Gun Control

The ignorance of the hoplophobes is staggering! It is only matched by their inability to reason. I have never heard such a large group of people argue so passionately about something they know virtually nothing about.

I (and many thousands like me) have put literally tens of thousands of rounds through AK and AR design rifles without harming, or intending to harm, a soul. The AR in particular is remarkably well suited to target shooting because of it's accuracy, low powered cartridge, and ergonomics. The AK fires a round that is nearly identical to the .30-30 so is entirely suitable for hunting deer. Bear in mind how utterly insulting and slanderous you are being when you accuse me of mass-murder for owning these rifles. (By the way, do you also believe the police are mass-murderers for carrying these rifles?)

I don't own a gun because I want to get into a gunfight any more than I own a fire extinguisher because I want my house to burn down. No sane person wants to get into a gunfight. But, just like a house fire, if it happens, I want to be able to handle it.

"If it would save even one child's life!" Since I not only have no intention of killing children but would do my best to save them, how would disarming me save even one child?

The National Guard was not the Militia referenced in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, the hoplophobes tend to point to the National Guard as the right of the people acknowledged in the 2nd Amendment. The fact that a sitting President is contemplating, and has the authority, to take control of the National Guard, simply demonstrates that the current National Guard is an extension of the standing federal army that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit.

I'm somewhat amused at how many anti-gun advocates are proud of how profoundly ignorant they are on the subject. Imagine if cancer researchers wanted to fight cancer but refused to learn anything about it.

I have no use for the bump-fire stock (I also know how to bump-fire without a gadget). In fact, I have very little use for full-auto fire, at all. I prefer 20 round magazines over 30 round or larger. If either of those things were banned, I would hardly notice. However, I won't give them up in the name of compromise. If you throw passengers out of the sleigh to appease the wolves, you just end up getting chased by well-fed wolves.

"Gun violence"? "Gun homicides"? Am I to understand that the hoplophobes (someone with an irrational fear of firearms) are okay with people stabbing, poisoning, and strangling each other but shooting is somehow gauche?

An armed man can be killed, but he cannot be enslaved.

How are red flag laws and mandatory "buybacks" not confiscation? 

I don't get overly upset when you want to disarm me- that's not personal, it's just business. What upsets me is when you want to blame me, and punish me, for horrendous crimes that I didn't commit. I suppose it's easier for you to blame me than face real criminals. You think I won't harm you while you know they will, so you feel safer abusing me and can pretend you are showing courage while doing so. And, after all, it's not about reality, it's all about your feelings.

Seems to me the irrational ones are the ones who insist on blaming inanimate objects and innocent third parties for the acts of criminals. Of course, I understand that criminals are scary so it's safer to scream at someone (or something) who you know won't hurt you. It's kind of like the abusive husband going home after tough day and kicking his dog or yelling at his wife.

I'm going to start equating hoplophobes with wife-beaters. A wife-beater is a coward who can't face his real problems so he takes it out on someone he believes won't fight back. Criminals and crazies are scary so, instead of facing them, the hoplophobes make a big production out of blaming the NRA and law-abiding gun owners and, of course, inanimate objects.

The second amendment allows us to have the weapons we need to keep our (or, now, "the") government from disarming us so that they can subject us to whatever indignities they deem appropriate. The second amendment is intended to allow us the tools to defend ourselves against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Our government is intended to be of, by and for the people - that means you and me. We are in charge, not some nebulous "government".

It's not about guns. It's not about the second amendment of the Constitution. It's about the entire Constitution. The actions and proposed laws violate almost all of our Constitutional rights. The right to free speech, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right to due process, the right against self-incrimination, the entire tenth amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."), freedom of religion. . . guys, it's all coming to a head. I'm reminded of Germany just before the nazis came into power. The rhetoric is the same.

Our right to keep and bear arms is based on the natural right of self-preservation. You can't intelligently argue the point with someone who does not believe in your right to live. You need to keep in mind that someone who wants to disarm you doesn't acknowledge your right to exist.

I've been asked several times how best to argue with hoplophobes (anti-gunners). I may write an in-depth article on it but it does present a problem. Hoplophobes tend to be emotionally and intellectually immature as well as profoundly ignorant. It's almost impossible to argue fact and reason with someone who lives in denial of both in pursuit of "feeling safe" (which is not the same as actually being safe). It's similar to arguing religion with a 2 year old. The fact is, banning firearms will not cure someone's emotional problems.

