Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Revolvers as a "roving gun." - via Warriortalk Forums

In Defense of the Revolver.

So why do some of us still rely on a revolver?

Reasons for a revolver :

Civilian fights happen up close generally!
So close that a misfire or pistol jam will NOT be resolved in time to prevent being shot/stabbed/whatever.

I have, over the years, (33 years since I bought my first handgun,) had a few misfires.
A misfire with a revolver is resolved by simply squeezing the trigger again.

I have had a build up of powder residue which stopped (malfunctioned) my revolver, but this was after many rounds, during competition.
This never happened with the first couple of dozen, - the "important" rounds of course.

Pistol slides can be pushed back with the result that the disconector inables the gun to fire.
Not so with a revolver.
One can stick a revolver right into a BGs guts and squeeze the trigger, knowing full well that the gun will fire.
Revolvers (these days anyway,) have heavy (but smooth) double action triggers, which certainly help in preventing ADs.

A revolver can be loaded with the widest, and most extreme HP round, with no feeding problems.
We can load Full Wadcutters if we wish!

Revolvers can be left (they shouldn't be of course,) with little or no maintenance for months.
Just like my external hammers, double barrel, side by side shotgun, revolvers do not need to be checked frequently.

A revolver looks like the real gun that it is.
Some small pistols look like toys.
Pull out a S&W .44 magnum and you will get the BG's attention! :D
How many armed BGs are we capable of shooting down, before one of the number hits us with their fire?

1?
2?
3?
4?

If they are 'wankers', then they will flee with our fire. We could probably send them running with shots from a .22 "saturday night special".

If they are trained and professional, then we will have problems.

I have mentioned, various times here on WT, that IMHO, the best combination is a service pistol and a smallish revolver as a "roving gun".

A small 'J' frame revolver that can be fired from a pocket, 'palmed' and held "gun in hand" in many instances.

If we 'spray and pray' with half a dozen rounds, then we achieve nothing more than a round or two that misses from our revolver!

"So what", you might ask?

Having only 6 or so rounds in our gun, tends to make us control our fire better.

We know that we cannot just squeeze the trigger in a hasty manner. We know that we have to make our shots count.
But the well trained person with good mindset, is suitably armed IMHO with a quality revolver.

I have lived here in Brazil for 22 years. Most of this time in Rio de Janeiro.
I have pulled my revolver(s) on several occasions.
The problem was resolved in most cases, without firing a shot.
When (a) shot(s) was/were required, the revolver had sufficient ammo.

Regards,
Anthony.

When a Revolver beats a Pistol.

It was early January 1990.
I had arrived the day before on the Madeira river, in Rondonia state, Brazil, at a gold prospecting camp. Dredges, about a hundred of them, all floating.

We were all tied together with rope and steel cable. Tied up on the river bank were the floating shops that supported the whole 'garimpo' ( prospecting camp.)

There were bars, mini supermarkets, brothels, welders, etc. One could find everything one wanted.
Including drugs of course.
The currency was gold.
Ten cans of beer cost a gram. Weighed in front of the purchaser.

Firearms were abundant. Mostly .38 revolvers and .32 ACP or .380 ACP pistols. Taurus and Rossi of course, being Brazil. The occasional Rossi shotgun or lever action .38 carbine ( Winchester '92 copy,) would appear in the hands of a prospector.


So I and the owner of the dredge which I was going to manage were drinking coffee on the varanda of his dredge. The dredge was tied up right close to the floating shops and bars.

Two men were sitting at a table on the porch of a bar, and seemed to be in a heated arguement. We were about 30 metres away at the most. The owner of the dredge told me "those two deal in drugs."
I thanked him for the information. I really had absolutely no interest in drugs. I never have, except for my legal tobacco and alcohol.

As we watched the arguement, right before our eyes, one of the men stood up and pulled out a pistol!
He pointed it at the other man and we could see that he was squeezing the trigger.
There was no 'bang'.
The other man stood up and pulled a small revolver from his waistband. The pistol wielder was squeezing the trigger on his double action pistol with a certain frenzy!
There were five loud bangs as the revolver was discharged into the pistol wielder's chest.


This was a lesson for me.
I love a fine service pistol, but at what I call "bad breath distances" I much prefer a revolver.

OK.....I know very well that the pistol owner had probably neglected to change his ammo etc, something important in the tropics.
But a malfunction drill would not have been quick enough for that distance of across the table.

This incident, and later incidents up there in the Amazon region, helped me with my idea of a pistol in a fixed position, but a small revolver as a "roving" gun.

When we have time, the pistol is the first choice.
But when we have to react to an "in our face" situation, then I want a revolver in AIWB, or my pocket, or "palmed" perhaps, - whatever?
I want to be able to squeeze the trigger on a bad cartridge and turn the cylinder to put a fresh cartridge under the hammer.


As I watched this incident, I was pleased that I had chosen to take my Taurus Model 82S to the camp, instead of my Colt .45 1911. Both would have been better, but I chose the revolver.


The killer jumped in a small boat and starting the outboard motor, sped off.

The dead man was pushed into the river. He floated into our dredge, so the owner asked a worker to push his body away with a pole.
The dead man floated off to wherever? The Amazon river perhaps, if the fish didn't eat his body before arriving. The Madeira river is an Amazon tributary, but the Amazon was a good 1000 kms down river.
My thread is really just to point out two things:
a) That a revolver is not dead and gone. ;)
b) That at "bad breath distances" we need reliability before anything else.

These guys didn't even register their sights.
They just stuck their guns out in front, a foot or two from the chest of their opponent and started to squeeze their triggers!

Regards,
Anthony.

Sources-from Warriortalk...

http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?67870-In-Defense-of-the-Revolver.&highlight=Moonclips

http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?39445-When-a-Revolver-beats-a-Pistol

Monday, January 12, 2015

Can you learn self-defense from the Internet?

