Well, sorry for the long wait in putting out a new post, but I have been dealing with an injury that eventually ended up requiring knee surgery, and pretty hefty surgery.
Fortunately, I won't be out of the game forever, but rehab and recover will take some time. The good news is I'm expected to make a full recovery. The bad news is that it will take some time and that means no running and gunning for a little while.
So, if you follow my YouTube channel, which was just starting to pick up, there will obviously be a delay in any cool videos. At least some I had floating around in my head especially with the nicer weather arriving in Arizona.
Also, gear reviews, the testing portion will be delayed, as I can't really go out and shoot right now.
But, I will be writing when I can. So, stay tuned, I'll do what I can to keep this blog interesting.
Thanks,
BFTM
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Saturday, September 6, 2014
Listen Up Primitive Screw Heads!
"All right, you primitive screw-heads, listen up! See this? This... is my boomstick!"
-ASH, Army of Darkness, ca. 1993
ASH chose a shotgun. I choose an AR15 variant, suppressed and short. I have decided to write about the why this obviously scary looking tool is my preferred choice. This post of course has been prompted by the ridiculous ruling recently handed down by the omniscient beings from Mt. Olympus in Wonderland, a.k.a. Maryland...
Let us explore the various options for confronting a deadly force threat inside your home. The good as well as the bad.
Calling 9-1-1
When seconds count the police will be there in minutes. While it is a given that 9-1-1 should be called regardless it is a silly instrument of self-defense and preservation. It almost hurts to have to explain that the reality of a violent encounter will mean another human being trying to cause you bodily harm to the pain of death. Since humans have yet to develop telepathy I will have to assume that another human's efforts at causing me pain are to the goal of ending my life. I do not have to wait and see if it is their actual intent to kill me dead, it is a reasonable assumption that anyone attempting to cause me serious physical injury or using any instrument capable of expediting that endeavor is actually, in fact, an asshole.
What to do in the face of such dire and dreary circumstance? Defend yourself with a phone call! Said no one ever (who actually has a brain or has dealt with real violence instead of the cartoonish and unrealistic drivel on television, movies, or games).
Can anyone honestly believe that merely making a phone call is any sort of barrier against a violent stranger (or perhaps known subject) in your house to cause you harm?
Seriously, what manner of buffoonery is this? Did the collective intelligence quotient of the species suddenly decline in the last decade?
If another human being wants to cause your physical harm to the pain of death and kill you dead, making a phone call will only make sure someone comes to collect your body.
It's gruesome. Of course it is. Violence isn't pretty. It's not supposed to look clean or sanitized. It's not supposed to make you feel all fuzzy inside (unless you are victorious, then you absolutely will feel all sorts of warm and fuzzy).
Less-than-Lethal Options
What the hell does that even mean? Someone, presumably wants me dead as a door nail, and my response is less-than-lethal? Electronic disruptive devices, chemical irritants, Kung-fu, loud noises?
"Theatricality and deception are powerful agents for the uninitiated...."
The key element in understanding the role of less lethal options is that they have high failure rates. They are meant to gain compliance, not win fights. In law enforcement circles they fall on a use of force continuum. This is an important idea to understand. Law enforcement places less lethal very low on the response chart to a lethal threat. So should you. You don't bring pepper spray or a taser to a gunfight. Or a knife fight.
Why?
I suggest, given the opportunity and barring any preexisting medical conditions, that you experience first hand being tasered or pepper-sprayed. Do it where you have to fight during it. What are going to discover? That you can fight through it. And if you can fight through it, so can the guy trying to inflict death upon you.
There is a time and place for the use of less-lethal force options. They are not when someone is trying to end your life.
Although, not technically a less-lethal force option I'm going to include knives into this sub-category. Maybe not battle axes or a samurai katana, but a knife and even a stick. (Read baseball bat and golf club, too).
Why? Because this is my house and the bad guy is in it trying to harm me and mine. Distance is my friend. Terrain is my friend (this is my house who knows it better?). Why would I give up distance and close by choice, having chosen a knife as my tool, and risk finding out this guy is Bruce Lee reincarnated?
I don't know this guy, most likely, and even if I did, why give up advantage?
If you find yourself in a fair fight for your life your tactics suck.
This brings us to firearms. Oh, does that open a can of worms...
"Don't disparage another man's favorite firearm, you'd be better off talking about his mother than speaking ill of his choice of firearm for "home defense"."
Well, I would make fun of your mother but in some countries cows are sacred.....
