Desinfektan Kandang Ayam Online Shop Terlengkap & Terbaik
Desinfektan Cap Badak Obat Penghilang Bau Amonia Kandang Obat Untuk Mengurangi gas Amonia, gas beracun, serta menjadikan kotoran tidak berbau sekaligus untuk sanitasi bio security Heat Stress Menekan pertumbuhan bakteri E-Coli, CRD & bakteri pathogen.
I was sorry - and angry - to read this report from Utah.
A man accidentally fired his gun while trying to dismantle it and struck a woman who was three bays over at the TNT Gun and Range on Saturday afternoon in Murray ... The bullet went through both of the woman's legs.
Sgt. Paul Christiansen with Murray Police Department said the woman was in her 50s and is expected to make a full recovery. She was sent into surgery the same day to treat her dual wounds.
All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.
Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.
This incident was a clear breach of Rule 2 at the very least, and probably Rule 3 as well. Guns don't just "go off by accident" unless someone's fiddling with them, and it's all too easy to let one's finger stray too close to the trigger. (That's not helped by the design of some pistols like the Glock, where one has to pull the trigger - AFTER UNLOADING THE GUN! - in order to disassemble it. If one hasn't properly unloaded it, loud noises can result.)
Thanks be to God that nothing worse happened. One trusts that measures will be taken to teach the erring gun owner better weapon-handling. I hope he has good insurance, because the medical bills resulting from his goof are likely to be high, and I daresay he'll be held liable for every penny of them - as he should be.
I've been watching for signs of a political backlash against the aggressively "pushy" attempts by Democratic Party legislators to reshape their electoral districts, cities, states, and even the nation as a whole, in a progressive, far-left-wing, socialist image. A good example is Virginia, where despite massive protests and rejection from over 90% of the state's counties, the new Democratic majority government (elected by only a few counties around Washington D.C., with large numbers of people) passed new anti-gun legislation and imposed it on the rest of the population willy-nilly.
Staunton, a usually reliable Democratic stronghold in the conservative Shenandoah Valley, went surprisingly Republican in Tuesday’s City Council elections.
The slate ... took the four seats up for grabs in the 2020 local election, giving the Queen City a conservative majority for the first time in recent memory.
. . .
How unlikely was this conservative sweep? Hillary Clinton won Staunton in the 2016 presidential election, Barack Obama had won the city in the previous two election cycles, and Democrat Jennifer Lewis pulled 56.5 percent of the vote in her 2018 Sixth District congressional race against Republican Ben Cline, who eventually swept to victory, winning 59.7 percent of the vote district-wide.
. . .
The result is a shocker, to say the least, and if people in Richmond are paying attention at all, this one should be a wakeup call times ten.
I'm hearing increasing rumors of a similar, but even stronger electoral backlash following the riots over the death of George Floyd. Many voters acknowledge the problems that exist in our society, and (like me) are more than willing to permit (even join in) peaceful protests to bring about change. However, when thugs and low-lifes take advantage of protests to start rioting and looting, their tolerance (and mine) is at an end. Matters should never have been permitted to get so far out of line. The sight of uniformed police officers "taking a knee" in solidarity with protesters is also a step too far. It's the job of police to maintain law and order - not to publicly adopt political positions or express political opinions. They're supposed to be neutral, "above the fray", impartial.
The result is increasing determination among some of the electorate to make their feelings known at the ballot box in November. I've heard many expressions of disgust, anger and resolve, and I know I'm far from alone in hearing them. Other bloggers with whom I'm in touch report the same things from their audience.
The response from the progressive left, of course, will be additional voter and electoral fraud, as we've posited in these pages in the past. They've become more and more blatant in their efforts to do that, including Congress' recent attempt to impose and fund "ballot harvesting", eliminate state and local electoral protections through national legislation, and other measures. Fortunately, it looks as though their "license to steal elections" won't go any further this year . . . but they'll try again. If they win control of the nation's government in November, look for that to become law next year, just as soon as they can ram it through.
As I've said many times before, I'm neither Democrat nor Republican - I vote for the individual, not the party. Nevertheless, I'm encouraged by the outcome of the Staunton, VA elections. If our politicians give us the metaphorical finger by forcing through legislation, we can return the favor at the polls. Let's hope more American voters do that in November.
Over the past few weeks and months, I've harped on personal security and self-defense issues, particularly in the light of the coronavirus pandemic and the additional stresses it's brought upon our society.
I described how I was using my "lockdown time" to upgrade some friends' guns, and wrote a threepartseries of articles about personal defense rifles.
I encouraged readers to use their lockdown time to maintain and improve their shooting skills, and offered suggestions on how to do so, even in your own back yard.
Former SEAL Matt Bracken wrote an article back in 2012: "When The Music Stops – How America’s Cities May Explode In Violence" (link updated to new site). If you haven't read it before, I recommend you do so now. It may be over-the-top . . . but then again, it may not. I've seen very similar scenarios to those he portrays in other countries, and the consequences were just as dire as he foresees (including the retaliation of those trying to defend themselves and their neighborhoods). It can happen here too: and right now, with so many people out of work, kids out of school, jobs lost, essential goods in short supply, people confined to their homes without any relief from family and other pressures, and the overall stress of a sudden, massive change in the way we live, I'm expecting social unrest in the USA in many forms. This can and will impact our personal security in many ways.
In the event of urban rioting and violence, I expect the authorities to concentrate their law enforcement efforts on what they perceive as worth defending. They will effectively abandon more violent neighborhoods (and those living in them) to their own devices, seeking instead to protect more peaceful areas from being dragged into the downward spiral. This is a cold, hard calculation based on the resources available. Each city has only so many security personnel available. If they get too thinly stretched, the only answer is to pull them back into a defensible perimeter around trouble spots and let the fires burn themselves out, so to speak.
. . .
If you live in or near a major US city, particularly one with a large homeless population and/or a serious inner-city crime problem, you need to be aware that you're at greater risk of exposure to such problems. If you doubt that, consider that retailers in those cities are already preparing for it. (Some claim that's only because their insurance companies insist on it. Well, why do you think they insist? Isn't it because they have a fairly good idea of what to expect?) Here are recent pictures of landmark stores in, respectively, Chicago, New York City and San Francisco. Notice anything similar? ... If those stores (and/or their insurers) see good reason to prepare for trouble, why aren't we doing what we can to prepare as well?
There's more at the link, including the pictures mentioned in the excerpt above.
The bottom line in this whole mess is that when it comes to personal security during a riot, we're on our own.
It is now a well-established legal principle in the United States that police officers and police departments are not legally responsible to refusing to intervene in cases where private citizens are in imminent danger or even in the process of being victimized. The US Supreme Court has made it clear that law enforcement agencies are not required to provide protection to the citizens who are forced to pay for police services, year in and year out. In cases of civil unrest ... be prepared to receive approximately nothing from police in terms of protecting property, or life and limb.
You can't defend yourself, or your family, or your home, or your small business, with kind words and a cup of coffee. You need the right tools to do so, particularly in the face of hate-filled rioters who want nothing more or less than anarchy and destruction. To stop them, you need a weapon - and not just any weapon, either. It may have to cope with multiple attackers, advancing fast, some of them also armed. You need something to deal with that situation - something like a personal defense rifle. As Mancow Muller tweeted two days ago (click the image below to be taken to the post on Twitter):
In their current campaign against police, progressive and left-wing activists are ironically underscoring the need for citizens to arm themselves. Consider this photograph, courtesy of Spectator USA, taken in Brooklyn, New York City, a few days ago.