           I often see self-defense folks, gun guys, weapon "experts" and martial artists of varying styles mocking the concept of learning via internet youtube videos or DVD's, but I think their criticism is unfounded . I've looked at the resume at many of the people throwing out the derogatory comments and notice repeatedly that a lot, if not the majority, of their training often has come from various seminars. I'm not referring to just some random anonymous guys on forums, but many prominent defense instructors. They teach every physical component of defense(firearms, blades, impact weapons, unarmed Combatives) and feel qualified to do so with the bulk of their "expert" knowledge being derived from these seminars while being dismissive of anyone who didn't receive all their training in person. I've been to a lot of seminars in my 30 years of involvement in self-defense and they have all pretty much been the same. They are generally short on detailed information and the material is diluted and condensed to fit in the allotted time(not necessarily a bad thing in itself) and you don't receive a whole lot of one on one instruction. Most often the instructor stands in front of the group lecturing(usually much more so than interacting and discussing), demonstrating and occasionally walking around giving a few pointers as the attendees practice the techniques. How is that all that different from watching a video of the seminar? I've attended many seminars and watched videos of seminars and to tell you the truth, I never felt they were all that different although there are a select few trainers that give better (needs to be small group) seminars than others.
                 Now, if your goal is to be a recognized "certified" authority or authentic "expert" whatever that means to you(it's definition often differs) in the entirety of a particular self-defense method or system, then your probably in anyone's perspective going to need actual first hand formal, live, in person instruction from a "recognized" actual instructor as there are many subtle nuances and on sight immediate direction and correction that can only be made with them there with you in person for intensive training. But, were talking about just learning some practical effective self-defense techniques and often that context, simple is best and in certain cases, some forms of in depth training are unnecessary, overly complex and actually wasteful and a hindrance to that goal. And we are also comparing video learning with seminars, not in becoming a "master" of a particular martial art or other complete defense "system" and in that case, book, video and correspondence learning is pretty much an equivalently effective learning method. It is even more so if someone has had actual proper and effective in person instruction. Someone who already has fairly extensive training can usually take a video of a certain new technique or concept, study it, try it out, train it and be able to effectively apply it. We also have the modern benefit of email, so you can always follow up with any questions you have as most instructors are pretty accessible and open to questions or they at the very least have a presence on one or another self-defense forum. Plus, if video learning/DVDs are worthless, why does almost every single prominent instructors offer instructional DVDs? Are they dishonest charlatans offering a completely worthless product? If so, then why would you want to receive actual in person training from them?
           I think a lot also depends on the individual. Some folks have a lot of natural ability and are very quick learners who can visually watch something once or even just read about it and understand it and even apply it while others need to study and train hard, be corrected constantly and ask question after question to even marginally understand and effectively apply it. And what about the most important skills? The first priority of true self-defense is to avoid the situation altogether. The most effective way not to get shot, stabbed or beat up is to not get into a violent confrontation in the first place, so avoidance skills such as situational awareness, de-escalation and escape strategies are the most important skills we need to study, understand and be able to implement and you do not need to have live, in person training to learn those skills. We have tremendous access to information available to us that I only dreamed of when I started training back in the 80's and to not take advantage of it because of some distorted idea that learning and understanding can only come directly from in person training rather than books, video or correspondence is nonsensical and severely limits opportunities of learning.
 

Monday, September 8, 2014

Sights-What and Why? By Gabe Suarez

 
        
       There was a time in our development when we thought that all pistols needed high visibility sights. "You must use the sights, always, and at all distances" we were told by the gun gurus of a prior age, and like faithful followers, we shipped our guns to the smith to have them suitably arranged. And yes, sights that were easier to see made those 1 1/2 second head shots at 3 yards very easy to make, and right inside the "credit card" too. "Bravo!", we thought, as we holstered our 45s into our pricey Milt Sparks rigs (just like the instructor had) and walked up to examine the group with a jaunty swagger.

But then...something changed. Some crazy guy thought to have students shoot each other with Airsoft BB guns. Shooters would replicate exactly the drills that formed the Modern Technique, and that Gusmoke's Matt Dillon tried to emulate in his show. Insane! Outlandish! Heresy! Yes, they called it all of those things...but the first time guys stepped up to do it, everything changed.

Gone were the Weaver Stances. Hell, those lasted one evolution as guys realized that standing and shooting it out, in an equal initiative fight, or a reactive fight, was a guarantee of getting shot. The need for movement made the need for a proper stationary position obsolete in this type of fight. And keeping two hands on the gun was a luxury few got a chance to enjoy.

I recall after our first session of this several years ago I asked, "What sort of sight picture did you see"? Silence was the reply. "Well, what did you see?". I got varying replies from "the bad guy running at me", to "nothing", to "meat and metal". What we didn't hear, and have not heard, is that anyone has used a proper sight pisture inside of five yards.

I base my view of the pistol fight on what we see in force on force sessions, as that parallels most, what I have seen on the streets. What a competitive pistol champion may use is interesting from a technical perspective, but that is all as the two worlds of range shooting and gunfighting only bear a passing resemblance. And the world of force on force, paralleling the gunfight more closely than anything else, tells us that using traditional sighting methods for close range shooting on a moving adversary is simply not done. Guys point and shoot.

At recent classes I have been using Airsoft guns with no sights at all...just to be sure. You know what? It has not changed the hitting percentages at all. It has made guys somewhat faster since they are not slowing down to try and find the sights. Wow! Insane? Outlandish? Heresy? Maybe, but also the truth.

So what do we need sights for?


We need sights for precision shooting at close range as might be seen in an adversary's exposed elbow, foot, or eye behind cover. Or as may be needed for a shot passed an innocent to hit a bad guy.

We also need sights for long range shooting as might be seen in an Active Shooter countermeasure. We have taken pistol shooters out to 220 yards at one point so it can be done.

Do you need high visibility sights for shots inside 7 yards? Nope. In fact, you could literally take the sights off the gun and be able to, statisticqally speaking, handle most CCW gunfights easily.

So if we need sights we need them for the things discussed above. Which sights will work best for this? Sharp, clearly discernible black sights, with a serrated front and flat rear face.