Well, I would make fun of your mother but in some countries cows are sacred.....
Firearms
What are the rules of a gunfight?
1. Bring a gun. Preferably a long-gun.
A long-gun isn't a 6" barreled handgun.
Now before anyone loses their minds let's talk 'bout it.
Handguns
First and foremost a handgun is mostly a secondary or back-up weapon. The advantages of a handgun are most recognizable within the United States. For better or for worse our society generally is not comfortable with seeing firearms out in public. I blame several sources for this irrational mindset, but I cannot change the forces that influenced society in the past, so I must work in the present.
Granted, in some places open carry is generally more accepted, but without digressing too much I believe open carry is not a good tactic. It could play into a strategy, but for a lone, everyday person carrying a weapon for self protection, open carry is a poor option. I prefer to advocate CCW and believe that CCW should not require a permit. I believe in training almost to the point of advocating some form of mandatory training, but I feel it is incumbent upon the responsible, truly responsible member of my community, to pay for training with at least as much money as he has spent on tacticool gear.
Another advantage of a handgun in a house is the ability to strategically place weapons in various locations throughout your house. However, as nice and cool as this sounds, is it realistic or a product of the influence of popular media? I'll the individual decide. If you honestly believe the possibility exists for a running gun battle lasting a long time within your house, then plan accordingly.
So, we see that the main advantage of a handgun is in CCW carry in the outside world. Now, here's why I don't think it's the "ideal" option for "home defense":
It's a handgun.
That should end the argument, but I don't believe in being smug. I believe in providing some form of education. So, let's start with basic gunfighting knowledge. How do bullets stop threats? Well, in the real world there are only three (a fourth, as well, but it can hardly be considered). I list them as follows:
1. Central Nervous System
2. Loss of Blood / Hydraulics
And, with modern medical advancements, you are more likely to survive being shot than instantly dying as a result. I've talked to lots of people shot up and still breathing to this day.
3. Musculoskeletal / structural Damage
4. Psychological
I'm only mentioning this because it is "technically" considered a way bullets/guns stop threats. But once it is explained you will see why this should never be considered by anyone serious about this business.
Psychological is when you shoot at your threat, completely miss, and this scares off your attacker. This is where the myth of one shot stops originates. Or stopping power.
We are not mind readers. In many cases once the rounds start to fly no one can tell who's missing and who's hitting. This, in my opinion, should not be listed in popular literature as a method of stopping a threat. It is random, not based in the physical world, and completely reliant upon factors that cannot be in some way controlled. By this, I mean that shooting the head is some degree of control of ending the threat. Shooting vital organs and causing blood loss is some degree of control. You can know that eventually these will stop the threat. Even shooting the musculoskeletal support system enough will eventually degrade an attackers ability to continue the fight. But shooting for psychological effect? Silly.
So, sorry for the brief (not really) primer into the way bullets stop threats, but it is necessary if we are going to have a valid discussion on the role of a "home defense" weapon.
Back to Handguns.
.22LR to .500S&W. There are a lot of calibers to choose from. However, statistically speaking, handguns are poor man stoppers. Without arguing 9mm vs 45ACP the key with handguns are making lots of holes.
For the home consider trying to quickly stop a threat from down the hall, while receiving fire, and trying to make accurate hits. Add in hollow point ammunition or FMJ and any miss is punching through drywall and intermediate barriers within your house.
Handguns typically have limited capacity magazines or cylinders. Handguns require a lot of training and practice to actually get good at. Here's a simple drill. Set up a target at 7 yards. Using a shot timer draw and empty your gun as fast as you can. Don't cheat, burn those suckers out. Now look at your target.
Honestly ask yourself, add in distance in a house, moving target, low light, reciprocated threat, and ammunition that won't quit. Especially, if you have family members in other parts of the house perhaps beyond your target who may not have a clue what's going on.
The concealability advantage of a handgun suddenly looses appeal in a "home defense" environment.
This is not a tactics post. A handgun is better than nothing.
SHOTGUN
All I need to do is rack my pump action and that punk will be running. I don't need to aim, just point and click.
If you believe any of the above statements, let me help you.
A shotgun is ultimately better than nothing, but not without severe consideration into its deployment.
Relying on the psychological effect of racking a pump shotgun is stupid. We're talking about defending your life and the lives of those who live in your house (presumably loved ones).
Contrary to popular belief within the ranges of CQC typically found inside a house you DO have to AIM a shotgun in order to hit your target.