If there are to be no police, who will protect us except ourselves?Nobody! There couldn't be a clearer illustration of the stupidity of the progressive Left. They prattle on with their anti-gun rhetoric, yet want to abolish law enforcement officers and agencies - which will make it even more important that we arm ourselves! Talk about a contradiction in terms . . .
Those who claim that police will protect us, and therefore we don't need guns, are full of it. As Kurt Schlichter observes:
The Chinese coronavirus fiasco, the shocking killing of George Floyd, and the riots ... have taught the American people several things. One is that a surprising and sad number of law enforcement officers are willing to follow cheesy, stupid, and unconstitutional orders. A quick tour of social media will horrify you with the damage done ... by video of stupid cops hassling civilians for going outside or trying to attend church. The people who long backed the blue feel stabbed in the back, and LEOs are going to have to work to earn back the support they lost because a lot of their comrades sided with ... bullies against the people.
Similarly, we have learned that the police are not necessarily going to be there for us. From that gooey tub of cowardice in Florida who let kids be murdered while he stood with a weapon outside the school – I can’t even type those words without sputtering in rage – to the [Minneapolis Police Department] running away and letting criminals burn their building, do you feel comfortable putting your lives in the hands of such government employees? The one inspirational sight during the riots was a bunch of black Americans with modern rifles defending their businesses.
. . .
Buy guns and ammunition, because there can be no truly free people that is not also an armed people.
There can be no further compromise on this point. We've compromised enough - and look where it's got us! As Ronald Reagan pointed out as far back as 1964, in the context of Soviet-American relations:
If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum ... and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically.
Reagan's words apply just as well to the crisis in which we find ourselves today. Isn't that precisely what the progressive Left has tried to do to the American people - weaken us from within? Force us into an ever greater reliance (or, rather, dependence) on the government to do everything for us, while undermining any attempt at self-reliance? The late President Ford had an answer for that: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
Remember, too, that if you use a firearm in self-defense, no matter how legally justified you may be in doing so, the police will confiscate that firearm for as long as it's needed for evidence. It may disappear into the evidence locker for months, or even years. If you don't have another gun handy to take its place, you're going to be disarmed, just when the friends of those against whom you defended yourself may come looking for you. Don't just have one gun. Have more than one, and make sure you know how to use them all, and have ammunition and magazines for them. Also, if possible, and if it's legal where you live, make sure that at least some of them are "off-paper" private purchases, not recorded or registered in any official documentation. If gun confiscators don't know you have them, their job will be that much more difficult.
Guns you need:
A concealable defensive firearm, able to be carried on your person, or in a vehicle, or anywhere else. A semi-automatic pistol is the most practical solution, with a revolver a second choice. The larger the magazine capacity, the better.
A long gun (rifle or shotgun) that will provide more "punch" than a handgun and/or reach out to longer ranges. I recommend an AR-15 rifle or equivalent (the KelTec SU16 is another good choice, and very lightweight, too). There are many alternatives, such as an AK-47-type weapon, or a lever-action rifle, or a pistol-caliber carbine. I recommend magazine-fed semi-auto actions, for ease of use and speed of reloading. In an urban unrest situation, use your long gun to defend yourself against a threat or threats at a safer, longer distance than you can with only a handgun. Keep them as far away from you as possible.
Get (1) and (2) above for every adult in your family, and every teen mature enough to assist in defending the family.
Every defensive firearm should have a minimum of five magazines, plus enough quality ammunition for practice and defensive use. It's helpful if everyone has weapons that can use the same magazines and ammunition. This makes life easier all round. Furthermore, get training for everybody in how to use their weapons. Just because you own a musical instrument doesn't make you a musician; and just because you own a firearm doesn't make you a gunfighter.
Once every adult or near-adult has a primary defensive weapon, plus enough magazines, plus enough ammunition, consider getting them a second weapon of the same type, to use if the first is impounded as evidence or becomes inoperable for some reason. Instead of a second rifle, consider something like an AR-15 pistol, which is much more compact than a carbine or rifle but almost as powerful, fires the same ammunition as the larger weapon, and is very effective over 100-150 yard ranges - precisely what one needs for an urban riot.
Those are minimum recommendations. Many shooters already have far more. I recommend more, if you can afford it. Even if you're short of money, get at least one viable defensive firearm and ammunition, and keep it handy. It's like a parachute. You may never need it: but if you do need it in a hurry, it'll be too late to go out and buy one!
Some people of faith may question whether they're not supposed to "turn the other cheek" when violence is offered. Speaking as a retired pastor and chaplain, I submit that's not the case. In the context of an attack on one's faith, that may be appropriate: but the current riots have nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with thuggish brutality and intimidation. I offer two Scripture verses, quoting Jesus directly, to guide your response:
"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace." (Luke 11:21)
"He who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." (Luke 22:36)
Go read Matt Bracken's article, and pay careful attention to it.(Link updated to new site.) I'm not advocating or endorsing urban terrorism - I've seen too much of it at first hand to ever do that, as regular readers will know. Nevertheless, I know for a fact that the mutual security groups of individuals to whom he refers are already forming in many states. People aren't blind. They can see reality, particularly when it slaps them in the face. Follow their example.
As bad as things are now, I believe that worse things are coming. Get ready for them.If you think that I'm paranoid, or exaggerating, answer me this: would you, even a week ago, have predicted that a major metropolitan police department would abandon one of its precinct headquarters to rioters, without resistance, and allow them to burn it down? It just happened. Welcome to the new reality! Are you willing to entrust your safety and security, and that of your loved ones, to a law enforcement agency like that? I'm certainly not!
If you're in a city, or town, or suburb, or street, that's basically indefensible, plan to move as quickly as possible to a safer environment. Pre-pack essential gear, supplies, medication, important documents, pets, etc. and be ready to toss them into your vehicles and get out as fast as possible. Be prepared to defend yourself and your loved ones as you travel. If you're staying put, be prepared to defend your home and family and possessions. Get to know people around you. If you decide you can trust them - and don't give your trust lightly! - form small networks of your own, to safeguard your neighborhood, families and property if worse should come to worst. Don't delay. DO IT NOW. You won't have time for such preparations when the chips are down. Pay attention to tactics for dealing with a riot or unrest situation, and rehearse them if possible with your family. At the very least, discuss them and make sure everybody understands what you want them to do.
Keep in mind that as far as the progressive media and left-wing city administrators are concerned, if you defend yourself against rioters, you're likely to be pre-judged to be the guilty party. Surveillance cameras are everywhere; citizens with cellphones can and will record video, audio and photographs of what happens around them; social media posts can and will be used against you; communications (cellphone, e-mail, whatever) are not secure against interception, and may be used as evidence. Learn to operate "off the grid", communicating only in person or by hand-carried communications that are destroyed as soon as they're received. Be a "gray man". If you have to stop being "gray" in order to defend yourself, do so as quickly and discreetly as possible, then go right back to being "gray" as you leave the area, or blend back into your surroundings. Try not to make yourself a target for unwelcome attention, before, during or after the fact.
Let me state flatly, once and for all, that every adult American needs to be ready, willing, able, and equipped to defend themselves against this onslaught on our society. Such defenses need to include firearms, training in their use, and sufficient ammunition to get the job done. If you don't have all of those, it's long gone time that you remedied the position. Don't delay, and don't say you can't afford to do that. You can't afford NOT to do it.
I'm not on Facebook or similar services, so I appear to have missed the latest trend among some gun-owners (for which I'm devoutly grateful!). However, Vice has enlightened me.