Do we need dots or bars on the sights to see them better at close range? In my opinion, no we don't.

Do we need Tritium? I admit that many of my pistols have tritium in the sights, but when I have bought sights for my new guns I have gotten plain black sights with no tritium.

Why?

Because here is the thought - if it is dark, but there is enough ambient light to see my adversary, I neither need "night sights" nor a flashlight. I just shoot as I do during the day. If he is close, he is a short time frame problem. I shoot him. If I can see some sights, cool. But I am not waiting to see them. If he is far away, I probably won't be able to see where he is in dark environments so nights sights are of no benefit.

The more I work with this, the more I am convinced that plain black non-illuminated sights are the best option for a CCW pistol.

Saturday, June 21, 2014

The real ladies gun by Massad Ayoob

The real ladies gun - Handguns

Guns MagazineMarch, 2003 by Massad Ayoob 

For too long, women were told that if they wanted to carry a sidearm they needed a "ladies' gun," usually a tiny .22 or .25 automatic with so little power it might or might not stop a charging gerbil. Then the trend moved toward the small .38 Special revolver. The snubnose .38 became a classic "ladies' gun" for modem times.

Smith & Wesson's first "LadySmith" since the 19th century became a roaring success in the 20th century based on the Chief Special, 2-inch barrel, five-shot, .32-frame revolver. There would be other LadySmiths, including the neat little 3913 LS compact 9mm autopistol.

But Smith & Wesson has sold far more short barreled .38 Specials in conventional Chief Special, hammer shrouded Bodyguard, and "hammerless" Centennial configurations than anything of the other models to which they gave the feminine appellation. When Colt made a "ladies' model," they built it on the small D-frame revolver, with a 2-inch barrel, in caliber .38 Special.

Those of us who shoot a lot--competitors, firearms instructors, "serious students of the combat handgun"--can't help but notice that with the hottest loads, the small .38 has a nasty recoil and is hard to shoot accurately at significant distances. There are those who have said that because of these factors, the snubnose .38 is a bad choice for women.
I beg to disagree. And so do a huge number of that legion of the fairer sex who choose to go armed, and who seem to have taken the snubnose .38 as their collective handgun of choice.

Voting With Their Feet

"Shall issue" concealed carry legislation has swept the country. It is the strongest wave of victory in the gun owners' civil rights movement. It amazes the opponents of gun owners' rights how many of the people applying for concealed carry permits are women. And the instructors who train and certify those women for those concealed carry permits are telling us a huge number of those ladies are shooting their qualifications with the guns they, intend to carry: short barrel, small frame .38 Special revolvers.

The women of America know what they want. After a lifetime of getting ripped off by men in male oriented things like estimates on automobile repairs, they've learned to check things out on their own and not take a man's word for what women need.

They appreciate that they can shoot pistols like the Browning Hi-Power and the 1911 .45 and the Glock and the S&W 3913 better than most men realize. They also realize that they can carry a short, light revolver a helluva lot more easily within their daily wardrobe and dress code restrictions than they can even a compact alloy-frame .45 automatic.

Tactical Points

Gun dealers tell me the single most popular carry gun they're selling to women is the lightweight .38 Special, 2-inch revolver with snag-free configuration, such as the S&W Centennial Airweight. Yes, it kicks enough to hurt your hand. Yes, it will be one of the toughest guns for you to "qualify" with on the 15 to 25 yard line of a police-style shooting course.

However, the women who buy them for daily carry have no illusions about being involved in across-the-street shootouts. They're worried about the mugger who is within arm's length or maybe even closer when they have to defend their lives.

Women get tired of carrying big guns. The woman with whom I spent 30 years of marriage could count on her annual or biannual gift of what her husband thought was a cool self-defense pistol. She wound up with enough high speed, low drag, often highly customized semiautomatic pistols to outfit a small police department. The HK P7, a Behlert Mini-Custom S&W Model 39, a Trapper custom "bobcatted" Colt .45 auto--the list goes on.

It was always, "That's nice, dear." She'd carry it for a week to placate me, and then go back to one of her Colt .38 snubbies, either the engraved Detective Special or the lightweight Agent with hammer shroud and Barami Hip-Grip that fit neatly into the waistband of her beltless slacks.

No Surrender

Male criminals tend to be misogynists. The man who would surrender to him at gunpoint would die rather than go to prison with it known that he had surrendered to her. He is more likely by far to attack and attempt to disarm a woman. More than 20 years of teaching handgun disarming and retention has taught me the hardest gun to take away from its legitimate owner is a 2-inch barreled revolver.
With a shrouded hammer, this is also the only gun a woman can fire through a coat pocket without a hammer or a slide fouling in fabric and stopping her stream of fire.

Ideal for shooting all day at a training school? No. Ideal for concealed carry in real world circumstances? Yes.

The snubnose .38 revolver with snag-free hammer might just be the best choice for the defensive problems an armed woman in this society is most likely to face.

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Keep Guns away from the Mentally-ill?

Mental Health and Guns                          











                     There has been talk from both ends of the political spectrum and by people everywhere in between about the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. At first blush that sounds like a sensible and common sense idea that everyone would and should support, but once you actually delve into the issue, you'll see that it is much more complex as well as having the potential to become a gross violation of rights and a truly hostile invasion of privacy depriving millions of Americans of their Liberty.
                         
                                    Who exactly is "mentally ill"?  I have yet to see any of the many people making proposals calling for the broad scope screening of the mentally ill with the intent to identify and then keep guns away from them to define who it is exactly they are looking for or what criteria they would use to restrict them from firearms or even who they consider they consider mentally ill. Is it anyone on or has ever in their lifetime (or how long ago before "cleared") taken psychotropic medications or perhaps just certain types of psych meds?  Receives or has ever had counseling? A certain diagnosis? Anyone and everyone that has any history of Mental Health issues or treatment? Who and what are they looking for? All of them perhaps ...that's a pretty big task that will take an army of workers to screen, a monumental amount of currency that would add substantially to the already obscenely bloated national debt as well as being wasteful, unnecessary and flat out immoral. Sounds like something Liberals would like to do, but I'm hearing it from self-labeled Conservatives as well. It's simply unreasonable and unjust and I find it even worse than the ridiculous notion of banning certain types of firearms and ammunition magazines simply by how they look (like Military weapons i.e. black and scary) or how many rounds/bullets they hold.                   
     
