Saturday Snippet: Situational awareness can save your life

Last month Gary Quesenberry published his new book, "Spotting Danger Before It Spots You: Build Situational Awareness To Stay Safe".

In today's troubled times, situational awareness is more important than ever.  I'm astonished to see so many people (particularly younger people) walking down the street, heads lowered over their smartphones as they text back and forth, totally ignoring the world around them.  They even step off sidewalks and cross streets like that, never lifting their heads to check for oncoming traffic!  I've had a couple of close encounters with such idiots while driving.  When you honk your horn at them, they jump in fright, then look at you as if it's all your fault - and if you'd been unfortunate enough to hit them, that's what their lawyers would claim when they sued you, even if the fault was all their clients'.

In a situation where urban unrest, riots, demonstrations and the like may occur nearby, we need to be on the lookout for them, and prepared to take evasive action when necessary.  This book is a useful tool in learning how to do that.  I've excerpted some of the first two chapters as a sampler.

Situational awareness is the ability to identify and process environmental cues to accurately predict the actions of others. This requires us to be familiar with what is known as baseline behaviors (those actions that are considered normal in any given environment). By knowing what is deemed to be reasonable and appropriate, we can more easily spot the people that seem out of place and raise our suspicion. Then we can evaluate that person’s actions, and with practice, accurately predict their behaviors. This is how situational awareness works, and it allows us to get the jump on dangerous situations so that we can respond appropriately. We’re going to go into greater detail about these things later on, but there are a few points I’d like you to keep in mind as you read.

• Situational awareness always increases your level of personal security. This stands true whether you’re concerned about violent predators, or the guy in aisle three who refuses to cover his cough.

• Before COVID-19, if you were standing in line at the bank and someone walked in wearing a mask, you would have probably panicked, now it’s perfectly normal. The baseline for normal behaviors has shifted dramatically. Because of that, we each need to reconsider how we define danger. My definition may be much different than yours, but neither of us is wrong. If you spot something that you judge to be threatening, avoid it. The techniques you’ll learn in this book will help you to do that.

• You are your own last line of defense. You must stay focused on the things that matter most when you’re out and about. Although the COVID-19 virus requires us to practice specific protective measures, your personal safety extends well beyond the threat of getting sick. Whatever you do, don’t allow yourself to become so focused on whether or not the person behind you in the checkout line is wearing a mask that you miss the fact he’s holding a knife.

These are trying times, but in the end, we’ll all get through it. Keep in mind that as we progress along the road to situational awareness, the next threat to our safety could be just over the horizon, and no one knows what shape that threat may take. No matter what other people may throw at you, be it a criminal or Mother Nature, you must maintain your concentration and keep focused on the end goal, ensuring the security of yourself and those you love. It’s a big crazy world out there, and things are always changing. Stay safe, and always keep your head up.

. . .

My goal here is to take what’s relevant in the world of situational awareness and personal safety and boil that information down to its simplest terms, which can then be easily implemented in your daily life. The techniques and exercises I’ll have you practice work for everyone—parents, small children walking to school, teenagers going off to college, and whole families headed out on summer vacation. It works universally. When properly applied, this system of situational awareness will help improve your general understanding of how, when, and where violence occurs. It will also increase your chances of successfully detecting and avoiding danger no matter where in the world you may find yourself.

. . .

Real situational awareness requires a shift in perspective. It’s not enough to just walk around in a state of hypervigilance, thinking that nothing within your line of sight will go unnoticed. You have to be able to see yourself and others from the perspective of a predator. This isn’t easy for a lot of people. For the most part, we all want to see the best in others, and the fact that someone else could possibly view us as a target of opportunity is hard to imagine. The unfortunate truth is that there are predators among us, and unless we can change the way we think, we may look like easy prey without even knowing it.

To better understand predatory behaviors, let’s start by breaking down and categorizing the different types of predators and their basic motivations. In his book, Facing Violence: Preparing for the Unexpected, Sgt. Rory Miller breaks down predators into two groups: resource predators and process predators.

A resource predator is looking for tangible items, be it cash, jewelry, or even your shoes. They’ve decided they need something and they’re going to take it from you. Predators in this category include your basic mugger, pickpocket, or burglar. In some cases, if a resource predator confronts you and you just give them the thing they want, they go away.

Process predators, on the other hand, are much different. Process predators aren’t interested in your watch or wallet; they get off on the act of violence itself. This category of predator includes the likes of rapists and murderers.