Gun people are taking pictures of themselves aiming weapons at their dicks. The safety is off, their finger hovers on the trigger, and the barrel of the weapon is pointed straight at their genitals . . . pointing a gun at your penis has . . . everything to do with ironically mocking basic safety in gun culture. The trend is about a year old and it was born in the fires of Facebook’s gun groups. On one side are responsible gun owners, on the other is a group of men aiming a deadly weapon at their dicks to prove a point that they can only vaguely explain.
Like with any other fandom, there’s levels to gun culture. In the online gun community there are "normies" and "fudds." Normies cover a range of people, anyone from a basic handgun owner to the completely uninitiated. Fudds—as in Bugs Bunny hunter Elmer Fudd—are the old heads, weirdos, and dedicated gun nuts. Some fudds hate normies and the way normies talk about guns. Even the normies who know their way around a firearm.
A chief complaint among fudds is the normie’s devotion to safety, typically manifested as knee-jerk praise of trigger discipline. For the uninitiated, watching trigger discipline refers to the act of keeping your finger off the trigger of a firearm until you’re ready to fire the weapon. It’s a safety basic, along with never pointing a gun at anyone or anything you don’t intend to harm, and always assuming a gun is loaded. Trigger and muzzle discipline will tell you a lot about a person holding a firearm. Typically, if they keep the muzzle away from the camera and their finger off the trigger—even while holding the grip—they know their way around a weapon.
. . .
To combat this apparent scourge of responsible gun ownership, some fudds have taken to posting pictures of themselves pointing allegedly loaded weapons at their own dicks, with their finger on the trigger. If this doesn’t make sense to you, you’re not alone.
All I can say is, I want nothing to do with idiots who behave like that. If they can behave so stupidly, they're dangerous to be around. They should stay as far away from me as possible, thank you very much! I certainly won't be numbering them among my friends; and if any of my friends were to behave that way, they wouldn't remain my friends any longer than it took for me to find out. As Einstein observed, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." They perfectly illustrate his point by their actions.
However, I don't want them to stop. In fact, I want them to make sure their guns are loaded, then carry right on behaving like that. You see, that way, sooner or later (hopefully the former), they're going to shoot off the appendages for which they so clearly no longer have any rational use. That done, they won't be reproducing more of their kind to plague the rest of us!
Idiots . . . blithering . . . one each . . . sheesh!!!
Back in the late Southeast Asian unpleasantness, a.k.a. the Vietnam War, Chuck Taylor was a Captain in the US Army's Rangers. He saw combat, was wounded, and came home with medals for valor in action. In other words, he was the real deal, not an REMF or a "PowerPoint Ranger" (to use a more modern expression).
As such, I always gave extra weight to his opinions on self-defense equipment, tactics and training for civilians. Not many instructors can boast that sort of real-world background, and being a combat vet myself, I naturally regard it as important. (There's nothing quite like getting shot to remind you that you're neither invincible nor invulnerable. How do I know this? Ask my wife, who's had to pick shrapnel out of my old scars on more than one occasion. As Clint Smith - another Vietnam combat veteran - has been known to observe, "Incoming fire has the right of way!")
Taylor was the first Operations Manager at Gunsite, the legendary shooting school founded by the late, great Jeff Cooper in Arizona in 1976. He went on to found his own school, the American Small Arms Academy. Some of its courses are still taught by Defense Training Associates. He was also a member of the US National Team of the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC). Taylor taught civilians, law enforcement and military units for decades, passing on what he'd learned the hard way in combat and the techniques he helped develop in civilian life. He was the founding editor of SWAT Magazine, still regarded as one of the premier firearms periodicals, and used its pages to convey much of the same instruction to its readers.
Some felt that Taylor was too rigid and dogmatic in clinging to what he'd learned by experience in combat, rather than being open to new technologies and techniques developed since then. On the other hand, I think he was spot on. To this day, I remain skeptical of "the latest and greatest thing since sliced bread". If a new technology comes along that promises to make self-defense easier and more reliable, I want to have that thing wrung out six ways from Sunday, and proven in the field, not just in the laboratory or on the training range. (Red dot sights are a good example. Early models were all too prone to run their batteries down or suffer breakages just when you really, really needed them. By the late 1990's and early 2000's, those initial teething troubles had largely been overcome, and they became so useful as to be almost indispensable. The US Army and Marines have subsequently bought hundreds of thousands of them, with good results.)
Taylor was adaptable enough to change his views after such new technologies were proven. His earlier books and articles reflected his initial attitudes about such things, but people reading them today often fail to take account of his later work, where he recognized their value after taking the time to prove (and im-prove) them. He retained my respect as a man who'd "been there and done that", and therefore knew what he was talking about in a very practical, experiential way that most instructors can't match.
Sadly, Taylor passed away earlier this month, after only a year of retirement to relax and enjoy himself. He joins Jeff Cooper, Ray Chapman and other stalwarts of the 1970's and 1980's on the Honor Roll of those who've made a tangible difference to the art and science of defensive shooting. More and more of their colleagues are leaving us as age catches up with them. The shooting world will be much poorer when the last of them has passed. So vast an accumulation of practical, empirical knowledge can't be replaced, and can't be reduced to mere words on paper. (That said, some of Taylor's books are still available, and are worth reading, IMHO. Many of his articles are also out there, some available online. He was particularly well known for his "torture test" of an early-model Glock 17 pistol, which has fired several hundred thousand rounds yet remains perfectly serviceable and reliable.)
May Chuck Taylor rest in the peace he so richly earned through his service to his country and the shooting community.
As part of my project to upgrade some of my friends' rifles, I've been looking into some of the latest "game" techniques (specifically for 3-gun competition), trying to get a sense of the state of the art, and what can (or should) carry over from competition to actual defensive use. My recent threepartseries of articles on AR-15-type personal defense rifles grew out of that project.
I've long been a fan of backup iron sights on a defensive rifle, co-witnessed through the main optical sight, so they can be brought into action quickly if need be. However, I've now noted that most competitors in 3-gun competition have moved to offset backup sights, mounted at a 45-degree angle to the normal line of sight. A quick twist of the rifle at their shoulder moves the main sight off to one side and brings the backup sight(s) into line, allowing them to "stay in the fight" if something goes wrong with their primary unit. I've known of the existence of such offset sights for a long time, but I've not used them, because of the ease with which they can strike and/or get caught on obstacles while moving through confined spaces. That can not only snag the rifle and slow your progress, it can even knock them right off the gun unless they're very strongly mounted. That's hardly an optimum situation.
Three factors are causing me to reconsider my earlier, negative opinion about offset backup sights. The first, below, demonstrates that if the front and/or back lenses of the primary sight are affected by weather or debris (i.e. sand, mud or what have you), co-witnessed iron sights will suffer from the same problem.
I should have thought about that issue myself: but in my days in uniform, we didn't have optics on our battle rifles, so the problem didn't arise. I'll be interested to know how often it occurs in action in today's military. If any reader has experienced it, please tell us about it in Comments. I can also see that, if opaque protective caps are in place on the primary optical sight, that will render the co-witnessed backup sights useless too. If the rifle has to be used in a hurry against a sudden threat, angled backup sights won't suffer from that problem, allowing you to respond faster and more effectively.
Another video, below, shows how offset backup sights can be easily and accurately zeroed by using an offset bipod to aid in the process. That's not a solution I'd thought about, but it's a very good idea. As soon as I saw it, I tried it with one of my own bipods, and found it worked well. (See further down this article for offset rail mounts for that purpose.)
The third factor is the problem of getting backup sights snagged on obstacles, and either jarred out of zero or knocked completely off the rifle. This remains a problem: but I note that there's now a plethora of steel (rather than plastic) angled iron sights out there, at much more reasonable prices than I've seen in the past. They may be tough enough to deal with that problem. I'm used to Magpul asking well into three figures for its MBUS Pro offset sights (shown below), which until recently appear to have dominated the field.