              Mental Illness is an extremely broad term that includes people suffering from simple and mild clinical depression to delusional schizophrenics. As a whole, those with mentally illness are actually less violent and commit less crimes than the general population, so why would we target all of them specifically based on the actions of just a handful or people? We say we can't racially profile certain groups of people even though statistics show that some racial and ethnic groups do indeed commit more violent crime and by very large numbers (Fact :Young Black Males ages 16-25 commit the majority of violent crime in the US, but make up a low single digit amount of total population), but to focus on on them is considered "racial profiling" and taboo, so how can we then ethically "profile" people based on a medical diagnosis or just from receiving mental health treatment.
               
                 The Radical Islamic Terrorists that have committed the Mass Murders of thousands of Americans were all Young Arab Males with none being known to be or declared "mentally-ill" that I'm ware of, but we refuse to profile or screen all Young Arab Male's or say they they as a group can't use airliners based on the actions of a few. Instead we focus on actual tangible threats via the Terror watch list based on actual hard evidence of threats etc. and that individuals history and fact rather than simply banning all young Arab males from air travel. Tim McVeigh was not known to be "Mentally-ill", so start banning young Irish guys from renting Ryder trucks?
                  
          How about my elderly Grandma who lives alone in a rural area taking an anti-depressants to deal with the lose of her Husband/My Grandfather of 65 years? Do we invade her medical records and take her firearms away?
                       Or what about the passive agoraphobic(think Sigourney weaver's character in the movie copycat) who never leaves their house or experiences panic attacks or how about the guy with OCD/Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder who washes his hand 50 times a day, but is otherwise a mild mannered guy and asset to his community. How about someone suffering from Generalized Anxiety Disorder, there are literally Millions of them.The list of productive members of society as well as great leaders, innovators, authors, artists and patriots with one mental health issue or another is long indeed. How about many of our Troops coming back from the Sandbox?   
                    Or what about our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln who was almost for sure suffering from clinical depression or perhaps even a Bipolar Disorder(likely BPII). All are technically "mentally ill", but does the 2nd Amendment not apply to them? Would you and should you deprive them of the right to defend themselves or invade their right to privacy when they are not guilty of anything?

         Most mass murders throughout history had no diagnosed mental condition nor received any treatment and even recent school shooters even though some may have had an underlying psychiatric disorder,developmental disorder or mental illness of some kind or another, most never sought nor received any treatment, so perhaps expanding mental health services makes more sense than going after everyone simply receiving some type of treatment. If the ones that did have a history such as Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Adam Lanza and even Jared Loughner, there wasn't anything real substantial that could have predicted what was coming or indicate that some form of urgent preventive intervention was needed to stop mass murder aside from perhaps Loughner getting suspended from College with Mental Health evaluation being required for re-admittance. Most of these kids perpetrating mass school shootings were cases of them being systematically bullied and then retaliated against their peers(with the exception of Lanza)and bullying today is much different and more brutal than the simple hazing that went on when I was a kid. Partly due to kids being armed with smart phones recording and then broadcasting any and every embarrassing moment and abuse of their target as well as from the overall coarsening of our society. Even cartoons today are obscene, abusive and flat out vulgar.There are many reasons to that complex issue and those are just two observations. Loughner was also a drug and alcohol user, so are we to start screening any one that drinks alcohol as well? Think of the deaths from DIU's and from intoxicated violent behavior causes each year, but no one says much about it or thinks there needs to be some form of intervening type legislature in regards to alcohol use. One could go on for days with fitting analogies.
  
            Some have gone a step further than simply violating privacy and restricting gun and are talking involuntary commitment! Is this modern day America that we're talking about? Are we to return to the paranoid dark days where men in little white coats would come and take people away in straight-jackets for the most minor of reasons? You had better have a damn fine reason for taking away an Americans Freedom or any ones for that matter as well as some hard evidence and factual proof that justifies such actions.
                       Here is an article from Ben Shapiro from Breitbart.com with the last paragraph being appalling and truly horrific. It smacks of fascism which I find ironic considering how often Mr.Shapiro likes to invoke NAZI Germany. http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2012/12/19/the-bullying-left-exploits-sandy-hook-n1469638  There was simply no signs or evidence to indicate that Adam Lanza was capable of planning what he did that would justify involuntary commitment. Ben Shapiro is simply unable to see the big picture in context nor is he able to convey practical common sense information and solutions. He among others represents the the irrational fringe of the far right and that I find just as unsavory as the far left. His ideas are dangerous, narrow in scope and Conservatives as a whole would be wise to separate themselves from him.

                   Are we to start screening everyone that applies for a gun permit/license/CCW or simply purchases a gun to check and see if they have any mental health issues? How are we going to do that exactly? Are we going to keep a massive national database on everyone and anyone that does or has received any Mental Health Treatment? And if they do or did, are we then going to scrutinize those records to determine whether they are mentally fit and deserving of the right to purchase and own or carry a firearms despite having no past history of violence(what degree) or criminality (any?). To so do violates every principle this Great Country was founded on as it prejudges someone as being guilty for something they've never done. Last time I checked, your innocent until proven guilty in this Country irregardless of your Race, Creed, Religion or medical History.
   