One of the more popular arguments for gun control involves the question, "Who needs a high-capacity magazine and semi-automatic gun?" Since when do I have to demonstrate need for almost anything? If need is the primary criterium for ownership, perhaps we should all be riding bicycles and wearing Mao suits. As a matter of fact, though, I may very well need a military style rifle. The second amendment to our constitution was not about hunting and only secondarily about self-defense. The idea was that the people of this nation be armed sufficiently to defend ourselves against abusive governments, both foreign and domestic.

Before you go demanding new gun-control laws, you might want to familiarize yourself with the laws that are on the books. It's not my fault if the government doesn't want to enforce them. Some of them include the 1934 National Firearms Act (strictly controls assault rifles), 1968 Gun Control Act (eliminates the so-called Internet/gun-show loophole), 1989 Firearm Owner's Protection Act (bans the import or manufacture of assault rifles except for government or corporations), and the 1993 Brady Act (requires background checks for firearm purchases).

There is no question what the intent was of the second amendment. You might be able to argue it's current relevancy but the intent was clear; that the people of this nation be able to mount an armed resistance to an abusive government (at any level). I do not believe people should be allowed to store large quantities of high-explosives in a residential area (although, all the assault rifles in the world wouldn't present an unreasonable hazard), but my neighbor has a full propane tank right next to my carport so I guess it's a matter of perspective on that one.

Pro-self defender - "Chicago has gun control but they have a terrible crime problem."

Anti-self defender - "The criminals buy their guns in Indiana and bring them to Chicago. We need more gun control."

So, the non-logic is; Chicago has gun control. Chicago has a crime problem. Indiana does not have gun control. Indiana does not have a crime problem. Therefore we need more gun control in Indiana to solve Chicago's crime problem.

Saw a post from Canada supporting a ban on "dangerous" guns. (Not like I care what gun control other countries do or don't have.) Thought about posting this -

You guys should just do what we did in the States and ban murder. The "Don't Kill Nobody" act of 1804 banned all forms of murder. Since the act was passed there have been no murders in the United States. That act was followed in 1924 with the "Words not Sticks and Stones" act of 1922 (no explanation why "1922"). This act prohibited all forms of violence in favor of public debate for all disputes. There hasn't been a fist-fight in the U.S. since 1924.

I'm not overly interested in the whole gun control "debate". Nothing I say or do is going to change anybody's mind on either side. I did, however, find this amusing. It's essentially the argument used by the founding fathers. Never forget, when someone wants to disarm you, either in person or by proxy, it's because they want to do something that your being armed and able to defend yourself prevents.

Before you get all passionate about proposed gun-control (victim disarmament) laws, ask three questions. Is the law already on the books? (Usually, yes.) Would the proposed law have had any effect on the latest atrocity? (Usually, no.) Will criminals obey the new law? (Universally, no.)

Remember, if someone wants to disarm you, it's because they want to do something to you that you're being armed prevents. There are currently two groups of people who want to disarm you; and make no bones about it, they want to take all your guns plus anything else that keeps you from being helpless.

The first group is what Lenin termed "useful idiots" ("Four legs good, two legs bad!" for anyone familiar with "Animal Farm".). These are people who react out of ignorance and irrationality. Belief is much more important than reality for these people. They are religious fanatics. You cannot reason or argue facts with a religious fanatic.

The second group are the real impetus behind the whole gun control movement. These are the people who know they can't subjugate an armed populous. (As Jeff Cooper wrote, "A rifle turns a man from a subject to a citizen.") This second group wants to get richer and more powerful than they are currently by taking your money, your labor, your land, or even your daughters. This second group is what the second amendment was all about.

Both groups will never be satisfied with compromise. They want you helpless before their wills. If a man tries to rob you, and compromises by leaving you half your money, you've still been robbed.

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." - L. Neil Smith

Guns are just the first step. It's not about safety. It's about control. The very rich people who run the corporations are using their money to run the government and disenfranchise the rest of us. The very rich (many of whom are descended from European royalty) would like very badly to return to the feudal system.

All the supposed restrictions on cars don't seem to be preventing the misuse of automobiles. You hear about people driving even though their license has been suspended dozens of times (75th time's the charm). Why would firearms be any different?

Crimes on college campuses are on the rise. One student group wants to allow concealed carry of firearms. Another group thinks more gun control is the answer. Since firearms are banned entirely on campus, I’d be interested to know how one gets more gun control than that.

Please, read "Fahrenheit 451", "Animal Farm", and "1984". (Or, at least watch the movies.) Google has been doing some really shitty anti-gun (anti-self defense) stuff ever since they acquired YouTube. They pulled videos over to Google Plus so they could claim that the YouTube channels were violating their standards and shut down the channels. Now, they are blatantly doing it on YouTube (no more secret, back-door crap). It's not about guns; it's about information and control.