Motivations of the two categories of predators can vary, but violent behavior is primarily driven by one of four things: money, ego, territory, and emotion. Let’s take a closer look at each.

1. Money: Like it or not, money is a consideration in almost every aspect of our lives. If you want a roof over your head, food in your stomach, and clothes on your back, you’re going to need money, plain and simple. Money is also a consistent factor in the commission of crimes. Some people have plenty of money, but they want more, and they’ll do whatever it takes, legal or illegal, to get it. This is where you get your white-collar criminals who end up in jail for tax evasion, fraud, or embezzlement. In those cases, victims may have lost money, but they were seldom harmed physically. More commonly, it’s the lack of money that drives people to commit irrational acts. Desperation can creep in, and people will go to any length to satisfy their needs. A friend of mine just sat as a juror on a capital murder case where a twenty-five-year-old man murdered his drug dealer over a forty-dollar debt. Most of us can’t even fathom such an act over that amount of money, but money is just the beginning of the problem; the real issue starts when the need for money is fueled by addiction. According to the Bureau of Justice, more than 18 percent of inmates in federal prisons committed their crimes to get money for drugs. In addition, drug addicts committed 26 percent of violent crimes as defined by the UCR. Alcohol, drugs, sex, you name it; if there’s a need for it, you can guarantee that money is what gets it. For some people, when money is unavailable, crime is a reasonable alternative.
   
2. Ego: On the surface, this one seems to be a little less common, but we all have egos; it’s the part of us that feels the need to be special. People will go to extremes to protect that feeling because it feeds their self-image, which can lead them into some pretty dangerous situations. We’ve all seen this play out either on television or in real life. Guy number one at the bar backs up and spills his drink on a lady’s dress. The lady’s boyfriend (guy number two) rushes to her defense and verbally attacks guy number one. Guy number one now has to save face in front of his friends and the other patrons of the bar, so he puffs out his chest and starts talking trash. Guy number two isn’t about to back down in front of his girlfriend, so things escalate and become physical. Both guys end up bloody, broken, and kicked out on the street looking like fools. Overinflated egos often lead to bad decision-making. If you ever find yourself in a predicament where egos are taking over and it looks like confrontation is eminent, it’s best to simply swallow your pride and remove yourself from the situation.
   
3. Territory: Humans are territorial creatures and will fight to protect what they consider to be theirs. An entirely peaceful, law-abiding citizen can become incredibly violent when they feel something within their territory has been threatened. A person’s home is their territory. When a mother takes her children to the park, that area becomes an extension of her territory, and she will protect it viciously from anyone she feels poses a danger to her children. The same goes for criminals. They survey their surroundings and stake claims on everything from street corners to door stoops. They become aggressive and often violent when they feel their territory is being encroached upon. To avoid this, it’s important that you become familiar with the places you frequent and be aware of any areas where your presence may cause problems.
   
4. Emotion: Violence is frequently driven by emotion. From jealous spouses to disgruntled employees and bullied teenagers, violent crimes such as mass shootings are often triggered by emotional responses. The level of emotion attached to religious beliefs has served as the primary influence behind acts of terrorism and the recruitment of others to extremist causes. Emotion is an incredibly powerful force, and it can be very unpredictable. Violence compelled by emotion tends to be excessively punishing.

That's a small sample of the sort of things you can learn from this book.  It's all useful stuff, and important in today's world.  It's particularly important because the system of justice in many states and cities of our nation has become politicized.  Those with certain political views and/or skin colors are likely to be treated a lot more harshly than those with others, and if the "wrong" color or politics is involved in a violent incident - no matter how justified their self-defense may be in terms of the letter of the law - they're likely to face a very vengeful prosecutor, out to prove that "his" or "her" people couldn't possibly be the guilty party(ies).

Given that legal fees may run into the tens of thousands of dollars, plus all the aggravation in having to defend oneself against charges that may be baseless, but will nevertheless be splashed all over the news media, we can see that avoiding this post-conflict conundrum may be even more important than recognizing potential conflict itself, in time to avoid it.


*Sigh*


Peter

What will life be like without police? Ask Mexico. Ask Africa.

The Federalist points out that all those demanding the "defunding" or abolition of police forces might do well to consider the consequences, which are clearly visible in Mexico.

But let’s say these ultra-progressive municipal governments could get their wish and abolish the police in their cities entirely. What would happen? Inevitably, an armed group would emerge and impose a monopoly on the use of force.

