "ideal" self defense cartridge.
<--- Click here for the previous episode ..................... Click here for the next episode --->
-=[ Grant ]=-
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber, Part 4
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
(For convenience, you can access all the installments of this series at this link.)
The bullet is more important than the caliber.
We know that our bullet needs to do damage to whatever important thing it manages to find. How, exactly, is that going to occur? It just so happens that most animal tissue (including that of the violent felon who has just attacked you) is remarkably elastic, and consequently difficult to damage. Most tissues have a tendency to "close up" around puncture wounds, in the same way that they close up after a hypodermic needle withdraws. If they didn't, every time we get a booster shot we'd spring a leak!
The upshot (pardon the pun) of this is that our bullet needs to die-cut or crush the tissues in its path, rather than sliding cleanly through. The reputation of the old .38 Special 158 grain round nose bullet as a "widow maker" was well deserved, as it often went in one side and out the other with very little blood loss. That smooth, aerodynamic profile travels through water-filled tissue about as cleanly as through air, for all the same reasons. It neatly parts that tissue in a way that facilitates immediate closure and minimal blood loss. In our sefl-defense scenario, that's what's known as "A Bad Thing."
In fact, round nose (or "ball") ammunition is an unremarkable performer in just about any caliber; "they all fall to hardball" is right up there with "the check is in the mail" for statements you should never believe, no matter how authoritatively (read: arrogantly) delivered.
If we can get a bullet to cut or crush a non-closing hole in the target, we stand a better chance of doing the kind of work necessary to cause that target to stop in its tracks.
The amount of disruption that a handgun bullet delivers to the target is dependent on its shape/construction and on the overall diameter (caliber.) A shape that encourages efficient travel through the target is to be avoided; a shape that is non-aerodynamic will generally produce the kind of result that we seek. All other things being equal, flat-faced bullets usually beat pointy bullets.
(Personally, I pay more attention to bullet construction than caliber. Hunting and shooting experience, plus a lot of research with those more knowledgeable in the field of wound ballistics, has convinced me that there is more variation in effectiveness within calibers than between them. In other words, you're more likely to see performance differences by changing your bullet type, rather than changing calibers. )
This isn't news to any old-timers out there! Hunters in bygone days were always told to use flat-pointed bullets over round-nosed varieties, because they delivered more "shock" to the quarry. That was their non-scientific way of explaining why the bullets obviously performed differently, and what they lacked in technical jargon was more than compensated by their acute observations.
Of course there just isn't a free lunch; those flat bullets don't usually work in autoloading actions, and they make speed reloading of a revolver more difficult. There is an answer: the expanding bullet. We can actually enhance the terminal results by using a bullet (usually a hollowpoint of some sort) that grows in diameter as it goes through the target.
A hollowpoint bullet works because, as it enters the target, it expands to a greater-than-caliber frontal diameter and assumes a very flat-faced shape. This means that the bullet can crush a much larger hole than normally possible for the caliber, ensuring the kind of target damage necessary to complete the task at hand.
There are, of course, issues in making these things perform as desired: first, the work of deforming the bullet takes energy. This energy can only be come from the bullet itself, which means there is that much less available to enable the bullet to continue its travel. Second, the resulting increase in drag from that wide face also uses energy at a tremendous rate, and thus also drastically limits penetration. Because of these factors, shallow wounds from hollowpoint bullets are not at all unheard of, both in hunting and in self defense.
The solution is to a) use a different cartridge that has enough energy to spare to begin with, or b) increase the energy of the existing cartridge. We'll tackle those issues next time!
<--- Click here for the previous episode ..................... Click here for the next episode --->
-=[ Grant ]=-
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber, Part 3
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
(For convenience, you can access all the installments of this series at this link.)
Once it gets there, it has to do work.
In today's installment, we're going to look at the second of the Twin Tasks:
2) The bullet has to do rapid and significant damage to that thing when it arrives.
It may not be self evident, but kinetic (moving) energy is either used or conserved (stored.) In the case of a bullet, it starts being used simply by fighting the friction caused by traveling through the air. Unless it encounters a target, the bullet will use all of its energy in flight and gravity will pull it to the ground. We're interested in using that energy for lawful purposes before it's wasted in the atmosphere!
I usually refer to the second Task as "doing work", because that's exactly what is expected of the bullet. From the perspective of the target, the kinetic energy in a bullet can only do one of two things: it can be used to do work, or it can be wasted beyond the target.
(There is no such thing as an "energy dump" in a target, no matter how many times you see that nonsensical term. The energy does some sort of work, whether doing damage to tissue or pushing the bullet through the air. The bullet may use up all of the energy available, and stop inside the target, but it doesn't "dump" anything. The energy in such an event is depleted in expansion/deformation and in forward movement, both of which are work. Whether or not the work performed was useful to the goal depends on what it encountered along the way, which brings us back to the First Task.)
As the bullet traverses the target, its energy is used to push it through material more dense than the air it previously encountered. The amount of energy used in this endeavor is dependent upon the shape of the bullet; the more streamlined the projectile, the smaller the frontal profile, the less energy is expended in pushing it through the target. Conversely, the "flatter" the bullet profile, the more energy is necessary to move it through.
Think of a rowboat paddle - easy to move through the water edge first, much harder face first. If the bullet expands in the target, some of the energy is used to deform the bullet itself, and the rest is used to push the much larger, flatter profile through the target. In some cases, it uses up all its energy trying to get through the target and never makes it out the other side. This is why, as we touched on in Part 2, penetration can be controlled through the use of an expanding bullet.
At some point, we hope that the bullet finds something that the body deems necessary for function - and disrupts that functioning. That item could be structural (skeletal) - where disruption causes collapse; It could be electrical, where interruption of signals causes instantaneous nervous system malfunction; or it could be vascular (plumbing), where large leaks cause a loss of pressure that eventually results in unconsciousness.
Whichever system is compromised, the bullet needs to use some of its energy to do the necessary work of disruption. This is why I say that the bullet has to do rapid and significant damage to something when it arrives; if it gets there, but has so little energy left that it is incapable of inflicting necessary damage, then it might as well have not gotten there to begin with.
(This is not to suggest that the bullet's wound in such a case is benign or trivial! Remember, we have a task for that bullet to accomplish; if it doesn't do so in the necessary time frame, then it is useless to us. The classic example is the attacker shot with a .22 but still able to complete his assault. He might die of peritonitis a few days later, proving that the wound is not unimportant. However, it didn't complete our goal of stopping the criminal before he could harm an innocent, making it irrelevant to our situation. Keep the end in mind!)