If you don't like guns don't buy, own, or carry one. You can even make your home or business a gun-free zone by posting signs. I will, personally, honor your wishes and do not bring firearms into homes or businesses where they're not wanted. You don't think criminals will pay attention to your signs? If it won't work in your home or business, what makes you think it would work on the city, state, or national level?

I don't worship firearms. To me, they are tools, nothing more. I am not a member of the Firearms Ownership religion as so many shooters seem to be nowadays. However, I do get amused at people who think I am some kind of danger to them because I'm carrying a pistol. First, what is it they would like to do that my being armed prevents them from doing? Second, I don't need a pistol to be a danger to the sort of person who's afraid of guns.

For firearms registration to be effective in solving a crime a very specific set of circumstances must occur.

The would-be criminal must purchase the firearm legally and register it. Most criminals can’t legally purchase firearms and most firearms used in crimes are obtained illegally.

The criminal must leave the firearm at the scene of the crime. Most criminals take their firearms with them when they leave.

The criminal must have no other connections with the victim or the crime scene. There must be no other forensics or motive to lead to the criminal.

There must be no other connection- like fingerprints- connecting the criminal to the firearm.

The simple fact is that (except on TV) firearms registration has almost never been used to solve a crime.

What does firearms registration do? First, it allows the government another method to take your money. Second, it tells the government where it can go to confiscate firearms from otherwise law-abiding citizens.

As for registering cars; I am not required to register my car unless I operate it on public streets. I am also not required to have a driver’s license unless I operate my car on public streets.

Criminals do not register their guns. Only law-abiding people register their guns. Seems like registration only applies to good people, not the bad ones. Tells you who the government wants to control.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrence's and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - C. S. Wheatley

Russel Brand would like a kinder, more considerate and compassionate society with restrictions on firearms. What he fails to understand is that firearms aren't a problem if people have no wish to harm each other. On the other hand, if you remove the firearms from a less enlightened society, you simply leave the weak at the mercy, or lack thereof, of any strong who might wish them harm.

"The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem." - Col. Jeff Cooper

I've been contacted by a number of people who are interested in obtaining firearms for self-defense. This is somewhat like waiting until you smell smoke before you buy a fire extinguisher. Unfortunately, firearms are in short supply, as of right now. Beggars can't be choosers and you may not be able to purchase exactly what you want. Very expensive models are still available new. The other option is to find whatever is available used. Also remember, simply owning a firearm does not make you armed any more than owning a piano makes you a musician; you must learn, at the very minimum, safe gun-handling procedures.

Jeff Cooper said Colts were like the Ladies Hat's in Boston. That is when asked where they got their hats, the ladies would say, "we don't get hats, we have our hats".

The solutions are quite simple. If you're against marijuana, don't smoke it. If you're against abortion, don't get one. If you're against gay marriage, don't marry a homosexual. If you're against firearms, don't buy one. Problem solved.

The hoplophobes (pro-victim disarmament, anti-gun) constantly demonstrate how profoundly ignorant they are on the subject. (I should begin referring to them as I2; ignorant and irrational.) What strikes me is how proud they are of their ignorance. They will proudly proclaim, "I don't know anything about guns!" Since they seem to perceive firearms as some sort of health concern, I would equate this with a cancer researcher proudly proclaiming, "I don't know anything about cancer!"

If you cannot trust someone with a firearm, how can you trust them with a car, with a vote, or with free speech? When someone tells me they don't trust me with an AR15, how long will it be before they decide I can't be trusted with any of the others? And who are they that they get to decide who's trustworthy enough for anything? As a matter of fact, I don't trust most Americans with any of those things (traffic this weekend bears me out) but, I am not conceited enough to think I should decide these things for others until they have proven, through our justice system, that they can't be trusted. I still believe in innocent until proven guilty.

I was reading some anti-self defense propaganda piece. The author wrote that he dreamt of a world without guns. The dumbass doesn't need to dream. He should have just paid attention in history class. Crime, murder, war, massacre, genocide, all existed prior to the invention of gunpowder; let alone the autoloader. The difference is swords, knives and bludgeons require muscle power. The repeating firearm makes the weak a physical match for the large and strong; it doesn't turn good people evil.

The same piece of offal claimed that, as he fired an AR15 for the first time, all he could do was picture what it could do to school children and churchgoers. If picking up a rifle causes him to fantasize about killing children, maybe he should have himself committed.