                            Now if you are talking about scrutinizing and restricting those that have been institutionalized (forcibly or voluntarily), adjudicated a danger to self and others(this doesn't include automatically include social security disability benefits since the determination to receive those benefits is an administrative decision, even if rendered by judge on an appeal, who in this case would be an administrative law judge, rather than one of a ruling in and by a court of law), have a violent(what?)/criminal (felony) past, then I would agree that makes sense and is indeed justified although I would allow them to appeal to a Court of Law to have their rights restored if they can provide tangible evidence that they are now healthy(and more likely than not to remain so) and responsible enough to own firearms. In almost all of the mass-shooting cases there were obvious warning signs ignored or dismissed by various authorities.They simply passed the buck if you will. Perhaps require some type of reporting or even intervention if someone receiving intensive(definition?) mental health treatment is believed to be an imminent and substantive and substantial(degree?) danger to themselves and/pr others, has made actual substantive and substantial violent threats(again degree) or has been shown to have an inclination to violence(once gain degree) despite having no criminal record. I'm really getting into that grey area here, but as I said at the onset, it's a very complex issue that we must tread lightly when addressing so as to not violate any persons privacy rights or their God-given Liberty. Proceed with caution indeed. I guess it should be an issue of that individual just simply perhaps getting some form of greater scrutiny(what would that be,what is the proper and right balance...Doctors alerting LE etc. or perhaps some broader comprehensive approach etc., but there are countless incompetent and unethical doctors and psychiatrists as well as law enforcement officers so this approach has the potential for grave abuses of power) rather than some type of actual legal intervention until something is indeed proven and a then those findings, actions required and the decision rendered in an actual Court of Law.

               All medical records are private and should remain that way unless there is definite proof and just cause to violate that individuals right to privacy and the only way that can truly be the case is if that person has shown by their past or current behavior and actions to be a threat to others or themselves. Innocent until proven guilty is and always has been our standard and should remain so, since to do otherwise is to start down that infamous slippery slope as well as inflict a big slap in the face to Freedom and Liberty.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Practical Reasons for owning an AR-15

 We carry a line of AR-15, M4,

            Piers Morgan has repeatedly asked numerous guests on his cable television program the same question  .... "give me one coherent reason why a civilian needs an AR-15 assault rifle?"

            What Piers is wanting as is many others watching the show is an easy understood, everyday practical reason as to why someone wants or needs an AR-15. Many of his viewers although they may actually support 2nd amendment rights, may not know a whole lot about firearms in general or the dynamics of self-defense seeing only a rather sinister looking black rifle that looks like a "machine gun" when they look at an AR-15, so any practical reason alludes them and it's those people who we really need to reach..          
           
                Responses to piers question of  "I should be able to own one because the 2nd amendment says I can" or "to fight possible tyranny" while although technically correct, those answers simply won't register or sit well with uninformed viewers who might have sided with you if you give them practical explanations and facts.There is no use in arguing with the far-left anti-gunners fully set and entrenched in their ideology as they only seek to frame the context of the debate, not in learning anything new or reconsidering their beliefs or perspective. It's the middle ground folks on the fence, those people with open minds that we need to be convincing, talking to and speaking the truth to and it's these individuals I'm writing to here.

        The simple answer of why we need high capacity AR-15 assault rifles is for the same reason Police have them, need them and use them since the Criminals we face are the same ones they do. Notice I did not include the Military in that statement.The reason is Civilian self-defense has very little in common with Military operations of any kind, but the situations an armed Civilian could find themselves involved in(either on street or at home) are often identical to the ones Police find themselves in. Also, the Military doesn't actually use the AR-15 at all, but rather the M16 and M4 which are fully automatic ("machine gun") or Select Fire(choice of fully automatic or multiple bullets fired per single pull trigger).
             Although the AR-15 looks almost exactly like the M16 and M4, it is actually semi-automatic, which means that it fires only one bullet when you pull the trigger.To shoot another bullet, you have to release and then pull the trigger again. It's really no different than a revolver(one trigger pull, one shot) and it's likely the "automatic" part of semi-automatic that gets peoples attention. What the automatic means is that it automatically loads a round(bullet) from the magazine(what some call clips) into the chamber(barrel). Nothing sinister at all going on there.

          Now on to some real-world practical reasons to own a high capacity AR-15 to which just about any sensible person should be able to understand and relate...

1.) Insurance .....  Ever had a car accident or been involved in a wreck? What about a  house fire? Flood or Storm damage? How about a break-in?
                  Even if you've never had a single one of these incidents occur, you likely think it's prudent to take measures to mitigate loss, injury or damage even if you don't think such things aren't likely to ever happen to you. Do you lock your doors and windows when you leave your home and when you sleep at night? Do you have insurance on your car and your home? Do you wear your a seat belt when you drive a car and think it's wise to do so?  Isn't "just in case" valid logical thinking? Owning an AR-15 is just that. It's insurance just in case of a home invasion/home intrusion. Do you personally know anyone that has ever been the victim of a home invasion or otherwise had their home broken into or burglarized? Most likely you do know someone or even have Family members that have experienced it. So, since it is so common, doesn't it makes sense to have a safety policy in place to protect you and your family?

2.) It often takes multiple rounds/bullets to stop just one single determined assailant....      
         Unlike in the movies, the bad guys don't go flying across the room after being shot or even always go down after being shot one time. It's kind of analogous to when Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee beats up 30 Men at a time, knocking out each one with a single kick or punch,which simply is realistic either. Attackers are often large males able to withstand more gun shot hits and are often on drugs, severely mentally ill or both. Here is an incident where a Police Officer had to shoot an armed maniac 22 times before stopping him.The whole time the guy still kept shooting back. http://www.lawofficer.com/article/training/officer-down-peter-soulis-inci
          The gun the the officer used is a .40 caliber Glock Handgun which for all intents and purposes has similar stopping power to the AR-15. Can see why a Cop or an armed Civilian would want to have 30 round magazines knowing this can and does happen? While the Soulis incident is exceptionally rare, wouldn't you rather have ammo left over after a defensive shooting rather than run out during one. Imagine the terror after your gun runs out of bullets while trying to defend your Family against an armed thug who broke into you home who is still active and intent on getting to and harming you and your family.