Now that we understand the Twin Tasks, we'll take a look at the mechanisms by which all this might be accomplished. Until next time!
<--- Click here for the previous episode ..................... Click here for the next episode --->
-=[ Grant ]=-
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber, Part 2
Monday, March 31, 2008
(For convenience, you can access all the installments of this series at this link.)
If it doesn't get somewhere, it can't do something.
OK, so we know about the Twin Tasks, the two things that a bullet has to do in order to stop an attacker:
1) It has to get to something the body finds important, and
2) It has to do rapid and significant damage to that thing when it arrives.
Today we'll be taking a look at Task #1: getting to something important.
Let's start by pointing out that the user of the bullet must be capable of putting it on a course that will lead it to something important. If the cartridge in question presents too much of a challenge for the shooter to handle with the requisite accuracy, it doesn't make any difference how "good" the cartridge is!
This is only given lip service by trainers and enthusiasts; they'll repeat the mantra "a hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .45", then in the same breath give some arbitrary limit on "acceptable" calibers for self defense. Folks, there are people in this world who do not wish to, or simply cannot, practice to become proficient with a "correct" caliber. When the time comes that they need the weapon, wouldn't it be better that they possess a bullet that they can send where it really needs to go? Of course!
Step One, then, is pick a cartridge that is within your ability to control.
Once the bullet is in the air, it has to negotiate all obstacles to reach a vital organ of some sort. This requires that it get through any outer shell (clothing), past the skin (which is a lot tougher than you might believe), and alternating layers of bone and muscle. It has to have what's known as 'penetration'.
Penetration is dependent on several things: the weight of the bullet, the diameter (caliber), the velocity, and the shape. If we were to take two bullets of different weight, but of the same caliber and shape and traveling at the same velocity, the heavier one would penetrate further. We can do the same comparison for any of the factors, as long as the others remain the same. If we had two bullets of different shapes - a round nose and a wadcutter - with everything else the same, the more streamlined bullet (the round nose) would penetrate further. Simple, right?
When we look at expanding (softnose or hollowpoint) bullets, which increase their diameter at some point in the target, the situation changes. The increased frontal are of the expanded bullet acts like a parachute, slowing it more rapidly and reducing penetration. Sometimes penetration can be reduced so much that the bullet will not reach anything important, and we're back to that unreliable psychological incapacitation thing again.
Remember that too much penetration can be as bad as too little. Having a bullet that sails through the target without doing much work, or (worse) encountering another (possibly) innocent target beyond, is not a good thing. Hence it behooves us to have a bullet which demonstrates sufficient penetration, but not an excessive amount.
It's not uncommon to find a cartridge that, when loaded with streamlined, roundnosed bullets, goes through multiple targets - but when loaded with expanding bullets stops inside the desired one. As it turns out, this behavior has major benefits in terms of terminal effects, which we'll cover next time.
<--- Click here for the previous episode ..................... Click here for the next episode --->
-=[ Grant ]=-
Turned out to be more work than I anticipated!
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
I'd hoped to have Part Two of the Self defense, stopping power, and caliber series up today. As I was writing over the last couple of days, I found myself adding more and more information to try to make sense of it all. That's a problem when trying to explain a complicated subject in a manner that is clear, concise, and still readable. It's proving to be a challenge for this amateur wordsmith, but I'm not giving up!
Stay tuned, it's coming...in the meantime, take a look at this story. What an idiot.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Self defense, stopping power, and caliber
Monday, March 24, 2008
I've gotten a bunch of emails recently regarding the choice of an appropriate self-defense caliber and/or bullet. Around this one topic swirls more misinformation - and outright inanity - than any other I can think of. And now, here's mine!
What follows is a layman's understanding, backed by research of available literature and years of hunting and shooting experience, of the practical mechanics of wound ballistics. It is not intended to be a complete and exhaustive study of the subject. Instead, I hope to give my readers - who are, in all likelihood, laypersons themselves - a solid base of information to help make good decisions when choosing self defense ammunition.
Let's start by understanding that in a self-defense scenario our goal is simply to cause the perpetrator of a crime to cease immediately his/her antisocial activities. That's it - we want the miscreant to quit doing whatever it was that caused us to draw our gun in the first place. The closer to "immediately" that this occurs, the better for all concerned.
There are two mechanisms by which this can be accomplished: psychological incapacitation and physical incapacitation.
The first - psychological incapacitation - is the least predictable of the two. Some people will stop and run when grazed by a well-thrown rock, others will soak up all manner of chemical, electrical, and physical deterrents without so much as flinching. Since it's all in the mind, and minds vary significantly (especially when intoxicated in some form), we cannot count on delivering a reliable jolt to a criminal's psyche. We must instead focus on doing enough physical damage to cause cessation of action through reduction of motor skills.
On this subject has been constructed all manner of measures, each attempting to quantify the unquantifiable: "One shot stops." "Knockout index." "Wound channel volume." There are more, and none of them ever seem to agree (at least most of the time) on what actually works.
Well, folks, hunters have known something for a very long time, and it has been proven in the field again and again: to reliably put the brakes on a living entity, a bullet must do what I call The Twin Tasks.
1) It has to get to something the body finds important, and
2) It has to do rapid and significant damage to that thing when it arrives.
That's it. Either, by itself, simply won't deliver the results we seek (at least, not in the physical sense.) If the projectile fails at either of these Tasks, any success that occurs is in fact a product of psychological incapacitation, which we already know to be both unpredictable and unreliable.
Keep in mind that as the bullet traverses the target, it may repeat the Tasks; in other words, it may encounter more than one thing the body finds important. The more times that it does, and then completes the second Task, the faster the incapacitation is likely to occur. (Note that I didn't say "will", only "likely to". Handgun rounds are underpowered things, and with them nothing is ever certain.)
Within certain limits, it doesn't really matter what the caliber is or what the bullet is made of or how fast it travels, as long as it does both of the Tasks. That's why there seems to be such a wide range of calibers, weights and velocities that have shown "good" results in self defense shootings, and why arguments about "stopping power" rage on the gun forums: there is, as the saying goes, more than one way to skin a cat.
Remember, as long as both Tasks are accomplished, the envelope of "how" they are is large enough to encompass a variety of approaches.
The reason that the "heavy and slow" and "light and fast" bullet camps exist is because, generally, their choices just happen do both of those Tasks on a fairly regular basis. Arguing about which is the "better" approach is really quite silly, because when they work it's because they did both Tasks, regardless of the actual mechanism; when they fail, it is simply because they didn't do one (or both) of the Tasks, again regardless of their physical attributes.