Just owning a firearm isn't sufficient. They are easier to use safely than an automobile but you still have to apply some thought. “It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully.” - Jeff Cooper

I was working in a gun store when the so-called assault weapons ban went into effect. Most of my customers supported the ban and made comments like, "Who needs an oozie or AK?" These same customers threw a fit when I told them I couldn't sell them larger magazines for their Remington 740 hunting rifles. As some of you may be aware, the 1934 national firearms act actually bans 12 guage pump shotguns as destructive devices unless specifically approved by the Secretary of the Treasury as suitable for sporting purposes. Just remember, when you are supporting a ban on specific firearms because you don't own one, any ban can be extended to almost any firearm. Anybody remember when the Secretary of the Treasury redefined bullet resistant vests as machine guns so that civilians couldn't buy them under the 1989 act?

Hmm. . . I clicked on an anti-gun article from Business Insider and found several factual errors (lies). When I attempted to mark it as "offensive content" the button wouldn't activate for me. I'll bet I could have marked an NRA ad as "offensive".

The latest thing is for gun owners to destroy their AR15s in support of not killing children. I think if those people are feeling the urge to go out and murder children, they need to do more than simply cut up a rifle.

Cowards? The only cowards I see are the hypocrites who are ready to send their assault rifle wielding bully-boys out to deprive law abiding citizens of their rights and property. They're awfully brave when surrounded by armed bodyguards.

Some mass murderers choose the AR15 because the media keeps telling them it's the best thing for mass murder. It's a good thing the media doesn't promote gasoline and matches the same way as they've been used in more mass murders than any rifle.

He didn't need an "assault weapon", "machine gun" or "AR." (None of which did he have, anyway.) He could have used a piece of lead pipe. Nobody even tried to defend themselves. One man against more than 100 people? So, how is disarming me going to make you any less defenseless? Or, for that matter, how would disarming me make me any less formidable?

The ATF pistol brace amnesty is a scam. Do not fall for it. ATF did something similar many years ago with the Striker shotguns. They told people the Striker was legal. They changed their minds. They offered an "amnesty". They accepted the $200.00 tax stamp fees from the owners. They changed their minds and seized the now registered shotguns. Please note, ATF had the option of sending these people to prison as felons.

The anti-self defense crowd likes to point to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater as justification for limits on the first amendment and thus justification for limits on the second amendment. However, it is perfectly legal and moral to shout "fire" in a crowded theater if there really is a fire.

Semi-autos are easier to operate than manual actions, especially for many people with physical handicaps or limitations. A call for a ban on semi-autos is discriminatory against the handicapped.

“I coined the term hoplophobia in the sincere belief that we should recognize a very peculiar sociological attitude for what it is – a more or less hysterical neurosis rather than a legitimate political posititon.” - Jeff Cooper

History Books

(This is a missive I sent to my brother who is a professional firearms trainer.  http://www.immediateactionconcepts.com/ )

https://archive.org/details/No_Second_Place_Winner_Bill_Jordan

https://archive.org/details/Combat_Handgunnery_The_Gun_Digest_Book_of_4th_Edition_by_Chuck_Taylor

https://www.amazon.com/Shooting-J-Henry-FitzGerald/dp/194000120X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494080122&sr=8-1&keywords=shooting+fitzgerald

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Place-Winner-William-Jordan/dp/0936279095/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494080172&sr=8-1&keywords=no+second+place+winner

https://www.amazon.com/McGiverns-Book-Fancy-Revolver-Shooting/dp/160239086X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494080196&sr=8-1&keywords=fast+and+fancy+revolver+shooting

Here are a few books I highly recommend you read.  They’ll give you some historical perspective and maybe a different way to look at a few things.  I see so many “new” things in the firearms world that simply demonstrate a lack of historical knowledge.    

When I compare martial arts, I look for the differences but I also look for the similarities.  When you see a common thread running through all the martial arts, you may have come across a very basic and important principle.  I think this is especially important when comparing the different martial firearms philosophies and techniques.  You have so many people trying to differentiate themselves from everyone else that you wind up with a lot of flourishes being added or changes being made to no real improvement. 

“No Second Place Winner” by Bill Jordan is what I consider the bible when it comes to point shooting.  The man was in a number of gunfights and witnessed many more.  You may not agree with his technique but you’d do well to learn from his experience. 

“Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting” by Ed McGivern is a fascinating study in developing speed and accuracy with a handgun.  It is, however, an extraordinarily dry read as McGivern was trying to copy the writing style found in the textbooks of the era.  Still, I think you’ll find a great deal of useful information; much of which is being re-discovered by a lot of trainers, today. 