3.) Multiple Assailants or Home Invaders... Wolves travel in packs is a common saying in the gun community and very applicable to the criminal element considering that a home invasion is very likely to be perpetrated by multiple intruders rather than a single individual. Gangs of all types are also still very real and present everywhere. A couple of years ago, three armed thugs broke into a home just up the street from me murdering the home owner.The homeowner lived in a large home, was rather wealthy and the perps were high looking for cash and drugs. Who is to say they couldn't have hit my house next or could have needed refuge and chose my home to hide out in from Police. If you and your family were to gather in a safe room after three armed thugs kicked in your door, would you rather be armed with a 5 or 6 shot revolver or a 30 round AR-15 knowing even though you already called 911, the Police are still minutes away. 

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/29/why-good-people-need-semiautomatic-firearms-and-high-capacity-magazines-part-i/

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2013/01/31/why-good-people-need-semiautomatic-firearms-and-high-capacity-magazines-part-ii/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MassadAyoob+%28Massad+Ayoob%29

4.) Civil Unrest, Flash Mobs, Riots ... I think most people can relate to these scenarios that seem to occur more and more frequently all the time. During the Rodney King riots, Korean store merchants were able to effectively defend themselves, their families and their property from the violent and destructive mobs very effectively using high capacity forearms(including the AR-15) after Police completely abandoned them refusing to re-enter the situation after being overwhelmed by the sheer number of rioters. We saw looting and violent chaos after Katrina  and I suspect if George Zimmerman is acquitted as I think he will and must be, there may be similar outbreaks of violence. I hope and pray there isn't, but I would sleep a lot better knowing a had effective tool to protect my family if a violent mob entered my neighborhood or targeted my home.

5.)The AR-15 itself. .... One of the main reasons that anti-gunners dislike the AR-15 is because it's scary looking. It's Black and looks like what most consider a Military type weapon.That could actually play heavily into your favor in a civil unrest scenario where you have rioting and looting mobs. Are they likely to target you, your family, your home and property if you are standing guard with an AR-15. Seems likely to be effective deterrent. This concept would also apply to armed citizens forming community watch on "sentry/guard duty" looking out for neighborhood/neighbors during times of civil unrest. However, you would want to be mindful not to make yourself a "shoot first" target/someone that needs to be taken out by accessing the specific situation if dealing with armed or potentially armed hooligans.  
                          If someone is trying to do you and your Family harm, you'll want to stop them as quickly as possible before they can physically reach you, get to you with some type of a weapon such as a knife or club or actually shoot you or family members if armed with a firearm themselves and the best way to do that is usually to put as many high energy rounds on target as quickly and as accurately possible and the AR-15 is a great tool to do just that. The AR-15 is ergonomic, extremely easy to shoot and very inherently accurate which means that your likely to hit what your shooting at rather than have your shots go astray possibly hitting innocent bystanders. Also, the AR-15 shoots  a rather small .22 caliber bullet(the .223/5.56)which is as a Hunting round/bullet is truly only only suitable for small animals and why it's often called a Varmint round and is very marginal for Deer sized game. The media like to call it a high-power round and that it is exceptionally devastating,but that is simply not the truth. One advantage to the small round is that there is very little recoil which means just about anybody can handle it(even petite Women and the elderly), which simply cannot be said for most defense caliber handguns and especially a 12 gauge shotgun.
                       I have also heard arguments from anti-gunner's that an AR-15 simply isn't necessary and is "overkill" for use in home defense by Civilians.They say a limited capacity handgun will more than suffice since most intruders will be armed with a handgun. First,what are their qualifications to be giving advice on what is effective for home defense and if an armed thug or group of thugs invade my home, I want a superior weapon to theirs.
                For most sceanrios, a handgun will indeed suffice although I would not want to be limited to 5 or 6 six shots. I would adequately prepared and armed if left with my Glock 17 along with plenty of 17 and 33 rounds loaded with hot hollow-point ammunition.
                   Still, there are many scenarios where a long-gun is simply better and more effective and therefore it is a good idea to have a high capacity Carbine/Rifle handy for more serious situations and in cases where you have gathered the family together in a fixed location(such as a safe room etc.) which is usually the best option when possible(often there simply isn't time to safely do so) in the even an intruder is in your home.

5.) The "Impractical". ...The Second Amendment does in fact give us the right to own an AR-15,  it doesn't only apply to muskets as many anti-gunners mock otherwise it would have specified muskets rather than just simply 'arms'. And to say the Founders couldn't have envisioned the AR-15 is simply irrelevant because they knew firearm technology would change, for it was changing and progressing at an alarming rate during their lifetime, so they knew would continue onward into the future and despite how some portray it, the AR-15 is still just an ordinary rifle/carbine shooting a comparatively(with other truly powerful hunting rifles) small bullet and not some weapon of mass destruction. Plus, the Founders couldn't have envisioned the Internet, Cable TV and Smart-Phones, so does the 1st amendment not apply to them?

        The Resistance to Tyranny isn't something the average person ever thinks about and I don't like that answer at all as a response when asked for a coherent or "practical" reason as to why someone needs an High Capacity "Assault Rifle" AR-15, but it was in fact a very large part of the motivation and reason of why the Founders created and included the 2nd amendment. The other major reason was one of protecting the rights of individuals to be able to defend themselves. To say such things are one of past cultures is being misinformed or just unaware of what is going on elsewhere in the World. Tyranny does in fact happen today around the World. Look at Syria, Iran, Egypt. It can't happen to the US you say? Such arrogance has been a common trait shared among all the past great empires who all said the same thing, but they also have one other thing in common....they all collapsed and are gone. Everybody said 9-11-2001 couldn't happen, that Pearl Harbor couldn't happen. Nobody saw what Adolf Hitler had planned coming or simply ignored the signs thinking that what he wrote and outlined in Mein Kampf can't really be his intent or true thoughts. And looked at how many went along with him blindly following his orders of mass murder and destruction. And that is not some distant event, there are still people very much alive today that actually lived through it.These things are indeed real, have happened and can and will happen again even if they don't seem like practical reasons.