It's at this point that someone invariably chimes in "but my cousin is engaged to a girl whose brother-in-law heard about a guy who saw someone shot fifteen times with a 9mm, and the victim was still able to walk into a French restaurant, order a 5-course meal, eat, chat with the sommelier, and stiff the waiter before finally collapsing on the sidewalk while waiting for his cab! That's why I carry a .467 Loudenboomer Ultra Grande - if it hits them in the pinky the hydrostatic shock wave will knock them down!"
I'm exaggerating, you understand, but if you regularly haunt the gun forums you'll recognize that it isn't all that far off.
Yes, small caliber bullets fail. Guess what? Large caliber bullets fail, too. As someone once told me, "put on your big-boy pants and deal with it!"
A good friend gave me a first-hand account of a battle incident wherein a fellow absorbed several very large caliber, solid torso hits, and was still able to jump from his vehicle and cross a road before finally collapsing.
The gun in question? A .50 caliber heavy machine gun.
Yes, you read that correctly. Sometimes, folks, nothing works.
Our job is to choose those calibers and bullets which seem to do the Two Tasks fairly reliably, and prepare to deal with the times that it just isn't enough. With handgun rounds, those times are more common than the gunshop commandoes would have you believe.
In the next installment, we'll take a layman's look at the physics involved.
Click here to go to the next article --->
Or, you can access the series index at this link.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Can you hear me now? Part Deux
Monday, March 17, 2008
As I mentioned a while back, I recently decided to acquire new hearing protection to replace my aging Peltor electronic muffs. Durability and water resistance were at the top of my list, followed by sufficient clearance to comfortably shoot a rifle.
I chose the Swedish-made Sordin Supreme Pro-X unit, based on rave reviews from other users (and a very good friend.) Sordins have a great reputation in the "tactical" community for ruggedness, which is what I wanted. I also paid extra to get the ultra-cushy gel earmuffs, which (in my estimation) was money well spent!
The Sordin circuitry is a big step up from the old Peltors. (In all fairness, so are the current Peltors!) Instead of completely shutting down the electronics when a sound over it's threshold is detected, the Sordins simply reduce the volume to match that of the background. This is a great improvement, and makes for a far more natural sound than my old muffs.
What really surprised me was the sound quality: it is superb, far better than my old Peltors. When the earpiece volume is set to normal - that is, no amplification relative to the environment - the sound is crisp, clean, and darn near like not wearing the muffs at all. In contrast, my old muffs had a bit of a hollow sound, and a greatly attenuated upper register. Compared to the Sordins, they literally sound like a cheap AM radio!
The gel earpieces, as noted, are incredibly comfortable - well worth the premium over the standard foam one, which themselves are quite comfortable compared to others I've used. The gel pads, though, are just in another league altogether - and they seal around the ear for better protection to boot!
All in all, I'm happy with the Sordins (so far...we'll see how I feel about them a couple of years from now!) I got mine from a company called CSUK (yeah, I know, but keep reading.) Not only did they have the best price, their delivery was lightning fast. Frankly, of all the online companies I've dealt with, these guys are by far the fastest; incredible, actually. I've placed three orders with them so far, and all have been delivered before I ever expected them. That's service; CSUK gets two thumbs up from me!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday Meanderings
Monday, March 10, 2008
From Michael "Fashion Plate" Bane comes a story about cops and the 'Triangle of Death' (no, not THAT 'Triangle of Death' - this one is serious.) If you're a cop, you need to read it.
Reed and Malloy were in constant danger and didn't even know it!
---
After my lament last week, I went to a gunshow this weekend and found - of all things - a stainless Ruger Speed-Six in 9mm! The owner and I are dickering about the price right now, but (unfortunately) there is little recent sales data to go on. If you've seen such a beast sell in the last 6 months, please drop me an email and let me know what it went for. Much appreciated.
---
Crazy Rumor Department
Hey, Bane, you missed this one! Overheard at the gunshow: Colt has been sold to Norinco, so that they can have a domestic plant to get around import restrictions.
Ohhhhhh-kayyyyyyy....
---
'It Must Be Something In The Water' Department
Also overheard at the gunshow: the 9mm "doesn't work, so you need to go to a bigger caliber like .38 Special."
A math genius he ain't...
---
So much for my weekend. Back to the salt mines!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Can you hear me now?
Monday, February 18, 2008
It's time to shop for new
hearing protection.
My wife and I bought Peltor Model 7 electronic muffs quite a long time ago - over 10 years, if memory serves. They've held up remarkably well, even through torrential rain (common here in Oregon) and the inevitable bumps and knocks from being thrown into the back of the car. They're not terribly comfortable (though far more so than the infamous "vise-like" Wolf Ears), the interior padding is coming apart, and they're starting to pop and hiss and make crackling noises. Their time, sad to say, is coming to a rapid end.
As I shop I'm paying particular attention to suitability for use with rifles. The old Peltors are quite large, and getting a proper cheek weld on a rifle stock invariably knocks them slightly off of a perfect seal, resulting in sound leakage. It's not so much a problem when shooting by myself, but try it on a class firing line with another shooter next to you and you'll appreciate the issue!
The choice came down to the Peltor ComTac and the Sordin Supreme XL. Just a few minutes ago, I ordered the Sordins - the Peltor has a big battery compartment bulge on the left side, which meant that I'd have the aforementioned rifle problem when shooting from my weak side. (You don't do that? There are lots of good reasons to practice shooting a rifle from your weak side - just like your handgun.)
The Sordins have a phenomenal reputation for durability and waterproofness, and I have a close friend who has worn a pair for the last couple of years - and raves about them compared to his old Wolf Ears.
I'll let you know what I think once I've had a chance to put them through their paces.
-=[ Grant ]=-
My wife and I bought Peltor Model 7 electronic muffs quite a long time ago - over 10 years, if memory serves. They've held up remarkably well, even through torrential rain (common here in Oregon) and the inevitable bumps and knocks from being thrown into the back of the car. They're not terribly comfortable (though far more so than the infamous "vise-like" Wolf Ears), the interior padding is coming apart, and they're starting to pop and hiss and make crackling noises. Their time, sad to say, is coming to a rapid end.
As I shop I'm paying particular attention to suitability for use with rifles. The old Peltors are quite large, and getting a proper cheek weld on a rifle stock invariably knocks them slightly off of a perfect seal, resulting in sound leakage. It's not so much a problem when shooting by myself, but try it on a class firing line with another shooter next to you and you'll appreciate the issue!