“Shooting” by J. Henry Fitzgerald is similar to McGivern’s book but much easier to read.  Fitzgerald covered a lot more of the martial applications of handguns.  You’ll notice that Fitzgerald addressed virtually all of the problems encountered in a gunfight. 

You may be familiar with Chuck Taylor’s book, already.  Taylor is another person with tons of experience both in the military and police.  It’s good to look at his observations and the rationale behind the techniques that he developed and taught.    

Jargon and Shooting

From time to time I am asked by someone to teach him or her how to shoot or handle firearms. I have had formal training in firearms instruction and taught a great many beginners how to shoot safely. One tool I've found useful is YouTube. There are a number of excellent videos (and many more stinkers) on handling and shooting firearms that I can simply send to folks to give them a basic understanding before we actually go hands-on. I also prefer to do some hands-on training before we ever go to the range with live ammo.

Something that I've begun to find bothersome is the slang/jargon/lingo/terminology that is cropping up in a lot of the new videos.  I’ve been active in the shooting sports for almost half a century.  More importantly, I’m interested in the history and theory of firearms and shooting and actively seek out information.  My collection of books and magazines is extensive.  In addition, and perhaps more importantly, I have years of personal experience in almost all aspects of shooting.  Many of these videos include terminology that I’m not familiar with and worse, this new terminology is replacing terms that have been in use for a hundred years or more. 

 There are several reasons for the new slang.  The first and only legitimate use is to describe something new.  If there is a genuinely new piece of equipment, or technique, or understanding of a process, then a new term is required.  Unfortunately, there are a lot fewer new things in the world of firearms than the youngsters would like to admit. 

The other reasons for new terminology are less acceptable and more frequent. 

Simple ignorance can breed a new word or phrase.  One of the advantages of books is that they can pre-date the Internet.  It’s hard for the current generation to understand how recent and ephemeral the information they find on the Internet really is.  Online info also spreads very quickly so the youngsters hear the other youngsters using the same verbiage (and in some cases mispronunciations) and assume it’s correct.  A lack of knowledge of history forces reinvention.  I would personally rather build on the knowledge of my predecessors instead of having to rediscover everything myself. 

Marketing is another reason for the new jargon.  All the new tactical trainers have a monetary interest in gathering students.  Since the current generation grew up with rapidly changing technology “new is better” has become an accepted (although potentially inaccurate) catchphrase.  It’s hard to stand out from your competition if you teach essentially the same curriculum.  One way to stand out is to teach something “new” and different.  Since there is remarkably little “new” in the shooting world, making up new terminology for old concepts is one way to differentiate yourself from your competition.  To be fair, some of these guys are genuinely ignorant of what came before so are, in all innocence, reinventing the wheel.      

Another and more disturbing reason for new terminology is exclusion.  There’s a tendency for humans to want to belong to groups.  People want to believe they’re special and belonging to an exclusive group makes them feel special.  This often leads to wanting to keep others out of the group.  A secret language or inside joke is one way to exclude others.  If we’d like the shooting sports to grow, we have to be inclusive of others.  By intimidating new shooters, we limit the interest, growth, and support of firearms and shooting. 

The whole point of communication is to make ourselves understood.  The correct and consistent use of terminology is important to clear communication.  If we insist on rapidly changing or misusing the language, we defeat the entire purpose. 

Pistol Advice for Mike

Pistol Advice for Mike     

First, caliber is both important and unimportant.  I need a bullet that will do the job but there are any number of cartridges that will take care of business.  I can defend myself with a 9 mm, .40, 10 mm, .357 SIG, .45 ACP, or just about anything that goes bang.  I would personally stick with 9 mm or .45 simply because ammunition is more available than some of the less common calibers.  Select a good bullet that will give you the penetration you need.  Test the ammo you select in your pistol for reliability.  Don’t expect the same sort of performance out of a .25 as you would a 9.  Also, even though a .500 will do the job, follow up shots will be more difficult and weight can get out of hand.  My personal preference is for a .45 ACP with a controlled expansion hollowpoint or full metal jacket flat point in 200 to 230 grains. 