Which brings us to the the ammunition. Buckshot and slugs are completely ill-suited. You miss and a slug is traveling to presumably the next county. A typical residence offers poor cover, it primarily provides concealment.
If your counter argument is that you use birdshot, you don't want to stop a threat? You're right I wouldn't want to get shot with birdshot (or anything for that matter), but I might prefer it if my opponent is using it against me.
And then shotguns typically have even poor ammunition capacity than handguns are are slower, more complicate to get back into a fight. You're going to rely on 4-7 shots in close quarters? With ammunition that will most likely over penetrate? Is slow to reload? Might not have a light or be really, really long?
Shotguns serve a very specialized role. Even a short barreled shotgun is designed for something else. Better than nothing, but we're are talking about making a choice and not what tactics to employ with your only options.
AR15
The evil black rifle. I feel this is the best option. There is ammunition available that limits over penetration. It might not be the best field ammunition, but it works great inside residences.
You have at least 30 rounds of available ammunition. Less time between reloads. It is quicker to get back into a fight if you have to dump the magazine and replenish your ammunition.
Two handed shooting = accuracy. Available CQC red dots/holographic sights designed perfectly for ranges needed.
You can get the rifle in a short barrel without losing ammunition capacity or functionality.
Add a suppressor to your short barrel. Add a 60 round magazine. Use proper ammunition. Mount a light.
I feel like I shouldn't even have to list the vast array of advantages. It almost seems like trying to explain the advantages of having a sun. (Life on earth wouldn't exist without one...)
Any argument against the AR15 can easily be countered with real-world, functional replies. Ammunition available is less likely to over penetrate like handgun rounds or shotgun rounds and still be lethal to stop the threat unlike birdshot or wad cutters.
Length is mitigated by going with a short barreled rifle or AR-pistol. Ammunition capacity, barring those that live in less free states, is great. 30-60 rounds without sacrificing mobility.
Add a red dot/holo sight for quick/accurate targeting along with two handed shooting for mitigating stray rounds.
A suppressor mitigates flash and sound disruption. Nothing like launching a round from a short barreled AR inside a house to simulate flashbanging yourself. (Or a 16" barrel for that matter). Consider a muzzle device if suppressors are not an option, but owning an AR is.
Easily add a weapon light to help with target ID (the big one. Blue on blue in your house is one of the most tragic events you could ever hope not to experience) and help disrupt the night adjusted vision of your opponent.
Throw a sling on and if you have transition to go hands on or use just one hand, you're covered. Even with a 16" barrel AR you are not giving up that much mobility within your house. You have the defensive position. Post up and wait. But again, this is not a tactics post.
In short, there is no good argument against the AR15 as the ideal home defense weapon. Money/cost? This is your castle, your home. Start pinching pennies.
The only one thing would be local laws. If you don't live in a free state I can't help you. It doesn't change the effectiveness of the AR platform, though.
Finally, a rifle round (even though it is still technically small arms) is better than a handgun round at incapacitating a threat. And the ultimate purpose is stopping the deadly threat you have just found inside YOUR house.
I hope this helps explain some things about the reality of choosing a home defense weapon. Ultimately, something is better than nothing, you just have to realize the limitations of each and train/adjust accordingly.
Whatever you choose, train. Train. Train.
Granted, in some places open carry is generally more accepted, but without digressing too much I believe open carry is not a good tactic. It could play into a strategy, but for a lone, everyday person carrying a weapon for self protection, open carry is a poor option. I prefer to advocate CCW and believe that CCW should not require a permit. I believe in training almost to the point of advocating some form of mandatory training, but I feel it is incumbent upon the responsible, truly responsible member of my community, to pay for training with at least as much money as he has spent on tacticool gear.
Another advantage of a handgun in a house is the ability to strategically place weapons in various locations throughout your house. However, as nice and cool as this sounds, is it realistic or a product of the influence of popular media? I'll the individual decide. If you honestly believe the possibility exists for a running gun battle lasting a long time within your house, then plan accordingly.
So, we see that the main advantage of a handgun is in CCW carry in the outside world. Now, here's why I don't think it's the "ideal" option for "home defense":
It's a handgun.