The choice came down to the Peltor ComTac and the Sordin Supreme XL. Just a few minutes ago, I ordered the Sordins - the Peltor has a big battery compartment bulge on the left side, which meant that I'd have the aforementioned rifle problem when shooting from my weak side. (You don't do that? There are lots of good reasons to practice shooting a rifle from your weak side - just like your handgun.)
The Sordins have a phenomenal reputation for durability and waterproofness, and I have a close friend who has worn a pair for the last couple of years - and raves about them compared to his old Wolf Ears.
I'll let you know what I think once I've had a chance to put them through their paces.
-=[ Grant ]=-
FRIDAY SURPRISE: A more serious time
Friday, February 15, 2008
Students of espionage and
surveillance (which every security-conscious person should be)
understand how intelligence is actually gathered, and it isn't the
way it happens in Hollywood.
Those who watch too much TV think that security breaches come fully formed - that damaging information is gleaned nearly whole, needing only a few minor details filled in to make it valuable. While that may occasionally be true for satellite imaging, when putting together information gathered "on the ground" it is more like doing a jigsaw puzzle.
In reality, it is the small bits of information, gleaned from many sources, that form the picture one's opponent seeks. Even seemingly innocuous minutiae, in the hands of a skilled intelligence analyst, can help to flesh out a growing body of actionable information. Such little things - usually gathered informally and from the unwitting - are amazing valuable to the right person.
Back in World War II, the military needed to impress this concept on the U.S. population. "Mass media" back then meant radio, newspapers, and - most graphically - posters. Lots and lots of posters. Eye catching, colorful posters - works of art in their own right.
Check out some of the urgent messages they conveyed.
Here's a bunch more.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Those who watch too much TV think that security breaches come fully formed - that damaging information is gleaned nearly whole, needing only a few minor details filled in to make it valuable. While that may occasionally be true for satellite imaging, when putting together information gathered "on the ground" it is more like doing a jigsaw puzzle.
In reality, it is the small bits of information, gleaned from many sources, that form the picture one's opponent seeks. Even seemingly innocuous minutiae, in the hands of a skilled intelligence analyst, can help to flesh out a growing body of actionable information. Such little things - usually gathered informally and from the unwitting - are amazing valuable to the right person.
Back in World War II, the military needed to impress this concept on the U.S. population. "Mass media" back then meant radio, newspapers, and - most graphically - posters. Lots and lots of posters. Eye catching, colorful posters - works of art in their own right.
Check out some of the urgent messages they conveyed.
Here's a bunch more.
-=[ Grant ]=-
An interesting juxtaposition
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
I'm reading Monster Hunter
Nation's SHOT Show report, where I find this article about Simunition's new
offering. Seems their attitude is
that, since they only sell to military and law enforcement, and
those users follow their safety protocols, there won't be a
problem.
Now, read MHN's first-day SHOT Show report. See the connection?
-=[ Grant ]=-
Now, read MHN's first-day SHOT Show report. See the connection?
-=[ Grant ]=-
It's not often someone is willing to admit to doing dumb things
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
There are times that I feel
I'm harping on the safety issue, but with the number of grievous
injuries and deaths that occur I don't think it is
unwarranted.
The latest, sent to me by an alert reader, is a self-expose (complete with pictures) of a nasty handgun incident. Short version: this fellow, in an attempt to test a recently installed grip safety, pointed his gun at his leg and pulled the trigger. The sequence of events was predictable. (Warning - the pictures may be graphic for some people.)
Once again, I'm going to place the blame squarely on Traditional Rule #1: "All guns are always loaded", or any variant thereof. He felt free to do something blatantly stupid with his gun, because he was sure that he had unloaded it. Since he was sure that he unloaded it, in his mind the other rules obviously didn't apply. If they did, he wouldn't have pointed it at his leg as he intentionally pulled the trigger!
What bothers me most about this fellow's misfortune isn't that he was injured, but that he still doesn't get why it happened in the first place. He is so clueless about this, in fact, that he cites the classic Four Rules of Firearms Safety, starting with the offending Traditional Rule #1 in his article, and explaining to his readers that they should follow them. This is in fact the wrong thing to do, and is what caused his injuries.
It is my opinion that the more people who follow Traditional Rule #1, the more accidents like his will occur. Again, Traditional Rule #1 leads people to do dumb things with guns, because once they're convinced the gun is unloaded they feel at liberty to ignore the other three. In my opinion, we should instead be teaching people to follow the Three Commandments of Gun Safety religiously:
Let's look at his accident: he violated the First Commandment, because he thought the gun was unloaded.
He then violated the Second Commandment, because he thought the gun was unloaded.
Finally, he proceeded to violate the Third Commandment, because he thought the gun was unloaded.
The result? A large emergency room bill. Lots of pain. All because Traditional Rule #1 allowed him to do stupid things with a gun once he was "sure" it was unloaded!
(It is worth noting that the gentleman in question, one Darwin Teague, is on Usenet record as declaring that he would never carry a Glock, as he considers them to be "unsafe." With all due respect, Mr. Teague, if you do stupid things with guns, loaded or not, all the safety features in the world won't stop you from shooting yourself - as you have found out. I wish you luck, as you seem to need it.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
The latest, sent to me by an alert reader, is a self-expose (complete with pictures) of a nasty handgun incident. Short version: this fellow, in an attempt to test a recently installed grip safety, pointed his gun at his leg and pulled the trigger. The sequence of events was predictable. (Warning - the pictures may be graphic for some people.)
Once again, I'm going to place the blame squarely on Traditional Rule #1: "All guns are always loaded", or any variant thereof. He felt free to do something blatantly stupid with his gun, because he was sure that he had unloaded it. Since he was sure that he unloaded it, in his mind the other rules obviously didn't apply. If they did, he wouldn't have pointed it at his leg as he intentionally pulled the trigger!
What bothers me most about this fellow's misfortune isn't that he was injured, but that he still doesn't get why it happened in the first place. He is so clueless about this, in fact, that he cites the classic Four Rules of Firearms Safety, starting with the offending Traditional Rule #1 in his article, and explaining to his readers that they should follow them. This is in fact the wrong thing to do, and is what caused his injuries.
It is my opinion that the more people who follow Traditional Rule #1, the more accidents like his will occur. Again, Traditional Rule #1 leads people to do dumb things with guns, because once they're convinced the gun is unloaded they feel at liberty to ignore the other three. In my opinion, we should instead be teaching people to follow the Three Commandments of Gun Safety religiously:
Never point a gun - any gun, loaded or unloaded - at anything you are not willing to shoot.