However, there are now many competing offset backup sights at much lower prices. I can't comment on the quality of most of them, as many appear to come out of China and to copy each other's design. I tested a couple for my current project. The clear winner (so far) has been Acme Machine's 45 degree offset sights, shown below.
They're fully adjustable, made of steel, and look and feel plenty tough enough to stand up to their task. What's more, they're on sale right now at only $14.99 per pair, which is a bargain in anyone's language. (No, Acme isn't paying or compensating me to shill for them: I just like to let my readers know about bargains when I find them.) After testing them, I've ordered half a dozen sets to mount to my friends' rifles.
Many 3-gun competitors use offset-mounted optical sights (red or green dot units) for backup purposes. That may be fine in a sporting environment, but I don't think they're optimum on a defensive rifle, for three reasons.
Any bad conditions that muck up your main optical sight are probably going to do the same thing to your backup optical sight.
Optical sights are typically not as tough as iron sights, and may be disabled by hard knocks against obstacles. Standard sights are less likely to be put out of action that way (although they may need to be re-zeroed).
If batteries are going to fail, Murphy's Law tells us they'll fail at the worst possible time. I don't want something as critical as a backup sight going out of action for that reason, just when I may desperately need it! Iron sights don't use batteries. Q.E.D.
Therefore, I won't be using or recommending optical sights as backups on my friends' rifles.
I also note with interest that offset backup sights aren't necessarily restricted to AR-15-style weapons. I put a set on a Marlin lever-action 1894 carbine for test purposes, and they worked just fine. I used one fitted with an XS Sight Systems scout rail, illustrated below.
The backup sights hanging off to one side looked odd, compared to what we expect a traditional lever-action rifle to look like, but they functioned just fine, and a red-dot sight snugged down between them with plenty of slots to spare. I imagine a normal telescopic sight, mounted in high rings, would do as well, with enough height to clear the relatively low, flat mounting clamps of the offset iron sights. So, if your preferred defensive rifle is a lever-action weapon (which isn't a bad choice - it's as effective today as when the Winchester was the "assault rifle" of its time, back in the Old West, and helping Turkey to smash a Russian offensive at Plevna in 1877), you can still have backup sights if you want them, provided you can fit a long enough Picatinny-style sight rail to accommodate them. Such rails are also available from XS for some other rifles and shotguns, although generally much shorter, and other manufacturers offer them too.
The only caveat I'd add is that for offset use, steel sights are probably the best choice. I've often used plastic sights like Magpul's MBUS units as in-line backups. The plastic units aren't nearly as strong as steel ones, but if they're folded down out of the way most of the time, they don't take much punishment; and their lighter weight is an asset when you're trying to shave ounces off a fighting rifle. However, if they're going to be stuck out to the side of the weapon, where they're more likely to hit obstacles, their plastic construction is unlikely to be tough enough to withstand it. I therefore suggest that they're best reserved for in-line use on top of the rifle, where they're better protected against such impacts.
What zero to use on backup sights? I use 50 yards. For an AR-15 style rifle, a 50-yard zero will hold on target anywhere out to 200 yards, which is about the limit for effective use of iron sights for most of us (particularly for older eyes - I daresay my actual effective limit is half that by now). Backup sights aren't designed to take down an enemy at 500 yards. They're to deal with an immediate problem, one so imminent that you don't have time to fix your main sight. Such threats aren't likely to be far away.
Finally, if money is tight, there's a low-cost solution. Simply switch your existing backup sights from the top of your rifle to a 45-degree offset angle rail mount. There are many of them on the market (I've used this one with no problems: they come 3 to a pack, so they cost less than $5 apiece).
You can mount your existing sight on that rail, and have all the benefits of an offset sight without having to spend more than a few dollars on the mount. If you really want to mount an optical red- or green-dot sight for backup use, they can accommodate that, too. Just remember to use blue Loctite or a similar product on the threads of their screws, to keep them in place, and don't over-tighten the screws, which might strip the threads.
Following my recent threearticleseries on the personal defensive rifle, I had a lengthy exchange with someone who (strongly) disagrees with me about how much ammunition one should keep in reserve, for when the proverbial brown substance hits the rotary air impeller. The gentleman maintains that one should store a minimum of 1,000 rounds per rifle, and at least 3,000 rounds per rifle to be "properly" prepared for a long-term emergency. He'll accept 500 rounds per handgun as a reasonable limit.
I have to shake my head at those numbers. For a start, this man has (or admits to having) nine AR-15 rifles and carbines in his extended family. Right now, the lowest-cost 5.56x45mm ammunition I can find (brass-cased, not the el cheapo steel stuff, because the latter puts a lot of extra wear and tear on your weapon) is 38c per round for 55gr ball (M193), and 40c per round for 62gr (M855 - for an explanation of those codes, see the third article in my earlier series). At the lower of those prices, 1,000 rounds will cost $380, and 3,000 rounds $1,140. Providing those minima for nine AR-15's will cost $3,420 and $10,260 respectively. Really? He has that kind of spare cash lying around, to be able to afford that? (Also, don't forget that every cent he's got tied up in ammo stocks isn't available to buy other things he may need just as much, if not more.)
His answer, of course, was that he'd built up his stocks gradually, over time. Well, that's what I did, too, but even so, there's no way I could afford to stash 3,000 rounds per rifle (let alone find storage space for it). It's simply not economically feasible for most of us. As for needing that much in a long-lasting emergency, I have to ask how many gunfights he's planning to get into. Let's face it, a US infantryman's basic load of ammunition is usually six 30-round magazines in his webbing, plus one in his weapon, for a total of seven magazines or 210 rounds. That's to see him through a typical military firefight! Just how bad are we expecting SHTF gunfights to be, and how often do we expect to encounter them? In a survival situation, one would be much better served to avoid such clashes at almost any cost. As Clint Smith succinctly puts it, "Incoming fire has the right of way"! We'll fight as a last resort, not as a first choice.
(That's also a factor in choosing which round you want in your fighting rifle. Sure, .30-caliber rounds such as 7.62x51mm NATO [also known as .308 Winchester] are more effective than 5.56x45mm; but for a given weight, you can carry 30% more of the latter rounds than the former. That's a not insignificant advantage when resupply is problematic. Also, if you choose rounds that will be as effective as possible, the smaller cartridge is at less of a disadvantage.)
Next, there's the problem of having so much in the way of supplies and gear that it becomes impossible to move it. In a real SHTF situation, the odds are very good indeed that at some point, you'll have to move to a new location. What's more, you'll have to move everything you need - food, water, clothing, shelter, as well as weapons and ammunition. Ammo is frightfully heavy stuff in quantity. We can't expect to carry on our bodies much more than a soldier does. If we do, we can carry correspondingly less weight in food and other supplies. The lighter we travel, the faster and further we'll move.
As for traveling by vehicle, in a SHTF situation you may not have access to a suitable vehicle to move heavy and/or bulky cargo, or have much in the way of fuel. My correspondent drives a ten-year-old F-150 regular-cab pickup. Its cargo carrying capacity, as rated by Ford, is half a ton (1,000 pounds) in the load bed, or 5,000 pounds total capacity, including gasoline, driver, passenger[s] and cargo, plus the hitch weight of anything being towed. Using his own example, 27,000 rounds of M193 ammunition would fill 27 fifty-caliber military ammo cans, and weigh well over half a ton. That's the pickup's entire cargo capacity by weight, right there! How does he plan to carry other essentials, such as his family, or food, water and clothing?