If you want an idea of how that works, look to our southern neighbor, Mexico, where over the past decade endemically corrupt police departments in some areas have been supplanted by autodefensas, or local self-defense militias. But before you get too excited about the prospect of paramilitary autodefensas policing American cities, understand that in Mexico these groups are a mixed bag at best—and at worst they’re not much better than the corrupt local police and cartel gunmen they replaced. More importantly, their mere presence in Mexico was and is a disturbing sign of societal decay.

To understand why, a bit of background is needed. The modern autodefensas movement in Mexico arose during some of the most violent years of Mexico’s ongoing drug war. In 2013, a doctor from the cartel-ravaged state of Michoacán, José Manuel Mireles Valverde, organized one of the first self-defense militias to fight against the Knights Templar Cartel. He initially recruited ordinary men, shop keepers and farmers, to hunt down cartel henchmen and drive them out of their towns.

Initially, these ad-hoc militias met with some success, capturing or killing members of the Knights Templar, setting up roadblocks and ambushes, and expanding the number of militias operating throughout Michoacán. But as the violence in the region increased, the militias eventually caught the attention of the Mexican government, which deployed the military against both cartels and autodefensas ... By then, the line between autodefensas and cartels had begun to blur. The militias had been infiltrated by cartel members, including former members of the Knights Templar who knew the cartel was losing power.

. . .

... the autodefensas movement quickly went from being an organic uprising against a vicious cartel to a vigilante free-for-all ... As the government stepped in to control the autodefensas movement, it became increasingly clear that cartel members were joining self-defense militias, especially in Michoacán and neighboring Guerrero state. Sometimes it worked in the opposite direction. Lacking resources and weapons, self-defense militias would turn to drug cartels for financing, and would later be used by drug lords as proxy forces against their rivals.

Today, autodefensas remain active in parts of Mexico but they have largely melded into the ever-shifting patchwork of gangs, cartel off-shoots, and corrupt local police forces vying for power and territory. The fragmenting of Mexico’s criminal gangs and armed groups has helped fuel rising violence in recent years, with this year on track to break last year’s record for homicides. As far as violence and corruption go, things are worse in Mexico now than they were when Mireles formed the first autodefensa group.

That is to say, the rise of self-defense militias in Mexico, no less than the rise of cartels, is a direct result of the collapse of civil authority. Absent a functioning state, militias are no more accountable to the general public than a drug cartel—and no more capable of resisting corruption than the local or federal police.

There's more at the link.

That was pretty much my experience in large parts of sub-Saharan Africa, too.  As the authority of the state and/or local government waned during periods of anarchy and civil unrest, local gangs, tribes or other groups would take advantage of the "power vacuum" to seize control of their own areas.  They would levy "taxes" against the people to fund their operations (in reality, organized looting on an ongoing basis), and terrorize anyone who refused to pay, up to and including rape, torture and killing.  If the "ordinary people" organized to oppose them, the opposing force would rapidly become corrupted by precisely the same temptations that had attracted their oppressors.  Once entrenched, such local power players could only be dislodged by superior force - never by reasoning with them.  They were making too much money (by local standards) to be willing to give it up, and nobody else in that impoverished continent had enough money to offer them a bribe big enough to stop.

Another part of that problem was that many merchants and other vendors simply refused to deliver supplies to the region(s) concerned.  They became food deserts, with the only exception being foreign aid (mostly stolen by the groups in control, and sold in local markets) or subsistence agriculture.  I can tell you right now, if BLM or other groups take over local city suburbs, the big stores in and near them will simply close their doors, rather than be robbed on a daily basis.  That will lead to the activists (a.k.a. thugs and looters) trying to extend their activities into areas still well supplied, which will in turn provoke a violent reaction from those in the latter areas, trying to protect what they've got.  Since "the best form of defense is attack", to quote a well-known saying, they'll probably take the fight to the activists in their own areas, too.  In the absence of effective policing, who's going to stop either side?

That's your recipe for at least a localized civil war, right there.  Don't tell me it won't happen.  It will.  I've seen it before, far too many times for comfort.  It'll happen here, too, if we create conditions favorable for it.

Peter

The frightening fragility of our cities

In urging readers to be prepared for emergencies, whether it be in terms of supplies, preparations to get out in a crisis, ability to defend themselves, etc., I've sometimes been accused of over-reacting.  There are those who say I'm fear-mongering, trying to worry people unnecessarily.  "It won't ever get that bad!"