Don’t get too caught up with accuracy.  Accuracy is actually at the bottom of my desirable attributes in a defensive pistol- reliability is the most important.  Remember that virtually all defensive shootings occur at conversational distances (“Gimme yer wallet!”) with most occurring at contact range.  Yes, you are most likely to start shooting when your opponent actually has his hands on you.  Many years ago, Col. Jeff Cooper stated that virtually all modern, quality handguns were capable of shooting golf-ball size groups at typical defensive ranges.  Clint Smith states that, if you can keep all your shots on a paper plate at 15 yards under all conditions, you have sufficient accuracy to save your life.  I don’t mind as much accuracy as I can get but I won’t give up reliability and I don’t see an advantage to carrying a pistol that will shoot one-inch groups at 50 meters when I can’t shoot one inch groups at 50 meters under field conditions.  If you and your pistol can hold one inch per ten meters under stress and field conditions, that’s really all you need out of a handgun. 

Don’t spend so much time agonizing over which pistol to get that you end up without.  I can work with just about anything.  I have my preferences but I’ve been issued or had to settle for something else on more than one occasion.  I will understand the limitations of whatever I get and work to maximize my ability with whatever I’m carrying.   

I would advise you to get a nice used Glock or Springfield XD in 9 mm, .40, or .45.  Police trade-ins can be a good deal.  Otherwise, there are several inexpensive but solid imports like Taurus or Canik.  You can find something inexpensive you can work with until you decide what you really want.  It doesn’t hurt to have more than one pistol. 

Information for the New AR Owner

Here are some of my favorite training videos for new AR owners. 

How to clean it Air Force style. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HXFobzhJdo

How to shoot it Marine Corps style. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvW-0zUghTk

This is a good intro on exterior ballistics and where to zero your AR.  I like a 200 meter zero for most optics. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klvve0ZG_jo

This is a surprisingly good intro on operating the AR. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wBFfdKvXOc

Clint Smith is my favorite instructor.  I agree with almost everything he teaches.  Here’s an intro to his urban rifle course. 

Part one is the classroom portion.  Please don’t skip it.  There’s a lot of solid information in it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl1rR6bFRq8 

Part two is the range portion. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-DVHIKTn1g

Dave Spaulding is another excellent instructor. 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4C7C18C5AF8BA34B

Here is a video on accessorizing your AR.  When it comes to accessories, I believe that less is more.  I like a good set of iron sights, a practical optic, a two point sling, and a white light.  I don’t care for the vertical foregrips and prefer a nice set of rail covers so it doesn’t feel like I’m trying to hang onto a wood rasp. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11aQx2HXJ9I

Handgun Barrel Length

Handgun Barrel Length 

Barrel length is one of the variables you will have to choose when purchasing a handgun.  In many cases, the determining factor will simply be what you prefer.  However, there are some very real differences that translate to advantages and disadvantages between barrel lengths.  I will go over those differences and tell you my preferences and reasoning. 

Please note, the way you measure the barrel length on revolving pistols (revolvers) and autoloading pistols is different.  When you measure the barrel on a revolver, you do not include the chamber.  This means that a four inch barrel on a revolver is equivalent to a five inch barrel on an auto. 

Longer barrels give you higher velocities.  This may be important for hunting or long-range target shooting.  The general rule is 15 to 30 feet per second per inch of barrel length.  The reason is the longer the barrel the more powder can burn before the bullet exits the firearm.  Remember that when you are comparing calibers from a ballistics table.  Many of the published velocities for magnum cartridges are obtained from six or even eight inch barrels.  If you are shooting a two inch barrel .357 magnum, you are not going to get the same velocities and might be served just as well shooting .38 specials out of the same pistol for less muzzle blast. 

Longer barrels have less muzzle blast and flash.  Muzzle blast is caused by unburned powder.  Getting a more complete burn reduces the noise and flash.  Reduced muzzle flash can be important if you have to shoot your handgun in the dark.  The majority of defensive shootings occur in low light and too much muzzle flash can blind you temporarily.    

Longer barrels can allow for a longer sight radius.  In general, the longer the sight radius, the easier it is to see variations in your sight alignment.  A longer sight radius makes it easier to achieve subjective accuracy.  Accuracy is important for target shooting and hunting but is less so for defensive shooting.  Virtually all defensive handgun shooting occurs at conversational distances (“Gimme yer wallet!”) with most occurring at contact ranges.  While I like getting the most accuracy I can, it’s a tertiary concern- behind reliability and power- in a defensive handgun. 

Longer barrels cut down on felt recoil.  The added weight and leverage gained by a longer barrel reduce muzzle rise. 

Shorter barrels have several advantages.  They make the pistol shorter and lighter and, to a certain extent, more concealable.  A shorter barrel also makes the pistol easier to draw quickly.  When a barrel gets beyond a certain length, it restricts the type of holsters and carry positions you can use. 