Always be sure of your target, and the backstop behind it.
Keep your finger out of the triggerguard until your sights are on target and you are ready to shoot.
Let's look at his accident: he violated the First Commandment, because he thought the gun was unloaded.
He then violated the Second Commandment, because he thought the gun was unloaded.
Finally, he proceeded to violate the Third Commandment, because he thought the gun was unloaded.
The result? A large emergency room bill. Lots of pain. All because Traditional Rule #1 allowed him to do stupid things with a gun once he was "sure" it was unloaded!
(It is worth noting that the gentleman in question, one Darwin Teague, is on Usenet record as declaring that he would never carry a Glock, as he considers them to be "unsafe." With all due respect, Mr. Teague, if you do stupid things with guns, loaded or not, all the safety features in the world won't stop you from shooting yourself - as you have found out. I wish you luck, as you seem to need it.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
Monday catch-up
Monday, January 07, 2008
I usually don't get into
politics in this blog (I don't feel it's appropriate to the subject
matter I cover.) But, since the future occupant of 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue will have a direct impact on 2nd Amendment
issues, I'd like to address the upcoming primaries, both "D" and
"R". I keep hearing that this election is about "change." Call me a
curmudgeon, but I just don't see where shifting from one
overspending, big-government candidate to another overspending,
big-government candidate is "change."
---
Here in the Pacific Northwest, it seems that those who want to "protect and serve" don't handle firearms very well. Just the other day a former Marine and aspiring police officer shot and killed himself at a New Year's Eve party. Though the news accounts played up the "alcohol is involved" angle, in a television interview his girlfriend said that he simply believed that he had unloaded the pistol, and wanted to assuage his guest's fears by putting the gun to his head and pulling the trigger.
Sound familiar? Once again, the problem is that people treat guns they believe to be unloaded differently than those they don't.
---
I've been installing Bowen "Rough Country" rear sights on Ruger GP100s for a while, and the clients are very happy with them. The stock Ruger front sight, though, is very indistinct - rounded corners, irregular serrations, and sometimes uneven top surfaces. The Bowen front sight is a great alternative, though pricey - it is an expensive part, and has to be fitted and machined to desired shape. However, if you want the best sight picture possible on a Ruger, it is the way to go.
---
It's a new year, and still no Dan Wesson .357 revolvers from CZ-USA. I'm wondering if they're going to show the shop-worn prototype at the SHOT show next month, and once again claim that they're "coming real soon now!"?
-=[ Grant ]=-
---
Here in the Pacific Northwest, it seems that those who want to "protect and serve" don't handle firearms very well. Just the other day a former Marine and aspiring police officer shot and killed himself at a New Year's Eve party. Though the news accounts played up the "alcohol is involved" angle, in a television interview his girlfriend said that he simply believed that he had unloaded the pistol, and wanted to assuage his guest's fears by putting the gun to his head and pulling the trigger.
Sound familiar? Once again, the problem is that people treat guns they believe to be unloaded differently than those they don't.
---
I've been installing Bowen "Rough Country" rear sights on Ruger GP100s for a while, and the clients are very happy with them. The stock Ruger front sight, though, is very indistinct - rounded corners, irregular serrations, and sometimes uneven top surfaces. The Bowen front sight is a great alternative, though pricey - it is an expensive part, and has to be fitted and machined to desired shape. However, if you want the best sight picture possible on a Ruger, it is the way to go.
---
It's a new year, and still no Dan Wesson .357 revolvers from CZ-USA. I'm wondering if they're going to show the shop-worn prototype at the SHOT show next month, and once again claim that they're "coming real soon now!"?
-=[ Grant ]=-
A little too close to home
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
A recently discharged Marine
decides he wants to become a cop - a member of a SWAT team, no
less. So he signs on with a local Sheriff's Office, and prepares
for his new career by practicing his quick draw.
With a loaded gun.
In the house.
With his wife home.
With his finger on the ?#$@!!*&^% trigger.
Unusually strident for me, you say? Maybe it's because the victim worked at the pet store where my wife and I shop. We even know her dog. We're pissed.
Is this another failure of Traditional Rule #1? Possibly - likely, even. One thing is certain: this guy had some mental justification for doing something stupid with a gun, and his wife paid the ultimate price. I haven't seen any interview with him - yet - but I'll bet one of the first things he'll say is "I thought it was unloaded."
(And to think that one of the "talking points" of the anti-gun crowd is that "only the military and law enforcement can be trusted with guns." Yeah, right.
If there are any readers of this blog in Clark County, make absolutely sure Sheriff Lucas understands that hiring this fellow would be a really, really bad idea.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
With a loaded gun.
In the house.
With his wife home.
With his finger on the ?#$@!!*&^% trigger.
Unusually strident for me, you say? Maybe it's because the victim worked at the pet store where my wife and I shop. We even know her dog. We're pissed.
Is this another failure of Traditional Rule #1? Possibly - likely, even. One thing is certain: this guy had some mental justification for doing something stupid with a gun, and his wife paid the ultimate price. I haven't seen any interview with him - yet - but I'll bet one of the first things he'll say is "I thought it was unloaded."
(And to think that one of the "talking points" of the anti-gun crowd is that "only the military and law enforcement can be trusted with guns." Yeah, right.
If there are any readers of this blog in Clark County, make absolutely sure Sheriff Lucas understands that hiring this fellow would be a really, really bad idea.)
-=[ Grant ]=-
It could have been much worse
Monday, December 10, 2007
By now you've no doubt heard
about the attempted massacre at the New Life Church in Colorado
Springs, CO.
To recap: man takes rifle into church parking lot, where he proceeds to shoot four people (two would later die) before making his way into the sanctuary. Luckily for the 7,000 people there, the church had a volunteer armed security staff, one of whom engaged and killed the attacker before he could get fully into that "target rich" environment.
It's no secret that many churches have, in the last decade, recruited armed volunteer security forces from their members. The media is doing it's level best to imply that the security person involved was an off-duty cop or paid security guard, but the fact is that she was a volunteer member of the church's security team. She was a concerned member who donated her time and skills to help protect her fellow congregates.
The outcome was, at least in my point of view, quite acceptable. I'm sure, however, that the more left-leaning religious organizations in this country will fail to learn from this example. (Were I a member of such an organization, I would reconsider my affiliation.)
Contrast this with last week's mall attack where eight people died - the mall was, like many others around the country, posted to be a gun-free zone. (Interesting tidbit: the mall management apparently removed all signage regarding their weapons policy shortly after the shooting occurred. Perhaps they're trying to cover their rears for the inevitable civil suits heading their way...) The result was the creation of a huge pool of potential victims, of which the gunman took full advantage.