It can't be denied that in a real emergency, short- or long-term, the ammo we've got is all we're likely to get. We won't be able to run down to the shops and resupply at will. Therefore, I'll agree to an objective of storing 1,000 rounds per combat rifle, and perhaps 100-200 rounds per hunting rifle. I'll also accept 500 rounds per combat handgun, and perhaps 50-100 for other handguns. Of course, you can carry and use only one rifle at a time, perhaps with a handgun for backup. If you have more weapons and ammo than you can carry, I guess you'll be leaving them behind when you have to move, or trading them for other things you need, like gasoline.
I'll add to those numbers as much .22 Long Rifle ammo as I can afford; ten times as much per weapon, if possible, if not even more than that. I'll use it in .22 weapons, or with .22LR adapters in my fighting weapons (they're available for AR-15's, Glocks and some other pistols). It's far cheaper than full-caliber ammo, and almost as useful for training purposes, because you manipulate, aim and shoot the weapon in precisely the same way, no matter what round you're shooting in it. It's also much quieter (and therefore easier to suppress) than more powerful rounds, which may be a tactical advantage in some situations. I'll also use BB and Airsoft pistols and rifles, because that's an even cheaper way of maintaining your shooting skills, and teaching them to those who don't yet have them.
Do even those numbers sound too high? If you haven't started stockpiling ammo yet, they probably do. I'm afraid I can't help you there. All I can say is, buy a box or two of ammo whenever and wherever you can, as your funds allow, in good times and in bad. (In the past, I've tried to buy one whenever I went grocery shopping.) You can also trade other things, or do chores for other people, in exchange for guns and/or ammo. It's never too late to start. If you don't have an ammo stash right now, it might be a good idea (if you can spare the funds) to lay in a case each of your preferred rifle and pistol defensive ammo. They're not going to get any cheaper for the foreseeable future, and may get a lot more expensive, so you've got nothing to lose.
(Of course, if you can afford to buy more, go right ahead. I won't say that's a bad idea. If I could afford it, I might do the same. However, for most of us, our funds - not to mention our spouses! - will impose a pretty hard limit on what's feasible and prudent.)
In March, gun sales soared to the highest monthly figure ever recorded in the USA - and that was only sales that involved a background check. Most private, face-to-face sales weren't included in the total. I'd be interested to know how much traffic Armslist and similar Web sites, not to mention local gun shows, generated from people in the same city or area, seeking to buy used firearms from one another. I'm willing to bet it was heavy.
Gun sales in April spiked by more than 70 percent from the previous year, with the purchase of more than 1.7 million firearms as concerns related to the novel coronavirus continued, recently released statistics show.
An estimated 1,797,910 guns were sold in April 2020 – a 71.3 percent increase from April 2019. March saw an even higher surge in sales, with 2,583,238 firearms sold – or 85.3 percent more than the previous year, according to data released late Monday by Small Arms Analytics and Forecasting.
SAAF data also indicated a surge in handgun over long-gun purchases, a group spokesperson said.
Mark Oliva, a spokesperson for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents gunmakers, said the NSSF had reached similar figures, though slightly lower at 69.1 percent ... he said the numbers showed, "the strongest April on record."
"This shows us there is continued appetite among Americans to be able to provide for their own safety during times of uncertainty. These are buyers who have witnessed their governments empty prisons... Police departments are stretched beyond capacity in many cases. Law-abiding Americans recognize this and exercising their right to own a gun and defend themselves and their loved ones."
. . .
Fears gun shops would be closed and that economic downturn would lead to high crime and safety concerns have helped fuel the run on firearms.
Oliva previously [said] that during a time of extreme uncertainty, “Americans want to know they can provide for their own safety and the safety of their loved ones.”
“Our rights don’t end during a pandemic,” he said. “In fact, the need for responsible and law-abiding adults to exercise their rights is magnified.”
I have no problem at all with people wanting to ensure their own and their family's safety, and buying a firearm to help with that process. As Samuel Colt, inventor of the first successful revolver, famously declaimed:
Be not afraid of any man, No matter what your size. When danger threatens, call on me, And I will equalize.
However, I am concerned about a few issues. First is that many people turned to handguns for defense, rather than long guns (i.e. rifles or shotguns). This is entirely understandable, as a handgun can be concealed and carried more easily than a long gun. However, handguns are much more difficult to shoot accurately than long guns. They require more training, and then need regular practice to keep that training fresh in one's mind and reflexes. I wonder how many of those who've just bought handguns will bother to get any training at all, let alone advanced training? How many will willingly spend the money it'll take to buy ammunition for regular practice? Relatively few, I suspect - and therein lies the potential for more problems in future.
I'm sure many of my readers are familiar with firearms, and accustomed to handling them. Please, friends, encourage the new firearm owners among your acquaintances to get training and ongoing practice with their weapons. We'll all be safer if they do. Remember, firing wildly to deter a criminal may have the desired effect - but every bullet fired has to end up somewhere. Hopefully, it won't be in the body of an innocent bystander! Training and practice can help to ensure that.
As for regular practice in the ongoing ammo drought . . . that 's another thorny issue. I don't think the supply of ammunition will return to normal for at least two to three years (judging by the length of time it took to recover from the previous ammo drought). My favorite online ammunition vendor, SGAmmo, said this in their latest e-mail flyer:
As mentioned in my recent newsletters a lot has changed in the ammo business over the past few months as the Covid-19 outbreak created the largest rush to purchase ammo in all of history. This has greatly reduced supply stockpiles and driven prices up substantially from the 12 year bottom they hit in 2019 and early 2020. Here at SGAmmo [we] were holding huge investments in ammunition inventories which have helped us keep better than average availability but our stockpiles are really running thin, especially in 9mm, 45 Auto, 223 / 5.56, 300 Blackout, and 12 gauge buckshot, additionally 7.62x39, 308 Win, 22LR as well as many other popular calibers are not looking good either. Getting resupplied from the factories has also not been going well due to extremely high demand in the dealer market as retailers and distributors have all put in huge orders at the same time in an attempt to restock, effectively wiping out supply and buying up all 2020 future production of key calibers from the major factories. This new level of demand has led most factories to raise prices, eliminate 'special deals' which are key to keeping prices attractive, and allocate stock in very limited amounts. Many factories have also reworked their process in attempt to protect their staff from COVID19 which has reduced their capacity substantially, so in general less ammo is being made today. I'd love to stay positive but realistically there are dark times ahead for the ammunition supply chain.
All is not dark as far as training and practice are concerned. Interim, low-cost solutions are available. Again, if you have friends who are new to firearms ownership, please recommend that they consider them. If you have a decent ammo stash of your own, you might consider giving some to new shooters among your friends, to help them grow accustomed to their firearms. I've set aside a few hundred rounds for that purpose.
In closing, I can only repeat the warning I gave last week (scroll down to the end of that article to read it). I believe the likelihood of increased crime and violence is trending much higher, thanks to economic disruption, the release of many criminals to reduce COVID-19 infections in prison, and other factors. We should all be on the alert, and ready to defend ourselves if necessary. We should also be unwilling to give up our firearms, the most effective means of personal defense available to us - no matter what liberal and/or progressive politicians may demand or dictate. That's worth remembering in the November 2020 elections, and voting accordingly.
Those of us who value the United States Constitution and its Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, were profoundly depressed, earlier this year, to see the speed and efficiency with which left-wing and progressive forces in Virginia rammed through a swath of anti-gun legislation within weeks of taking office there. They ignored the wishes of almost half the electorate, dismissed out of hand protests, declarations of "Second Amendment sanctuaries" and other objections, and shoved through a series of laws that emasculated important parts of the right to keep and bear arms. They haven't finished yet, either - expect more such laws to come down the pike within the next year or two.