Sadly, I've seen enough violence, unrest and social instability in my time to be very well aware that it can get that bad.  I've seen it in many parts of Africa, and in some US cities too.  Others who've "been there and done that" (for example, Selco in Bosnia) can confirm what I say.  The reality can be almost infinitely worse than anything I can say in these pages.

The residents of Minneapolis had a relatively mild introduction to that reality a few days ago.  Imagine if the destruction pictured below had extended to entire residential neighborhoods.  It can all too easily do so.  I've seen it.

What's worrying me more and more is that I'm seeing signs, in the growing tension in our society, that there are those who want to create such instability:  who see it as the only "solution" to the problems they perceive.  Of course, those problems will vary depending on the perspective of the individual, but they all add up to big trouble for the residents of our cities, who are going to be caught up in them if they come to pass.  (That's a big part of why, a few years ago, Miss D. and I moved from where we were, in Nashville, to where we are, in north Texas.  We've insulated ourselves against many of the problems of big cities by doing so, and we now live in an environment where people are much better prepared to handle such problems if they should arise.)

Don't take my word for it.  Read the following articles, and consider the urban reality they describe or foresee.  They're all important.  Don't just read one or two.  Read them all, to get the full picture.

• There's a lot of material out there on defending yourself in an urban environment.  Read my earlier article on the subject, and follow the links it contains.  You'll learn a lot.
• "Occupied".  Quote: "The more you can immobilize, slow down, or simply destroy vehicle infrastructure, the more you can handicap their movements, the faster you will get the change you want in the world."  I can testify from personal experience that the techniques described here really work.  I'm informed that rioters are already deploying them.
• Want an even simpler method of disrupting vehicle traffic?  Try "Caltrops and Systems Disruption".  Anyone can make a caltrop, very easily.  If you had a few vans or pickups scattering them on major highways and transport arteries, pretty soon your urban road network would be clogged for hours, if not days.
• Three recent articles from Greg Ellifritz:  "Surviving Mob Attacks on Your Vehicle", "Dealing with Molotov Cocktails and Fire Bombs", and "Playing with Fire".  You're watching those play out on our streets right now.  Pay attention, and learn.
• How easily can violence disrupt normal policing?  How about one man disrupting an entire major city's police department?  Read about "The Manhunt for Christopher Dorner".  Note how the entire Los Angeles-area law enforcement establishment was essentially paralyzed.  If one man could do that, what could half a dozen or a dozen do?  A score?  A hundred?
• What about the electricity supply?  Without it, a modern city basically shuts down.  Read about a 2013 "sniper" attack on an electrical sub-station in California, and the millions of dollars in damage it caused.  The electricity supplier was able to route around that damage, because it was only one sub-station.  What if it had been five, or ten, or twenty?  Fifty?  A hundred?  That could take out an entire city's electrical infrastructure, and it wouldn't be hard to do.
• Do you think the threats I've described so far are unlikely, beyond the capacity of today's rioters?  Think again after you read "Bricks, fires, frozen bottle projectiles: the organized tactics of America’s violent rioters".  Quote: "Police say the current riots are the most sophisticated and coordinated in years with supply lines, medics and communications."  Read the whole thing.  Another point:  if rioters are that organized, what makes you think anti-riot or counter-riot efforts won't rapidly become just as well organized?
• You don't need assault rifles and artillery to disrupt a riot.  The humble .22 rifle (available by the tens of millions in homes across America) and a few home-made devices will do just as well, in the hands of those who know how to use them.  Read Aesop's fictional scenario "Tomorrow".  I'll guaran-damn-tee you there are those planning something like that, right now.  (It's not far-fetched, either:  real-world riot control in Israel uses precisely the same .22 rifles.  It's already a proven technique.)
• If you step up to centerfire rifles, the carnage can be that much greater.  I've previously referenced Matt Bracken's semi-fictional "When The Music Stops:  How America's Cities May Explode In Violence".  If you haven't read it before, read it now.  I'm as sure as I can be that there are those already planning such a response to the current riots.  Let's hope and pray it doesn't happen.
• For a real-world illustration of the use of modern rifles in riot control, read "42 Knees in One Day: Israeli Snipers Open Up About Shooting Gaza Protesters".  That's current operational reality.  It could very easily be employed by civilians, on both sides of a riot.  What if they weren't only aiming at knees?
• You may think you can rely on first responders to come to your help if things get out of hand - but what happens if the rioters prevent that help from arriving?  It happened, just a few days ago.  That's just one incident.  What if there are a bunch of them?  What if there are so many that all ambulances, fire engines, etc. are tied up responding to earlier calls, and you have to wait for them until they have time to get to you?  You can't wait inside a burning building - but if you go outside, you may be targeted by rioters.  What are you going to do?