Sadly, the lesson is lost on a surprisingly large percentage of the American public. The media certainly isn't on our sides, so it's up to us. When you find yourself in gatherings this holiday season, and the topic comes up, be sure to give a calm, rational, and factual response to those who fail to grasp the concepts ivolved. The more people whose minds we change, the fewer victims we'll have.
-=[ Grant ]=-
To recap: man takes rifle into church parking lot, where he proceeds to shoot four people (two would later die) before making his way into the sanctuary. Luckily for the 7,000 people there, the church had a volunteer armed security staff, one of whom engaged and killed the attacker before he could get fully into that "target rich" environment.
It's no secret that many churches have, in the last decade, recruited armed volunteer security forces from their members. The media is doing it's level best to imply that the security person involved was an off-duty cop or paid security guard, but the fact is that she was a volunteer member of the church's security team. She was a concerned member who donated her time and skills to help protect her fellow congregates.
The outcome was, at least in my point of view, quite acceptable. I'm sure, however, that the more left-leaning religious organizations in this country will fail to learn from this example. (Were I a member of such an organization, I would reconsider my affiliation.)
Contrast this with last week's mall attack where eight people died - the mall was, like many others around the country, posted to be a gun-free zone. (Interesting tidbit: the mall management apparently removed all signage regarding their weapons policy shortly after the shooting occurred. Perhaps they're trying to cover their rears for the inevitable civil suits heading their way...) The result was the creation of a huge pool of potential victims, of which the gunman took full advantage.
Sadly, the lesson is lost on a surprisingly large percentage of the American public. The media certainly isn't on our sides, so it's up to us. When you find yourself in gatherings this holiday season, and the topic comes up, be sure to give a calm, rational, and factual response to those who fail to grasp the concepts ivolved. The more people whose minds we change, the fewer victims we'll have.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Defensive ammo update
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
It's been several years
since Speer introduced their Gold Dot Short Barrel Personal
Protection 38 Special +P loading. It looked good on paper, and the
Gold Dot line has a superb reputation for performance, but many of
us prefer to carry well-tested ammunition. Let someone else be the
guinea pig!
Sporadic reports have come in that the Gold Dot load is "working"; Massad Ayoob told me that he's heard around the country that people are "satisfied" with the performance. Still, I'd not been able to run down anything more specific.
That is, until yesterday, when one of my clients called. He's a higher-up in a large metropolitan police department and a long-time revolver carrier. He indicates that his department has had several shootings with the Speer load, and that he personally knows two of the officers who have used it. His verdict? The load performs as advertised - very effective at stopping violent action.
He notes, based on his agency's long experience with the famous 158gn +P loads from various makers, that the new Speer 135gn appears to be very similar in terms of terminal effect. "No complaints", was his succinct summation.
Good news for those who have chosen this load!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Sporadic reports have come in that the Gold Dot load is "working"; Massad Ayoob told me that he's heard around the country that people are "satisfied" with the performance. Still, I'd not been able to run down anything more specific.
That is, until yesterday, when one of my clients called. He's a higher-up in a large metropolitan police department and a long-time revolver carrier. He indicates that his department has had several shootings with the Speer load, and that he personally knows two of the officers who have used it. His verdict? The load performs as advertised - very effective at stopping violent action.
He notes, based on his agency's long experience with the famous 158gn +P loads from various makers, that the new Speer 135gn appears to be very similar in terms of terminal effect. "No complaints", was his succinct summation.
Good news for those who have chosen this load!
-=[ Grant ]=-
Green with envy
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Ever run across someone who
does something so much better than you, that you are simultaneously
awed and angered?
I get that way when I read Marko's blog "The Munchkin Wrangler." His writing positively sparkles; he's able to relay conceptual topics in an elegant and concise manner that is so much better than my lame attempts.
His latest missive deals with the idea that one should simply "give criminals what they want and they'll leave you alone." It's so good, it should be required reading for everyone - whether they carry a gun or not.
Don't miss it.
-=[ Grant ]=-
I get that way when I read Marko's blog "The Munchkin Wrangler." His writing positively sparkles; he's able to relay conceptual topics in an elegant and concise manner that is so much better than my lame attempts.
His latest missive deals with the idea that one should simply "give criminals what they want and they'll leave you alone." It's so good, it should be required reading for everyone - whether they carry a gun or not.
Don't miss it.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Tongue-tied
Monday, October 08, 2007
I just can't think of
anything to say today. This is beyond writer's block - my mind is
simply blank.
I'd thought of commenting on an email I received that was critical of my position in the article On Safety, but it seems like beating a dead horse.
Tam put up an interesting post on the S&W Model 53, but a simple link is hardly sufficient for a whole blog post.
A tragic shooting in small-town America shows just how ridiculous it is to insist that only the police and military have guns. I could comment, but I think the story is self-explanatory.
I guess I'll just fall back on this: it's stupid to make pets out of wild animals. Especially heavily-armed wild animals.
-=[ Grant ]=-
I'd thought of commenting on an email I received that was critical of my position in the article On Safety, but it seems like beating a dead horse.
Tam put up an interesting post on the S&W Model 53, but a simple link is hardly sufficient for a whole blog post.
A tragic shooting in small-town America shows just how ridiculous it is to insist that only the police and military have guns. I could comment, but I think the story is self-explanatory.
I guess I'll just fall back on this: it's stupid to make pets out of wild animals. Especially heavily-armed wild animals.
-=[ Grant ]=-
Following the safety rules religiously
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
In last week's
article, I mentioned that there was
an ancient religious principle that can help keep you safe from
firearms accidents. Allow me to digress for just a moment to give
you the necessary background.
As you may know, Orthodox Jews have a rather rigorous set of rules that they follow. According to their tradition, there are 613 commandments in the Torah (their Bible, which consists of the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.) Imagine trying to keep track of, let alone follow, 613 commandments!
To make the job easier and to prevent the unintentional transgression of a commandment, they have a concept called gezeirah, which is explained as "building a fence around the Torah." This idea, which goes back roughly 800 years, refers to the additional precepts that one should follow to avoid even coming close to violating a commandment itself. They supply a sort of early warning system; if you know that you've broken the lesser rule, you know that you're in danger of violating the more sacred one.
Now I'm not saying that everyone should run out and become Orthodox Jews (you'd have to give up Saturday morning cartoons and pepperoni pizza, for starters), but the concept of a "fence" around a core set of rules is as good for keeping us physically safe as it is for safeguarding their spiritual well-being.