I have friends who are in a position to follow developments there "behind the scenes". They informed me this week that Michael Bloomberg (who bankrolled the Democrat electoral victory in Virginia) and his anti-gun organizations have taken their victory in that state to heart. They told me that, according to their sources, anti-gun lawyers are drafting national legislation that's intended to be rushed through Congress and the Senate as soon as Democrats have (they hope) taken control of both houses early next year. Basically, they'll reshape US federal law concerning firearms in the image and likeness of what's already been done in Virginia - and just as quickly, if not faster.
You know, and I know, that this is unlikely to be constitutional, particularly in the light of the Heller, McDonald and Caetano decisions. Lawsuits against the new Virginia anti-gun laws have only just begun wending their way through the courts, and won't be decided for years yet. Nevertheless, I'm informed that the anti-gun forces in this country have been greatly encouraged by their "success" in Virginia, and are determined to follow it up on a national scale by the same sort of swift legislative fiat that they accomplished there.
I'm informed that this will probably happen regardless of who wins the Presidential election in November. I understand the calculus is that, if a Democrat wins, the laws will be signed without difficulty (certainly, Joe Biden's policy positions on guns are enough to gladden the heart of the anti-gun movement, and presumably any other Democratic presidential or vice-presidential candidate will adopt them or something similar). If President Trump wins re-election, but the Democrats win control of the House and Senate, he'll be confronted with an ultimatum: sign the new anti-gun laws, or risk seeing every one of his policy priorities ignored or rejected by the legislature unless and until he does so. My correspondent pointed out that Mr. Trump is a New Yorker at heart, and has never felt as strongly about the Second Amendment as many other Republicans. Who knows if this sort of pressure might not lead to some sort of political accommodation, where at least some gun rights are sacrificed on the altar of other legislative priorities?
Such laws will, of course, criminalize a large swath of Americans. Similar anti-gun legislation has been largely ignored in states that tried to enforce it; in New York and Connecticut, to mention recent examples, owners of so-called "assault weapons" have very largely ignored the legal requirement to register their firearms. I'm sure civil disobedience like that will occur on a national scale if such legislation is passed; after all, the promise of such action is partly responsible for Virginia Democrats deferring (but not taking off the table altogether) their own proposed assault weapons ban. Nevertheless, those citizens who react by exercising civil disobedience will have made themselves felons according to the letter of the law, simply by standing up for their Second Amendment rights as they see them. If they get into trouble with the law for any other reason, that will almost certainly be used as a reason to prosecute them for firearms "offenses" as well. After all, won't their "deliberate defiance of national laws" in one area be argued to be proof of their basically criminal nature in other areas?
I think this may be a make-or-break moment for gun rights in America. I have little doubt that many of our fellow citizens will talk a good fight, but relatively few will be willing to take action - just as the vast majority of the original colonists did not actively participate in the American Revolution, despite their passive support for it. Those who are prepared to actively resist such laws, no matter what the cost, will be relatively few. Will they be enough to make a difference? I don't know.
What I do know is that talk is cheap. "Actions speak louder than words", to quote the old idiom. If you value your Second Amendment rights, you've got the rest of this year to do something to express and protect them before the crunch comes. Express them by buying what firearms you need, plus enough ammunition to keep them fed and yourself in practice. (In particular, I'd encourage you to buy one or more of the sort of firearm likely to be proscribed by such laws, plus enough ammunition and accessories to make them useful. Vote with your wallet! Also, I'd take steps to dispose of at least some of the guns you own that are recorded in your name, in favor of guns that are "off-paper". Private sales or swaps are still entirely legal in most of the country. If anti-gun authorities don't know you've got it, it's a lot trickier to trace it or demand that you surrender it.) Protect your rights by allying with other gun owners to put pressure on our politicians to defend the Second Amendment against such attacks, and to elect those who will uphold it.
One important point: in allying with others, choose your friends wisely. I no longer regard the National Rifle Association as worthy of support. Wayne LaPierre and his cohorts at the head of the NRA appear to have converted it into a benefit society for themselves, at the expense of its mission and its members. They are utterly discredited. Unless and until they have departed, and the NRA has been entirely cleansed of their odious influence, I shall no longer support it in any way. I'd rather work with more honest organizations such as (on a national level) Gun Owners of America or the Second Amendment Foundation. I recommend both to your attention.
In our previous articles on this subject, we examined what equipment to add to our rifles, and answered questions from readers. Today I'd like to tackle one of the most controversial issues: what ammunition to select for defensive use. Perhaps inevitably, the quick answer is, "It depends".
There are many factors affecting our choice of ammo. In the case of the AR-15-style rifle, it's complicated because the cartridge it fires (usually the 5.56x45mm NATO round, or the .223 Remington lower-pressure civilian version of that round) is a compromise. It does some things more or less adequately, but seldom does all of them exceptionally well. You can read about why it was adopted here. Briefly, it was initially designed to provide military personnel with a round that would be effective at "typical" combat ranges (100-300 yards), with less recoil and greater controllability (particularly in full-auto fire) than its predecessors (the 7.62x51mm NATO round - .308 Winchester in civilian guise - and, before that, the venerable .30-06 Springfield). It also had to be substantially lighter than its predecessors, so that an infantryman could carry more ammunition and thereby stay in the fight longer without needing resupply.
The initial military-issue round, as used in the Vietnam War, has become known as the M193; a 55-grain bullet traveling at approximately 3,100-3,200 feet per second. The first iteration of the M16 rifle had a rifling twist rate of 1-in-12 (i.e. the rifling made one complete turn every 12 inches of barrel length, or 1.67 times in the 20-inch length of the rifle's barrel). This stabilized the 55gr. bullet enough for accuracy, but allowed it to "tumble" in flesh soon after entering the body. It caused serious wounds in the first few inches of penetration.
Some years later, the military decided that it was desirable to shoot accurately at longer range, and penetrate a typical Soviet-issue steel helmet at a range of up to 600 yards. This led to the development of the M855 round (NATO designation SS109), a 62-grain green-tipped round incorporating a steel penetrator. It offered much better penetration and long-range accuracy, but required a tighter twist rate to stabilize it, and seldom tumbled in flesh. It often made a neat "knitting-needle" type hole, straight through the body, and therefore did not disable opponents as quickly or effectively as the earlier M193 round. (There are numerous combat reports of enemy fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq absorbing 6-8 solid torso hits with M855, but still being able to fight back until blood loss, or a more effective central nervous system hit, took effect. You'll find a more in-depth comparison of the M193 and M855 rounds here.)
Combat experience in Afghanistan and Iraq led to many experiments over the past couple of decades to find a round with greater long-range accuracy and terminal effectiveness, plus greater disabling effect on enemy personnel, to stop them shooting back. Demand was driven by special forces units in particular. Their needs and input led to the development of the Mk. 262 round; a 77-grain bullet with a so-called "Open Tip Match" (OTM) hollow point that was not designed primarily for expansion, but to shift mass to the rear of the bullet, promoting long-range stability. (You can read more about its development here.) A cannelure on the projectile guarded against bullet setback, and promoted fragmentation and tumbling in flesh.
Versions of this round are now produced by several manufacturers in the USA, and by IMI in Israel. It's not ideal for barrier penetration (of which more later), but it offers excellent long-range performance compared to its predecessors, and superior terminal ballistics against human targets. However, such heavy-for-caliber bullets require a tight rifling twist to stabilize them: 1-in-7 or 1-in-8 inches is typical. If your rifling is looser than that (1-in-9 or less), your barrel may not fully stabilize those rounds, resulting in reduced accuracy. Test them in your firearm before deciding whether to buy a good supply of them, and if necessary replace your barrel with a tighter-twist one (something that's easy to do with AR-15-pattern rifles, and relatively inexpensive).