Friday, December 7, 2012

Gun Control Is Killing Us- David Kenik

           











               The Virginia Tech shootings that occurred not long ago demonstrated a tragedy that runs far deeper than the obvious.The shootings are but one symptom of what is wrong with the mind-set and thought processes of all too many people. The second tragedy that day was that there was no one shooting back. Any potential heroes were disarmed by the school's "no guns" policy. Ironically,  just last year the Virginia General Assembly failed to pass a bill that would have enabled the carry of guns on campus. School officials hailed the decision by proclaiming that the students and faculty "can feel safe" knowing that there are no guns on campus.
            The reality is that there are guns on campus---guns in the hands of criminals. That is the problem with "gun -free zones" : They make the uninformed feel better when, in fact, they create victim-disarmament zones, or what I call "criminal empowerment zones."
               Just as a burglar will pick a home without a noisy dog, someone bent on human destruction will choose a location where their heinous crimes can be carried out unfettered by the return gunfire of potential victims. That's why shooting rampages don't take place at police stations or gun ranges. Israel solved the problem of school attacks by arming teachers. Hijackings of Israel's EL AL airliners ceased when armed marshals where placed on every flight.
             The most astonishing tragedy at Virginia Tech was the lack of survival mindset of the victims. Forensic evidence shows that many victims had wounds consistent with attempts to shield themselves, but there were no defensive wounds on the shooter. That tells us that the victims did not fight back and allowed themselves to be executed. The absence of a survival mindset is testament to the success of a liberal society's campaign to train us to not think for ourselves, not to act for ourselves and to rely on others for our safety and well being.
                   The Virginia Tech tragedy was one of several in recent years that illustrate liberal ideology at its worst. In many cases the consequences of not shooting back was death.-David Kenik

        This synopsis appeared in David Keniks "Heroic Consequences: article which was featured in the Guns & Ammos 2008 Book of Personal Defense. Mr.Keniks website is....
www.armedresponsetraining.com

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Most Versatile Glock?















   While the Glock 17 is my personal favorite Glock model........ http://www.wilsondefense.com/2011/07/glock-17best-of-breed.html
many consider the Glock 19 to be the most versatile and well rounded model that Glock makes, but I disagree and would give the title of most versatile Glock to the G26.I feel the Glock 19 is the ultimate compromise with it's reduced size not offering the shooting comfort,efficeny and ergonomics as the 17 while still being to big to offer much in concealment options as does the G26. Also, the finger grooves on the 19 are just spaced wrong with too little room on the top one under the trigger guard and it's hard for many men to get a full grip without pinkie sliding off.
           The Glock 26 on the other while having a shortened grip and lacking room for the pinkie at all, the spacing of the two finger grooves are full size just like the G17's and the good thing is that there are many option available if one wants a full grip or you can leave it stock for maximum concealability and CCW options such as ankle or pocket carry where the G19 is just way too big.The G26 will also accept the G19,G17 and 33 round G18 magazines and function perfectly fine although they will extend past the grip frame of course.
          If you want grip,you can get all your fingers on, Pearce Grip makes a variety of finger extensions which add length or length and rounds.There is also magazine grip adaptors like X-Grip which fit over a G19 or G17 mag giving you a full size grip, but my personal favorite is the Glock + which gives your pinkie a home(without the pinching of some extensions) as well as adding a couple more rounds. Some say extensions are pointless since they make the grip as long as a G19's, but that simply isn't the case.Most of the length added is at the front of the grip(but still isn't as long as a G19's) while length to the backstrap is minimal.The backstrap is the part of the grip most likely to print during CCW and the G19's backstrap is still significantly longer than the G26 even with extensions.And if need maximum concealment,pocket carry or ankle carry.....just use a standard G26 mag.
           A shorter barrel reduces velocity,but due to the Glocks particular hexagonal rifling, lost velocity isn't bad all and actually very minimal.
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Glock26Velocities.htm
         The shortened muzzle of the G26 will carrying, drawing and accessing the weapon from concealment that much easier as well as making gun grabs/disarms harder and weapon retention easier and while the shorten grip does give you less of a solid, firm controlled grip during draw and shooting(especially dynamic/moving fire), it's is indeed trade-off although the G26 is a remarkably accurate, controllable and capable firearm on it's own in any circumstance.
      And why the G26 in 9mm specifically? Well,we are talking versatility and 9mm is an affordable round that is effective and that just about anyone can control and shoot well.Plus,it the most popular defense caliber in the world by far,so getting restocked anywhere won't likely be a problem. 

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Reality













            "Reality-Based" Martial Arts are everywhere nowadays.Mixed Martial Arts can be seen on one channel or another at just about anytime when you flip through the dial. "Prepping" for a catastrophic collapse of society and civilization in one form or another is gaining popularity as witnessed by NatGeos's Doomsday preppers program and other similar shows.
             But, how does all of these different pursuits actually reflect reality and how likely is it for are these various circumstances being prepared for to actually happen?
           
        There are many self-defense instructors out there whose methods are rooted in practical reality, but many others who simply are not.If an SD instructor does not address weapons such as firearms,bladed and impact weapons in offensive and defensive use, then that individual is not facing reality. On the other hand, if no empty hand skills are taught and especially if at the very least transition to a weapon are taught,then be skeptical.
            Integrated skills are mandatory and even if carrying a weapon of some type, you'll likely need some type of empty hand skills to gain access and draw that weapon in the event of an attack which will be a fast and furious surprise ambush in all likelihood.
         Many high profile gun schools focus in on mock military and para-military training which has very little to do with civilian self-defense.Most are run by ex-Military personnel and have you fork over a boat load of cash to run around in the desert with an AR or AK as if such skills are applicable to everyday life or that you must be prepared as if the Apocalypse and/or Armageddon is right around the corner.