That should end the argument, but I don't believe in being smug. I believe in providing some form of education. So, let's start with basic gunfighting knowledge. How do bullets stop threats? Well, in the real world there are only three (a fourth, as well, but it can hardly be considered). I list them as follows:
1. Central Nervous System
- Computer chip shot
- head shot
- Taking out the brains ability to communicate with the rest of the body
- With this target no matter what the subject is doing gravity will take over
2. Loss of Blood / Hydraulics
- Injuries to vital organ: heart, lungs, etc
- Injuries to arteries, blood flow disruption
- As a result of bullet wounds, blood flow to the brain is disrupted
- Takes time
- Takes lots of bullets
And, with modern medical advancements, you are more likely to survive being shot than instantly dying as a result. I've talked to lots of people shot up and still breathing to this day.
3. Musculoskeletal / structural Damage
- Injury caused to muscles, joints, ligaments, support that are not fatal but impair ability to fight.
4. Psychological
I'm only mentioning this because it is "technically" considered a way bullets/guns stop threats. But once it is explained you will see why this should never be considered by anyone serious about this business.
Psychological is when you shoot at your threat, completely miss, and this scares off your attacker. This is where the myth of one shot stops originates. Or stopping power.
We are not mind readers. In many cases once the rounds start to fly no one can tell who's missing and who's hitting. This, in my opinion, should not be listed in popular literature as a method of stopping a threat. It is random, not based in the physical world, and completely reliant upon factors that cannot be in some way controlled. By this, I mean that shooting the head is some degree of control of ending the threat. Shooting vital organs and causing blood loss is some degree of control. You can know that eventually these will stop the threat. Even shooting the musculoskeletal support system enough will eventually degrade an attackers ability to continue the fight. But shooting for psychological effect? Silly.
So, sorry for the brief (not really) primer into the way bullets stop threats, but it is necessary if we are going to have a valid discussion on the role of a "home defense" weapon.
Back to Handguns.
.22LR to .500S&W. There are a lot of calibers to choose from. However, statistically speaking, handguns are poor man stoppers. Without arguing 9mm vs 45ACP the key with handguns are making lots of holes.
For the home consider trying to quickly stop a threat from down the hall, while receiving fire, and trying to make accurate hits. Add in hollow point ammunition or FMJ and any miss is punching through drywall and intermediate barriers within your house.
Handguns typically have limited capacity magazines or cylinders. Handguns require a lot of training and practice to actually get good at. Here's a simple drill. Set up a target at 7 yards. Using a shot timer draw and empty your gun as fast as you can. Don't cheat, burn those suckers out. Now look at your target.
Honestly ask yourself, add in distance in a house, moving target, low light, reciprocated threat, and ammunition that won't quit. Especially, if you have family members in other parts of the house perhaps beyond your target who may not have a clue what's going on.
The concealability advantage of a handgun suddenly looses appeal in a "home defense" environment.
This is not a tactics post. A handgun is better than nothing.
SHOTGUN
All I need to do is rack my pump action and that punk will be running. I don't need to aim, just point and click.
If you believe any of the above statements, let me help you.
A shotgun is ultimately better than nothing, but not without severe consideration into its deployment.
Relying on the psychological effect of racking a pump shotgun is stupid. We're talking about defending your life and the lives of those who live in your house (presumably loved ones).
Contrary to popular belief within the ranges of CQC typically found inside a house you DO have to AIM a shotgun in order to hit your target.
Which brings us to the the ammunition. Buckshot and slugs are completely ill-suited. You miss and a slug is traveling to presumably the next county. A typical residence offers poor cover, it primarily provides concealment.
If your counter argument is that you use birdshot, you don't want to stop a threat? You're right I wouldn't want to get shot with birdshot (or anything for that matter), but I might prefer it if my opponent is using it against me.
And then shotguns typically have even poor ammunition capacity than handguns are are slower, more complicate to get back into a fight. You're going to rely on 4-7 shots in close quarters? With ammunition that will most likely over penetrate? Is slow to reload? Might not have a light or be really, really long?
Shotguns serve a very specialized role. Even a short barreled shotgun is designed for something else. Better than nothing, but we're are talking about making a choice and not what tactics to employ with your only options.
AR15
The evil black rifle. I feel this is the best option. There is ammunition available that limits over penetration. It might not be the best field ammunition, but it works great inside residences.
You have at least 30 rounds of available ammunition. Less time between reloads. It is quicker to get back into a fight if you have to dump the magazine and replenish your ammunition.
Two handed shooting = accuracy. Available CQC red dots/holographic sights designed perfectly for ranges needed.
You can get the rifle in a short barrel without losing ammunition capacity or functionality.
Add a suppressor to your short barrel. Add a 60 round magazine. Use proper ammunition. Mount a light.