Shorter barrels also have some disadvantages.  Disadvantages include reduced velocity, reduced sight radius (not important if you use a micro-red dot), increased muzzle blast (which can be mitigated by tailoring your ammunition to your weapon), and, in autoloaders, decreased reliability.  That last disadvantage is the most concerning. 

I’ll use the 1911 as an example but the mechanics apply across most designs.  The 1911 was designed with a 5 inch barrel and a 16 pound recoil spring. 

The 5 inch barrel gives the maximum reliability in the 1911.  If we reduce the barrel length, we also reduce the distance the slide can move when it ejects the fired case and loads the new cartridge.  The pistol will become less tolerant of variations in bullet profile and cartridge length. 

You also have to get the same amount of work done in less space which means the recoil spring has to be stronger.  The standard spring rate in a 4 inch barrel 1911 goes up to 18 pounds and it increases to 20 pounds with a three inch barrel.  Increasing the recoil spring rate makes the pistol less tolerant of variations in ammunition recoil and the 1911 is a recoil operated mechanism.  Heavier recoil springs also make the pistol more sensitive to limp-wristing.  Limp-wristing is just what it sounds like, you fire the pistol with a limp wrist.  This can induce malfunctions because the shooter is not providing enough resistance for the spring to work against.    

Finally, the 1911 is a tipping barrel design.  The shorter barrels end up at more extreme angles than longer barrels when the slide is in its rearmost position.  Again, this increases the sensitivity to bullet profile and cartridge overall length.  Most modern auto pistols use a cam design rather than the swinging link of the 1911 which makes the barrel tipping less of an issue but it can still cause problems in the subcompacts.  There are a couple of designs that use a rotating barrel or other locking system that don’t have this particular concern. 

You can tailor your ammunition to suit your pistol and reduce some of the problems caused by a too-short barrel.  Regardless of what handgun you use, you should test the ammunition you intend to carry for compatibility and reliability in your pistol.  Testing two to five hundred rounds of your intended carry ammo is not unreasonable for a defensive firearm.  Ammunition using faster powders can help reduce muzzle blast in a short barrel. 

So, for a carry weapon, the idea is to choose a barrel length that gives a good balance between the advantages and disadvantages for your given situation. 

For dedicated target or hunting handguns I prefer a six to eight inch barrel.  With barrels that long, I use a crossdraw holster.  I find anything longer than eight inches to be unwieldy regardless of my intended use.  Examples include my old bullseye target pistol which is a Ruger .22 long rifle with a six and seven-eighths inch barrel and a Ruger Bisley .44 magnum with a 7 ½ inch barrel.  The long barrel in the .44 magnum reduces muzzle blast and recoil considerably.    

One of the few advantages of a handgun over a long gun is portability.  You have to carry a rifle but you wear a handgun.  If I’m working in bear country, a slung rifle can get in the way but a holstered pistol can go almost unnoticed all day.  My everyday carry gun when I’m boondocking in areas with large animals is a four inch barrel Smith and Wesson .44 magnum.  With that barrel length I get the velocity and subjective accuracy I need without making the pistol heavy and unwieldy.  The recoil is unpleasant but not unmanageable.  I carry the pistol in a strong side belt holster or horizontal shoulder holster. 

I have several pistols that I have carried for self-defense.  I don’t like a barrel shorter than four inches in an autoloader or three inches in a revolver.  I don’t mind carrying a full-sized five inch barrel 1911.  I find the bulk in the grips and action is more of a concern for concealment than the barrel length.  I usually use an inside the waistband (IWB) belt holster that keeps most of the pistol out of sight.  I prefer the four inch barrel on the autos to reduce weight rather than size.  I carry a five inch barrel 1911 .45 ACP in a strong side IWB or horizontal shoulder holster.  I carry a Taurus 24/7 .45 ACP with a four inch barrel in a strong side IWB.  I use lighter bullets with faster powder in the Taurus to cut down on muzzle flash and recoil.  Please note, one of the reasons I prefer the .45 ACP is that it is a low pressure round with minimal muzzle flash to begin with.  Sometimes I will carry a 2 ½ inch barrel Smith and Wesson model 19 .357 magnum in a strong side, high-ride, outside the waistband holster.  I use +P .38 specials rather than magnum ammo to cut down on the recoil and muzzle blast without giving up much velocity in that short barrel.  I jokingly say that I carry the .38 when I don’t feel the need to go armed.    

    

Maritza's Birthday 1911

Maritza’s Birthday 1911 

Mari enjoyed shooting one of my .45 ACP 1911 pistols and wanted one of her own.  I decided to get her one for her birthday.  Unfortunately, we are coming out of a firearms shortage caused by fear mongering, profiteering, and hoarding.  Pistols of the 1911 design from most of the major manufacturers were difficult to find and generally overpriced. 