Two other approaches were adopted for military ammunition. The US Marine Corps developed what it calls the Mk. 318 Mod 0 round, designed to penetrate barriers better while remaining capable of inflicting disabling injury on the far side. It's an open-tipped match round like the Mk. 262, although it's 20% lighter. (It appears very similar in its effects to the new FBI round, of which more below.) Meanwhile, the US Army put a lot of effort into improving the standard M855 round, producing the lead-free M855A1. It operates at significantly higher pressures than M855, which has led to reports of increased wear on rifles firing it; but it's claimed to offer better penetration through barriers, and much improved terminal ballistics in flesh. Neither the Mk. 318 Mod 0 or M855A1 are sold on the civilian market, although some examples appear to have "fallen off trucks" and made their way into private hands now and then. For training purposes and outside combat zones, both the Marines and the Army are still using the standard M855 round by the truckload.
Law enforcement requirements have led in a different direction. Cops usually have no choice but to take on a bad guy, to stop him injuring others. They mostly can't choose when, where or how to engage. Therefore, they need a bullet that can both penetrate cover (e.g. auto bodies or glass, doors to buildings, etc.) and inflict disabling injury, to stop a criminal in his tracks. They also typically work at much shorter ranges than the average military engagement, and with innocent bystanders in close proximity; so they need to avoid over-penetration, to reduce the risk to them. What's more, they're not bound by the Hague Convention strictures forbidding expanding bullets, which the US armed forces observe even though the USA was not a signatory to the Conventions.
For general-purpose use, law enforcement has therefore gravitated towards expanding rounds such as Hornady's widely-used TAP (Tactical Application Police) series in various bullet weights. For short-barreled carbines and urban use, many specialist units such as SWAT and hostage rescue teams have adopted bonded soft-point loads. A highly regarded and very knowledgeable ammunition expert had this to say in 2010 about the FBI's chosen solution:
The FBI has completed their testing process and awarded a 5.56 mm ammunition contract for up to $97 million dollars. This award is now public information and appears unique in several ways. Besides being perhaps the largest ammunition contract in FBI history, it is also the first time the FBI has mandated a true 5.56 mm pressure loading, rather than the typical anemic .223 pressure loadings that have generally been marketed to LE agencies. The 5.56 mm load offers approximately an extra 200 fps--helping performance out of short barrel weapons and enhancing function when rifles are dirty or in dusty conditions. The new FBI contract also required that the ammunition be packaged on stripper clips to aid in more rapid loading of magazines. Finally, it is the first multi-award carbine ammo contract for the FBI--both Federal Cartridge and Winchester were judged to offer ammunition which met the contract criteria. Numerous other Federal LE agencies are authorized to purchase off this contract.
The 5.56 mm Federal 62 gr Trophy Bonded Bear Claw (TBBC) bonded JSP load is XM556FBIT3.
The 5.56 mm Winchester 64 gr solid base bonded JSP is Q3313 on stripper clips/RA556B in 20 rd boxes.
Both of these loads are the best barrier blind 5.56 mm loads ever produced for LE use; they offer outstanding terminal performance, even after first defeating intermediate barriers like vehicle windshields.
(Note the similarity - on paper, at any rate - between the Federal load for the FBI and the US Marine Corps' Mk. 318 Mod 0 round, discussed above.)
A brief explanation of terms might be useful before we go any further. The term "bonded", when applied to a bullet, means that its outer jacket and inner core (the former usually copper, the latter usually lead) are engineered to stay together upon impact, ensuring that the bullet remains intact instead of fragmenting, which might result in over-penetration of some fragments and expose bystanders to risk. "Barrier blind" performance means that even after penetrating a barrier such as auto bodies or glass, the bullet will not disintegrate, and will perform substantially as well in human flesh as if there were no barrier at all.
The Federal FBIT3 load for the FBI has also been sold under the SBCT3 designation for non-FBI contracts, and is currently available to civilians through a few suppliers under that designation (here's one that had it in stock at the time of writing). Sadly, it's very expensive (well over a dollar per round), although that's no more than good-quality hunting ammunition costs these days. I have a little of the original FBIT3, and guard it jealously. Nosler makes a near-equivalent round in the form of their .223 Defense Rifle Ammunition, using a 64-grain bonded bullet. The same bullet has been loaded to 5.56mm pressures by other manufacturers; for example, some years ago I tested a version from Beck Ammunition with good results, although it's no longer in their catalog.
Bullets with exposed lead at the tip (such as those mentioned in the previous paragraph) have two potential drawbacks. The first is that they may not feed well in some AR-15-style weapons, because the latter were designed around military-style full metal jacket rounds. Their feed ramps may cause drag against exposed lead bullet tips (particularly in lower-cost, less-well-engineered firearms). Therefore, if you want to use such bullets, it's essential that you test them thoroughly to make sure the combination is reliable. I suggest putting at least 200 rounds downrange through each and every rifle or carbine in which you intend to use them, without a single malfunction, before trusting your life to them. Also, make sure all your magazines can feed them without any problems. Furthermore, you'll need to keep the feed ramps of your weapon scrupulously lead-free, so plan on more intensive and more frequent maintenance and cleaning. That's vitally important.
The second drawback is that such bullets are ballistically and aerodynamically less efficient than pointed styles, with different mass distribution and potentially greater drag. The combination can result in lower accuracy. I've found that my rifles and carbines will deliver 1-2 MOA all day with conventional full-metal-jacket ammunition, but drop to 2-3 MOA, and occasionally even worse, when using soft-point, blunter ammunition such as the Nosler 64gr. bullet or Georgia Arms' economical 55gr. soft-point load. That's not necessarily a drawback in a short- to medium-range defensive environment: a 3"-4" group at 100 yards is still adequate for a head shot, and a 5"-6" group at 150 yards will still fit inside a human target's chest area. The FBI rounds and their law enforcement equivalents were developed primarily for use at those sorts of ranges. For that combat environment, they are sufficiently accurate. For longer ranges . . . not so much.
So, having discussed the options available, what should you choose? Let me start by saying that, if your rifle is chambered for 5.56x45mm ammunition, I strongly recommend that you buy ammunition labeled as such, rather than .223 Remington. 5.56 ammunition is loaded to higher pressures than .223, giving an extra couple of hundred feet per second velocity. (For that reason, don't shoot 5.56 ammo in a .223-chambered rifle, even though it'll usually fit and function just fine. The pressure might be too high for safety, particularly as the rifle gets hot. However, .223 ammo can be fired safely in any 5.56-chambered rifle. Plan your rifle purchases accordingly.)
Selection will largely depend on your budget. For a relatively low-cost solution, the original M193 55-grain bullet will do an adequate job. It also has the advantage for civilian use that it penetrates sheet-rock and building walls relatively poorly, so over-penetration in an urban environment is less likely to be a problem. The M855 62-grain round offers superior long-range performance, but that's something civilian shooters are unlikely to need as much as soldiers - and besides, most of us lack the training and extensive practice needed to take advantage of that accuracy. Also, M193 is more likely to stay in the body of an attacker (and not pass through walls), while M855 is much more likely to over-penetrate and cause potential hazard to people and objects beyond the target. On balance, I recommend M193 as a reasonably effective low-cost solution. (I also stock both M193 and M855 as training ammo, so as not to waste my much more expensive "social use" rounds.) If you want to go to a 55gr. load with less penetration and better terminal ballistics, there's Hornady's 55gr. TAP load, which has an excellent record "on the street"; or there's the Georgia Arms soft-point load mentioned above. Both are loaded to .223 pressures rather than 5.56mm.