I feel like I shouldn't even have to list the vast array of advantages. It almost seems like trying to explain the advantages of having a sun. (Life on earth wouldn't exist without one...)
Any argument against the AR15 can easily be countered with real-world, functional replies. Ammunition available is less likely to over penetrate like handgun rounds or shotgun rounds and still be lethal to stop the threat unlike birdshot or wad cutters.
Length is mitigated by going with a short barreled rifle or AR-pistol. Ammunition capacity, barring those that live in less free states, is great. 30-60 rounds without sacrificing mobility.
Add a red dot/holo sight for quick/accurate targeting along with two handed shooting for mitigating stray rounds.
A suppressor mitigates flash and sound disruption. Nothing like launching a round from a short barreled AR inside a house to simulate flashbanging yourself. (Or a 16" barrel for that matter). Consider a muzzle device if suppressors are not an option, but owning an AR is.
Easily add a weapon light to help with target ID (the big one. Blue on blue in your house is one of the most tragic events you could ever hope not to experience) and help disrupt the night adjusted vision of your opponent.
Throw a sling on and if you have transition to go hands on or use just one hand, you're covered. Even with a 16" barrel AR you are not giving up that much mobility within your house. You have the defensive position. Post up and wait. But again, this is not a tactics post.
In short, there is no good argument against the AR15 as the ideal home defense weapon. Money/cost? This is your castle, your home. Start pinching pennies.
The only one thing would be local laws. If you don't live in a free state I can't help you. It doesn't change the effectiveness of the AR platform, though.
Finally, a rifle round (even though it is still technically small arms) is better than a handgun round at incapacitating a threat. And the ultimate purpose is stopping the deadly threat you have just found inside YOUR house.
I hope this helps explain some things about the reality of choosing a home defense weapon. Ultimately, something is better than nothing, you just have to realize the limitations of each and train/adjust accordingly.
Whatever you choose, train. Train. Train.
Monday, September 1, 2014
Train or Train Not; There is No Magic
"Do or do not...." the wise old Master Yoda once told a disparaged Luke Skywalker when trying to impart Jedi knowledge. "...There is no try."
While us Earthlings lack hokey tricks like the Force or light sabers and clairvoyance we do have trusty blasters. But, these blasters also come with a wise caveat for our ever mortal endeavors: Train or Train Not, There is No Magic.
When we choose to take up arms, we do not do so lightly. It is no trivial task to take personal charge of your safety. It should not be taken lightly nor without due regard.
Yet, as an observation, many who do fail to secure proper training with their newfound instrument of self-defense. Or, perhaps, after obtaining a paltry 3-16 hours of train fail to obtain more or even practice what was learned.
Shooting is a perishable skill. That is fact. Indisputable, cold, hard fact. Even more so is the art of gun fighting. Oh, you may possess the will, but muscles that do not remember are a cold comfort to the mind that wishes victory and finds performance...lacking.
Creasy Bear taught us that there is no such thing as tough. Only trained and untrained. Is that true? Am I not a badass because I believe it so? I mean, am I not a badass because I own all the right gear? That is to say, I am a badass because I took a class in classical bad assery some moons ago.
Sadly, internet commandos, armchair generals, and YouTube operators might have you believing something as silly as, "By buying Product X, currently being fielded in country by Unit Y, that you can achieve the same stellar results."
This is not to say quality gear doesn't have a place or worth. On the contrary, good gear is good. But good gear doesn't make a bad shooter an instant "two-way range" bad ass like Revolver Ocelot.
Frankly, there is no substitute for good training. But good training, like a fruit bearing tree, needs pruning, care, and watering to bring forth good fruit. You have to maintain training standards. Constantly seek to improve yourself. Seek out new training without believing you have the answers and know everything there is to know.
Beware the man with one gun, for he surely knows how to use it.
Train or Train Not; There is No Magic.
Just because you want it so badly, doesn't mean the combat fairy will come and wave her magic wand over your head when the wolf knocks at your door. It has been said by better men than I, you will not rise to the occasion, but fall to the highest level of training you have maintained proficiency at.
And that, friends, will happen regardless of what brand pants you're wearing.
The key is constant refreshing. Constant pushing and improvement. In a gunfight you most likely won't be able to pick your opponent. You don't know their level of training or proficiency. But, honestly, that doesn't matter. You are competing against yourself, your last personal best. Your smoothest draw. Your smoothest reload.
You have to constantly best yourself, because that's your only chance at besting your opponent.
Train hard and train often, but most importantly train (correctly).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)