         These guys remind me a lot of the doomsday preppers,when if you actually look at most of their plans and scenarios they envision and are preparing for are such an extreme unlikely occurrence that it is laughable all the while totally ignoring what is probable to occur and therefore should take priority and the lion's share of the training. I think most of these people simply like the hobby or just like playing Soldier or living out fantasy roles. Perhaps they are are just obsessed and/or paranoid.If they truly believed that such mass destruction and chaos was likely to happen anytime,then they would take further steps than most have from what I've seen.Their plans simply aren't logical, reasonable and/or practical. Half of them are obese which makes me question the true sincerity of their belief and proclamations that some sort of doomsday is right around the corner since at the very least, you would want to get in decent physical shape as that is a quality that would be invaluable in a some post-apocalyptic world.

                         MMA/UFC fighting is everywhere and many seem to think that this type of training and fighting is applicable to real-world self-defense. Although there is some overlap and some things to be learned and gained that you can add to your personal defense arsenal fro MMA, I'm sorry to say that overall, it just doesn't apply much to real-world defense.
 Multiple opponents, weapons, environment all come into play and MMA is a sport with many rules that simply doesn't address these things. Most MMA training involves a lot ground grappling which is the worst place to be on the street.If anything, simply learn how to get off the ground and avoid going there in the first place.

  
       
    











                  Our society as a whole seems to be getting desensitized to violence and gaining a blood-thirst that can only be quenched by ever increasing graphic and horrific entertainment.Our sports and video games reflect this trend and what that means is that your chances of being the victim of a violent crime will only keep increasing. Even many of my towns local Preachers and Pastors say that Mixed Martial Arts is their favorite sport to watch and I find that very unsettling at the least coming from a so-called Man of Christ. While I don't agree with all he said in this video, my Childhood Karate mentor Vito Rallo hits the nail on the head in regards to MMA.

              
                 
                 The re-election of Barack Obama and people's indifference and acceptance and/or desire for ever greater and greater Government dependence, influence, intervention and control give me pause and concern as history shows us that the path we are currently on mimics that which brought down every other past great nation and empire. On second thought, perhaps those doomsday preppers, mock military gun schools and Armageddon Apocalyptics aren't entirely quite so crazy after all, at least in motive and intent even if most in my opinion are indeed misguided and simply off track in the method and scenarios that they are devoting the majority of their preparing and training and need to address more immediate and probable possibilities. In terms of getting ready for long term and widespread "doomsday" scenario's....what's the right path to chose and what to do to prepare if anything? No one really knows what's to come and no one can say for sure, so it's a matter of personal judgement which should be guided by logic and reason although don't rule out and/or ignore your intuition and gut instinct. The choice is yours, so choose wisely.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Zombie Apocalypse?












        
             Zombies and zombie apocalypse are frequent terms one will hear on various gun and survival forums and many firearm and ammo manufacturers have jumped on the zombie bandwagon and put out zombie themed gear and guns. Gun magazines have articles on how to survive the zombie Apocalypse and put out lists of top zombie killing weapons.Even the Federal Government/The CDC has gotten in on it publishing their own Zombie survival guide Preparedness 101 Zombie Apocalypse.

http://blogs.federaltimes.com/federal-times-blog/2011/05/20/cdc-publishes-zombie-survival-guide/

http://emergency.cdc.gov/socialmedia/zombies.asp

http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/documents/11_225700_A_Zombie_Final.pdf

             Most survivalist and gun enthusiasts are not talking literally about undead animated corpses when they use the term zombie, but rather as a figurative term for violent criminals and/or those involved civil unrest, looting, mass rioting etc. i.e. situations where gang/mob mentality takes over and those involved lose their personal and individual moral and behavioral perspective and general sense of right and wrong. The term could also be applied to any out of control, oppressive and imposing military and police units and personnel possibly under direction or not of an imperial government, dictatorship or during transient or sustained  martial law. Actual literal zombies remain in the world of fiction, in various horror movies and tv shows such as AMC's The walking dead although the bath salt "zombies"  come pretty close to those fictional zombies.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/06/20/bath-salts-attacker/
            
              I love the whole zombie genre and the walking dead is currently one of favorite shows. I love the month of October in general with the cool, crisp fall weather, leaves changing and the coming of Halloween which brings with the fun of taking the kids trick-or-treating and non-stop zombie actions movies and this years new season of the walking dead.
             So, literal zombie's are currently the realm of mere fiction, but did you know that Zombies as do most of the supernatural subject matter of horror movies such as Werewolves/Lycans,Vampires and Ghosts, Demonic Possessions, Poltergeists etc. have Biblical roots or a basis in Christianity and that the Bible actually prophesies what is essentially the "Zombie Apocalypse"?  If you turn to Zechariah chapter 14 verse 12 , you will read the following verse.....
                                 
     "And the Lord will send a plague on all people who fought Jerusalem. They will become like walking corpses, their flesh rotting away ; their eyes will shrivel in their sockets , and their tongues will decay in their mouths.They will be seized with terror, panic-stricken from the Lord, and will fight against each other in hand-to-hand combat."  

           Sure sounds a lot like a zombie apocalypse/the walking dead to me.It's not just Zombies that have Biblical roots, but Halloween itself which though often shunned by Christians, actually is a holiday which has it's roots in Christianity, especially many of those specific traditions and activities to which they take exception.

 http://catholicism.about.com/od/thecatholicfamily/p/Halloween.htm?nl=1

http://catholicism.about.com/b/2008/10/17/reader-question-is-halloween-anti-christian.htm?nl=1

      People can make up their own minds about the reality and definition of a coming Zombie Apocalypse or what actually constitutes being defined a zombie and whether Halloween is the work of Satan or just kids having fun dressing up in silly costumes wanting to get as much candy as possible, but perspective and intent should really be the issue and one should be educated before making their decisions. I'll personally keep enjoying all the great zombie themed films and shows as well as finding it prudent and recommending to others continuing to keep a well stocked stash of arms, ammo and supplies for the "zombie apocalypse" irregardless of what type if "zombies" or "apocalypse" that could be encountered and that the future may have in store for us looming on the horizon.