(Let me take this opportunity to mention that Georgia Arms offers remanufactured 5.56mm and .223 ammunition, using once-fired cases, at very reasonable prices, perhaps the most economical solution for practice and competition use out there at present. Their "Canned Heat" bulk pack ammunition [packaged in ammo cans, and available in multiple rifle and handgun calibers and loadings] is relatively affordable. I have several hundred rounds of it in my stash as I write these words. No, they didn't ask to be mentioned and they're not compensating me in any way for recommending them - I just like my readers to know about good deals when they're available.)
If you can afford something better, there are several good choices. My round of choice for general-purpose defensive use is the Mk. 262 77-grain OTM. I don't know what my engagement range might be; my location on any given day varies from visiting a city, to driving through the Texas plains. Therefore, I want the versatility of good accuracy and terminal performance anywhere from "up close and personal" to "way out there". I use the Israeli version of the Mk. 262 (you can read a detailed review of it here). Here's a video clip showing its performance in ballistic gelatin. It's particularly interesting to me because the round was fired through a 10½" barreled rifle, the same barrel length as my AR-15 5.56mm. pistol. Despite the short barrel and consequent loss of velocity, the bullet performed very well.
This ammo is expensive, but you get what you pay for. I don't think there's a better general-purpose defensive round out there at present for the AR-15-style weapon than the Mk. 262 or its equivalents (such as, for example, Hornady's 75gr. TAP load). Stocks of the Mk. 262 from any manufacturer are usually limited, due to its expense and military demand for the round. (There are currently a few cases of the IMI version at my favorite supplier.). However, function-test it carefully before adopting it. It's slightly longer than some other 5.56mm rounds, so some magazines and weapons may not load or feed it reliably. Testing is critical before you trust your life to any firearm or round!
For short-barreled AR-15 carbines or pistols in an urban environment, many people prefer 62- and 64-grain soft-point rounds like those used by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. For use in confined quarters, such as home defense or on city streets, you want as little risk of over-penetration as possible, so those rounds are a decent choice. Another good one is a so-called "plastic tipped" round, like those in Hornady's TAP range. They feed very reliably and, particularly in lighter bullet weights, expand explosively in flesh and are very unlikely to over-penetrate. That's why I carry 55gr. TAP in my home defense AR-15.
There's another option that's been well reviewed by people who know what they're talking about. Barnes Bullets have developed a line of solid copper projectiles, containing no lead. They expand aggressively in flesh, but also offer "barrier blind" performance and deep penetration. Barnes loads them in its own VOR-TX brand of ammunition, and Cor-Bon uses them in its DPX line; some other manufacturers also offer them. John Farnam (whom we've met in these pages before) speaks very highly of the DPX load (I quoted him on the subject back in 2013, when I bought a case of it). It's hard to find these bullets, and ammo using them, in local stores, so you may have to look around online and move quickly when you find some. They're usually quite expensive, but I think they'll serve you very well for short- to medium-range defensive purposes. I carried DPX in my rifles when I lived in a large city (Nashville, TN), and would still gladly do so in an urban environment. However, now that I live in plains country, where longer-range shots may be required, I've switched to Mk. 262 with its better ballistic properties for that purpose. (If anyone wants to buy a few hundred rounds of DPX 62gr., drop me a line. My e-mail address is in my blog profile.)
There are several hunting rounds that will do double duty as defensive rounds. To cite just a few examples, Federal's 62-grain Fusion round or either of Winchester's 64-grain deer hunting rounds are likely to do just as well against two-legged targets as four-legged ones. (You'll have noticed that their bullet weights and types correspond very closely to the respective companies' FBI loads, discussed above - indeed, for all we know they may use the same bullets.) I'd consider myself adequately equipped if they (or equivalents from other ammunition manufacturers) were all I had. You don't have to buy specifically military or law enforcement rounds to be well defended. Just put enough of them through your defensive rifle or carbine to be sure they'll feed and function without any problems before you rely on them. This can be costly, particularly during the current ammo shortage, but don't skimp on the testing. The last thing you want in a real-world defensive encounter is to find out the hard way that you didn't test thoroughly enough, and your rifle is now out of action!
One final word of warning. I know a lot of shooters who have plenty of ammunition, and good-quality magazines, and high-quality rifles and carbines in which to use them: but they don't keep them "ready to go" in case of emergency. I think this is a potentially fatal flaw in their thinking. If you're willing to keep a loaded handgun on standby in case of emergency, why not do the same thing with your rifle? Obviously, you'll not want to have loaded guns accessible to or by unsupervised children: but if you can keep them locked away from over-curious young hands and minds, don't ignore the readiness factor.
I keep a few loaded magazines securely stashed in close proximity to my (equally securely stored) defensive long guns. During periods of increased vulnerability (e.g. while we're asleep at night), a rifle will be near to hand, magazine inserted, ready to chamber a round and go. In more risky situations (such as living in a high crime area where home-invasion-style robberies are not infrequent), I'd probably keep a long gun loaded and ready at all times. A rifle has a lot more "stopping power" than an average handgun, and I want the odds on my side in a fight, thank you very much!
Remember the church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas a few years ago? The citizen who took on the murderer and stopped further bloodshed used his AR-15 rifle to do so - but he had to take the time to load a magazine first, before he could intervene. I stand second to no-one in my appreciation of his courage and his willingness to stand up against evil: but how many more lives might have been saved if he'd had a loaded magazine ready to use, and thus been able to respond more quickly? We should learn from that. A defensive rifle - or any defensive weapon - that isn't ready to defend you when the need arises, is not "defensive" at all. It's a contradiction in terms.
* * * * *
In closing, I'd like to mention something I should have said earlier in this series of articles. The 5.56/.223 round, like all modern rifle rounds, is very loud when fired. If you do so without hearing protection, particularly inside a building, hearing damage is almost guaranteed. After years of exposure to close-quarters gunfire, my hearing has deteriorated considerably. Many veterans of military service will say the same thing.
It's worth keeping a set of electronic ear muffs with your defensive firearm, and putting them on (it takes only a second or two) before using it to check on "things that go bump in the night". If you have to shoot, your ears will thank you - and the electronic amplification of sounds will help you track any intruder by the noise he makes (footfalls, voices, etc.). I've used muffs from Caldwell, Howard Leight, Peltor and Walker with good results. They're not very expensive - certainly a lot cheaper than hearing aids later in life! Just make sure you get a set of slimline muffs that won't interfere with your cheek weld against your rifle stock. Thick, heavy muffs may get in the way of that.
A useful adjunct to ear muffs - and something that may minimize damage to your hearing without them - is to use a blast redirection device that throws the muzzle blast forward, instead of letting it spread sideways and rearwards as well. Such devices don't reduce the sound, but minimize its battering impact on your eardrum. (This is particularly useful if you're standing next to a wall when you fire. The bounce-back of muzzle blast from the wall can feel like a physical slap in the face. These devices eliminate that almost completely.)
Two such devices that I've used personally, and can therefore recommend from my own experience, are Midwest Industries' Blast Can and (very recently) Kineti-Tech's muzzle brakes with concussion/redirector sleeves. The latter are more expensive, but offer a double benefit; without the sleeve, the muzzle brake helps minimize recoil and muzzle flip, while with the sleeve fitted, the former benefit is reduced but the sound is redirected. You can use them either way. There are other versions of these devices, of course, which you'll find by shopping around.
* * * * *
Well, there we are. I hope you've enjoyed this series of three articles on the personal defense rifle, and have found something useful in them. If you have anything to suggest, please do so in Comments.