I'm not trying to make you panic with those articles and links.  I'm trying to show you what may happen, what can happen, and - in some cases - what already is happening.  Unless and until we realize how fragile is the cocoon of our everyday urban existence, we won't be prepared to deal with threats to it, and we won't have our own response planned and ready to deploy if necessary.

We live in dangerous times.  Be as prepared for them as possible.  Have a basic stockpile of emergency supplies, have a gun (preferably guns) for each adult in your family, and be prepared to get out in a hurry (if possible, before trouble arrives) rather than defend what's basically an indefensible position.  No matter how emotionally attached you may be to your home, mere property is not worth dying for.

Peter

A sheriff with the right idea

Sheriff Grady Judd of Polk County, Florida, has the right idea about demonstrators versus rioters.

Sheriff Judd said ... he does not believe Polk County residents were the ones creating problems.

He said there’s a difference between a protester and a rioter and rioting will not be accepted.

Judd said they received information that law enforcement would come under attack at 8 p.m. near Interstate 4 and Highway 27, but the Polk County Sheriff’s Office and Florida Highway Patrol were ready.

Judd said the Highway Patrol did a “marvelous job” helping stop the few who showed up for that alleged effort.

“We are going to hunt you down and lock you up if you engage in any criminal conduct,” Judd said.

Judd said there were rumblings on social media that rioters planned to bring violence into the neighborhoods of Polk County.

“I would tell them, if you value your life, they probably shouldn’t do that in Polk County. Because the people of Polk County like guns, they have guns, I encourage them to own guns, and they’re going to be in their homes tonight with their guns loaded, and if you try to break into their homes to steal, to set fires, I’m highly recommending they blow you back out of the house with their guns. So, leave the community alone,” Judd said.



The sheriff encouraged anyone wishing to express their First Amendment right to free speech to keep the focus on George Floyd, who Judd said was a victim who should be honored.

"All of that ugliness has taken away from what we're united about," the sheriff said. "We're united about the conduct that you saw with George [Floyd]."

There's more at the link.

I couldn't agree more.  As I said right at the start of this rioting, I'll gladly join any street protest or demonstration against the way George Floyd met his death.  It cries out for judicial action, and it seems that action is being taken.  However, that's no excuse for rioting - particularly pre-planned, organized riots such as those we're currently seeing.

A riot is no longer a protest:  it's thuggery, looting, mayhem, anarchy and chaos.  Peaceful protests and demonstrations are lawful, and as such are protected by the First Amendment.  Riots are criminal, and are therefore prime candidates to be dealt with using the provisions of the Second Amendment.  Any violence offered by rioters to citizens like you and I needs to be resisted to the utmost, right from the start.

As the late, great Jeff Cooper once said:

One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure - and in some cases I have - that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.

Well said, sir!  It looks like Sheriff Judd got the message.

Peter

If you haven't got a gun, GET ONE. NOW.

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 pointed out how COVID-19 was increasing the risks to our personal security.
• I described how I was using my "lockdown time" to upgrade some friends' guns, and wrote a three part series 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.

I also forecast the likely reaction of the authorities to urban unrest - a forecast that has proved itself sadly accurate during recent events.  Amongst other things, I said:

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.

If you were wondering why I was writing those articles, and making those observations, the riots of the past few days should explain them all.  They were ostensibly "spontaneous" in reaction to the killing of George Floyd, but in reality they were planned ahead of time.  I saw this coming.  So did many people who are alert to the "signs of the times".

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.

Again, more at the link.  Bold, underlined text is my emphasis - and it's being confirmed almost daily.  As just one example, try Raleigh, NC.

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.

More at the link.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Get (1) and (2) above for every adult in your family, and every teen mature enough to assist in defending the family.
4. 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.
5. 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.

Peter

In Memoriam: Chuck Taylor

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.

Peter

Backup rifle sights - some useful things I've learned

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 three part series 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.

1. Any bad conditions that muck up your main optical sight are probably going to do the same thing to your backup optical sight.
2. 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).
3. 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.

Peter

Revisiting the ammo stash question

Following my recent three article series 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.)

Peter

Grasping for security: gun sales spike again - but what about ammunition?

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.

It seems that April was also a very busy gun-buying month.

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.”

There's more at the link.

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.

Peter

The personal defense rifle, part 3: choosing ammunition

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.

Peter