So, if our overriding precepts are the Three Commandments of Gun Safety:
These additional rules don't relieve you of the need for always following the Three Commandments, and are never to be considered any exception to any of them. They are a supplement. They provide one extra guard, one extra layer of security, before you're put into a situation where the "fail-safe" of the Commandments is all that stands between you and grievous injury. They set up an attitude, a frame of mind, that makes an accident all the less likely.
For instance, I have my own fence: my shop is a sterile area, meaning that there is no live ammunition in the shop area proper. (Need I mention that there are no exceptions?) I still follow the Three Commandments, mind you, but following the rule of no live ammo in the shop area makes the constant handling lots of guns even safer.
Now go and sin - ballistically speaking - no more!
-=[ Grant ]=-
As you may know, Orthodox Jews have a rather rigorous set of rules that they follow. According to their tradition, there are 613 commandments in the Torah (their Bible, which consists of the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.) Imagine trying to keep track of, let alone follow, 613 commandments!
To make the job easier and to prevent the unintentional transgression of a commandment, they have a concept called gezeirah, which is explained as "building a fence around the Torah." This idea, which goes back roughly 800 years, refers to the additional precepts that one should follow to avoid even coming close to violating a commandment itself. They supply a sort of early warning system; if you know that you've broken the lesser rule, you know that you're in danger of violating the more sacred one.
Now I'm not saying that everyone should run out and become Orthodox Jews (you'd have to give up Saturday morning cartoons and pepperoni pizza, for starters), but the concept of a "fence" around a core set of rules is as good for keeping us physically safe as it is for safeguarding their spiritual well-being.
So, if our overriding precepts are the Three Commandments of Gun Safety:
What kinds of rules might constitute our "fence"? Well, they might include the "Seven Rules of Dry-Fire":Never point a gun - any gun, loaded or unloaded - at anything you are not willing to shoot.
Always be sure of your target, and the backstop behind it.
Keep your finger out of the triggerguard until your sights are on target and you are ready to shoot.
The NRA has a poster of 10 or 12 firearms rules that could constitute another fence, and I'm sure you'll find more. Some may be very general, others may be specific to the range you're using or the particular shooting activity in which you're participating.- Select the proper time and place (alone, no distractions, safe backstop).
- Remove all live ammunition from your training area (including those in your own gun and the gun that you will use for dry fire).
- Go into “practice mode” state of mind. Say out loud: “This is practice time, I am going to practice now.”
- Perform practice.
- When practice is over, go into “reality mode.” Say out loud: “Practice is over, this is real.”
- Put the gun into the condition in which it is normally kept.
- Put the gun away immediately (secured).
These additional rules don't relieve you of the need for always following the Three Commandments, and are never to be considered any exception to any of them. They are a supplement. They provide one extra guard, one extra layer of security, before you're put into a situation where the "fail-safe" of the Commandments is all that stands between you and grievous injury. They set up an attitude, a frame of mind, that makes an accident all the less likely.
For instance, I have my own fence: my shop is a sterile area, meaning that there is no live ammunition in the shop area proper. (Need I mention that there are no exceptions?) I still follow the Three Commandments, mind you, but following the rule of no live ammo in the shop area makes the constant handling lots of guns even safer.
Now go and sin - ballistically speaking - no more!
-=[ Grant ]=-
On safety
Thursday, September 27, 2007
A reader alerted me to this thread over at GlockTalk, where a debate about the first of Jeff Cooper's "Four Rules of Gun Safety" is raging. Specifically, the argument centers on the allowable "exceptions" to Rule #1: "All guns are always loaded" (or, alternatively, "Treat all guns as if they were loaded.")
I feel entitled to comment, inasmuch as the observance of said rule by gunsmiths has been invoked as one of the "exceptions." I take exception to that exception, and in fact take exception to the very notion of exceptions! Allow me to explain, and perhaps start some exceptional controversy of my own.
To be blunt: I don't like Rule #1. In fact, I believe that it is not just unnecessary, but that it actually sets people up to have accidents. I don't believe it makes anyone safer - I contend that it has the opposite effect.
It boils down to this: people do stupid things with guns that they perceive are unloaded. (Re-read that line, focusing on the word "perceive.") Once people have convinced themselves that a gun is unloaded, they treat it differently. That is where accidents occur.
The trouble with Rule #1 is that it encourages such shoddy behavior.
Follow me here: "treat all guns as if they were loaded" tacitly admits that there are, in fact, two states for a firearm - loaded and unloaded. If there were not an unloaded state, it would not be necessary to admonish someone to treat a gun "as if" it were in the loaded state, would it? If unloaded guns did not exist, the statement would make no sense. Therefore, the phrase itself establishes that there exists such a thing as an unloaded gun. Clear so far?
While Rule #1 logically admits that there is such a thing as an unloaded gun, it asks us to pretend that it doesn't really exist. This is important, as the rule only makes sense if the state of being 'unloaded' exists, but it implores us to make believe that such a state doesn't really exist. This situation is called cognitive dissonance: holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. It's a state of mind that humans don't tolerate all that well.
If one accepts the fallacy that an unloaded state doesn't exist, it becomes clear in the mind that the remaining three rules apply only to loaded guns. After all, the first rule says that there is no such thing as an unloaded gun; therefore, the other three rules can apply only to loaded guns, because - remember! - unloaded guns "don't exist."
Here's where that cognitive dissonance thing comes back to bite us. The human mind cannot maintain two contradictory concepts ("there is such a thing as an unloaded gun, but it doesn't exist because all guns are always loaded") without resolving them in some fashion. The way that most (if not all) people apparently resolve this is to apply the rules to all guns, unless they've convinced themselves that the gun in question isn't loaded.
In other words, to resolve the logical conflict that Rule #1 establishes, the mind translates it to say "treat all guns as if they are loaded, unless you've verified that they aren't." The other three rules are tossed right out the window, because they obviously don't apply to unloaded guns!
See how this comes about? If not, re-read the preceding paragraphs.
That, gentle readers, is the crux of the problem! The sad side of Rule #1 is that it implies once you've verified a gun is unloaded, the rest of the rules don't apply to it; you may handle it differently. That's when the accidents come, and is why I say that people do stupid things with guns that they think are unloaded.
Proof? Easy: it is axiomatic that all gun accidents occur with unloaded guns. Those are guns that people had convinced themselves were not in the loaded state, and therefore didn't fall under the rest of the rules. No matter what the experience or training level of the person involved, "I thought it was unloaded" is the first excuse out of their mouths when something bad happens.