The Philippine manufactured 1911s were both inexpensive and widely available.  In the past, I have been less than impressed with the firearms coming from the Philippines; quality control and metallurgy tended to be poor.  Before I bought one, I did considerable research and handled a number of the currently available pistols.  The Philippine manufacturers have modernized their manufacturing methods and tightened their quality control considerably.  As a matter of fact, they are turning out pistols and parts for a number of other well-known brand names.  The examples I handled showed quite good fit and finish.  The reviews I found online indicated a few minor problems (primarily with spring longevity) but nothing I couldn’t repair or replace myself. 

I decided to take a chance and ordered a Citadel 1911A1 imported by Legacy Sports.  I ordered through Davidson’s Guns as they offer a lifetime warranty on firearms purchased from them. 

Per Mari’s stated preference, I ordered a full-sized pistol with a 5” barrel and checkered wooden stocks.  The finish is a black phosphate similar to Parkerizing.  The pistol came with a lockable hard case and two eight-round magazines. 

Mari’s Citadel is quite similar to the Loaded model offered by Springfield Armory with a number of modifications added to the original 1911A1 platform.  It has a beavertail grip safety with a memory bump (which I like), a skeletonized hammer and medium length trigger, chamfered magazine well, flat plastic checkered mainspring housing (which I don’t like), front slide serrations, and an ambidextrous safety (which I also don’t like).  I’m perfectly willing and able to change out any parts that Mari doesn’t like for something that suits her better. 

The sights are a nice copy of the Novak low profile fixed sights.  They offer an excellent sight picture but they are black on black.  I personally prefer a three dot system.  Whatever Mari decides to go with is easily accomplished with a bit of paint.  The sights aren’t true Novaks and the dovetails will require some modification to fit another set of sights, if necessary. 

I detail stripped the pistol and cleaned off all the preservative shipping oil.  That oil is designed for rust prevention and not lubrication and often acts more like glue.  I think much of the talk of “breaking in” these Philippine 1911s is simply the new owners failing to lubricate them properly.   

I inspected all the parts and everything seemed to be in spec and well made.  I understand there is some concern over the metal injection molded (MIM) parts, but if they’re well executed, they should serve.  I can easily replace any small parts or springs that don’t seem to be holding up.  I lubricated everything with Ballistol and hit the high-wear points with some moly grease.  I then reassembled the pistol and worked the action to smooth out some of the finish.  I function checked it but did not test fire it as I felt that Maritza should be the first one to fire her new pistol. 

Maritza was quite pleased with her birthday gift but we didn’t get a chance to go out and shoot it for several days.  We went out early Sunday morning to try and beat the worsening winds.  My regular target holders are buried in storage so I used a large cardboard box.  A chunk of wood in the bottom served to keep our impromptu target holder from heading for the New Mexico border. 

I had Mari load one magazine with a single round and her second magazine with three rounds.  With a new semi-auto it assures that, if the disconnector is not working correctly, you won’t empty a magazine on uncontrolled full-auto.  The first round was on the paper at about 15 yards.  The pistol cycled flawlessly with the 230 grain FMJ round nose we were able to find.  Empties were being ejected very consistently about five feet out and in the same area. 

Maritza had me fire a few rounds and I was able to keep all the shots within a couple of inches at 15 yards; which isn’t bad for offhand in high winds.  It’s hitting a little low for Mari but the sights are spot on for me.  Overall we’re both well pleased with the pistol. 

Maritza’s gunhandling and accuracy is improving with each training session.  Her loading and unloading of the pistol is getting smoother and smoother and her recoil control is excellent for someone who hasn’t fired more than three full boxes of ammo through a .45 yet.  Much of the gunhandling and accuracy skills can be developed without firing the pistol so Mari will be able to improve her skills even if we can’t get to the range frequently. 

Unfortunately Mari found out that shooting, while fun to the point of addiction, can be expensive.  The one box of factory ammo she bought didn’t last long.  Reloading and airsoft will allow more shooting with less expense. 

I wrote the following as part of a birthday letter I included with her present: 

“Now comes the fun part.  Guns are a lot like children- they end up costing you a lot of money.  You’ll want to buy ammunition, cleaning supplies, safety equipment, different parts, holster and magazine pouch, spare magazines, targets. . . the list is endless.  I haven’t given you a pistol.  I’ve given you a money pit.  But still, I hope you enjoy it.”