Need more? Here's an interactive proof: go into any gun store, and watch as customers (and often the counter clerks) sweep muzzles over everyone in the store. Now complain to a clerk about the shoddy practice; I guarantee the first thing you'll hear from his or her mouth is "don't worry, it's not loaded."
Still not convinced? Ask Massad Ayoob to tell you the tragic story of a well regarded and highly experienced competition shooter who accidentally killed his wife - with an "unloaded" gun, of course. My contention is that he followed Rule #1 like most people, but that it's logical failings caused him to treat the gun differently because he was sure it was unloaded. The result was sadly inevitable.
This is why the forum debate runs so many pages, and ultimately devolves into the attitude "of course, Rule #1 doesn't apply to experienced shooters, who understand what the exceptions are." I'm sorry, folks, but I believe that any safety rule that implies or encourages "exceptions" - experienced operator or no - is a "rule" that should be thrown out.
One of the best shooting instructors I know - Georges Rahbani - has done just that. He acknowledged the problem and dealt with the issue by eliminating what I'll call "Traditional Rule #1" from his curriculum. Instead, he teaches that any and all guns, loaded or unloaded, are treated to the same standards, which he calls The Three Commandments of Gun Safety:
There are no exceptions, and thus less chance for the accidents that usually result from them.Never point a gun - any gun, loaded or unloaded - at anything you are not willing to shoot.
Always be sure of your target, and the backstop behind it.
Keep your finger out of the triggerguard until your sights are on target and you are ready to shoot.
These rules build on and cover for each other; should someone accidentally violate one of them, the other two remain operative to prevent an injury. The goal of gun rules is to prevent injury or death, to the shooter or others; if one follows these rules without exception, whether the gun is loaded or not, it will reduce that risk to the lowest probability.
As you might guess, in my line of work the chances of a negligent discharge are somewhat higher than usual. Consequently, my interest in the safety rules is higher than usual! The online debate mentions that gunsmiths must, out of necessity, violate the Traditional Rule #1 and thus don't need to follow the other rules.
Not in MY shop, bunky!
I follow the Three Rules as codified above. I don't point a gun (any assembly capable of igniting a cartridge) at anything I'm not willing to shoot. That means, in my case, a solid concrete wall in the back of my hillside shop. Because of that, I know what my target is, and what the backstop is. Finally, I don't put my finger into the triggerguard until my sights are on target (the gun is pointing at that backstop.) Yes, all the time and every time; I'm rather fond of my various body parts, and desire to retain them in full operating condition!
I think that's enough pot-stirring for one day. Next time, we'll see how an ancient religious principle can help to reinforce the constant observance of the safety rules.
-=[ Grant ]=-
A different approach to the backup revolver
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
A gentleman wrote in asking
about small backup revolvers - that is, a revolver to carry as a
backup to a primary revolver.
I know that many people carry their primary gun on their hip, with a lightweight (aluminum, titanium, scandium) wheelgun in an ankle holster, and I know a couple of folks who carry a S&W "J" frame in a front pants pocket as a second gun.
This is not what the writer had in mind, though. He was thinking of a very small (smaller than a "J" frame) "subcompact" revolver for a second gun, in the same way that there are subcompact autoloaders (Seecamp, Kel-Tec, etc.) to serve as backups to a larger autoloader. Sadly, the market in this case is pretty limited.
The only one that comes quickly to mind is the North American Arms "Mini" revolver in .22LR and .22WMR. (The Magnum, of course, would be a better choice than the Long Rifle, ballistically speaking.) The trouble with these guns is that 1) I've never seen one that could be even charitably referred to as reliable, and 2) they are harder than heck to even keep on an IDPA target at 7 feet, let alone be assured of a solid hit in the vitals.
Beyond that there are only the much larger S&W "J" frame guns (and the Taurus equivalents, though I'm not wild about them.) However, there may be a "blast from the past" that is worth considering: the Colt Pocket Positive. Never heard of it? Well, you're in for a treat!
The Pocket Positive was nothing more than a scaled-down "D" frame (Detective Special, etc.) After all, the "D" frame was just a scaled down "E" frame (Official Police, etc.) so why not go even smaller? The Pocket Positive was a tiny little gun - considerably smaller than even a "J" frame. (A cylinder on the Colt measures 1.240", while the "J" frame comes in at 1.310". What really makes the difference, though, is the frame - the Pocket Positive is a tiny, almost jewel-like gun, noticeably smaller than the popular "J".) The action is, as noted, of normal Colt design, and should smooth up as nicely as its bigger brothers.
The Pocket Positive was most commonly chambered in the .32 Colt Police round, aka the .32 S&W Long. Now the .32 S&W round isn't terribly powerf
I know that many people carry their primary gun on their hip, with a lightweight (aluminum, titanium, scandium) wheelgun in an ankle holster, and I know a couple of folks who carry a S&W "J" frame in a front pants pocket as a second gun.
This is not what the writer had in mind, though. He was thinking of a very small (smaller than a "J" frame) "subcompact" revolver for a second gun, in the same way that there are subcompact autoloaders (Seecamp, Kel-Tec, etc.) to serve as backups to a larger autoloader. Sadly, the market in this case is pretty limited.
The only one that comes quickly to mind is the North American Arms "Mini" revolver in .22LR and .22WMR. (The Magnum, of course, would be a better choice than the Long Rifle, ballistically speaking.) The trouble with these guns is that 1) I've never seen one that could be even charitably referred to as reliable, and 2) they are harder than heck to even keep on an IDPA target at 7 feet, let alone be assured of a solid hit in the vitals.
Beyond that there are only the much larger S&W "J" frame guns (and the Taurus equivalents, though I'm not wild about them.) However, there may be a "blast from the past" that is worth considering: the Colt Pocket Positive. Never heard of it? Well, you're in for a treat!
The Pocket Positive was nothing more than a scaled-down "D" frame (Detective Special, etc.) After all, the "D" frame was just a scaled down "E" frame (Official Police, etc.) so why not go even smaller? The Pocket Positive was a tiny little gun - considerably smaller than even a "J" frame. (A cylinder on the Colt measures 1.240", while the "J" frame comes in at 1.310". What really makes the difference, though, is the frame - the Pocket Positive is a tiny, almost jewel-like gun, noticeably smaller than the popular "J".) The action is, as noted, of normal Colt design, and should smooth up as nicely as its bigger brothers.
The Pocket Positive was most commonly chambered in the .32 Colt Police round, aka the .32 S&W Long. Now the .32 S&W round isn't terribly powerf