Guns

Shooting practice

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

When I went out to KR Training this past Saturday for teaching, I made sure to go out extra early. Had to get things set up and prepped for classes, and I knew if I timed it right I’d give myself a fair chunk of time to do some of my own shooting practice.

After my last live-fire practice, my big decision was: slow down. My general guide is to be accurate first, fast second. This I know, have known, and is always the case, but the pressure of the line always winds up being on going faster and not being the last guy to shoot. It’s just how you get swept up in things. I’m making the conscious effort to not do that. And so when I shoot, slow down.

So to that end, I thought a good cold diagnostic would be shoot “the Farnam Drill”, at least, as I understood it to be. I’ve read so many variations on it, so here’s what I did:

  • IDPA target, only shots in the ‘-0’ zone count. (I’ve read some that say 8.5″x11″ piece of paper)
  • 7-8 yards. I just paced it off and that’s about where I was. (I’ve read 7 yards, 10 yards, 8 meters)
  • 1 round in the chamber (most agree on this)
  • load magazine with 5 live and 1 dummy round (randomly). (I’ve read some with 4 live rounds; I’ve read some that get specific about where the dummy should be, i.e. not on top, not on bottom; I say let it be wherever because you never know where a failure might be, and if you look at the magazine before you seat it well… you’re just cheating yourself.)
  • spare mag with at least 3 live rounds in it
  • shot timer

then on the buzzer:

  • drawing from concealment (I’ve seen some that don’t specify concealment/retention)
  • shoot until you hit the dummy round
  • clear the malfunction (tap, rack, bang)
  • keep shooting until the magazine is empty (slide lock)
  • reload (generally a slide lock “speed” reload, i.e. no retention of the mag)
  • shoot 3 more (I’ve seen some say to only shoot 2 more, so then the 3rd becomes the setup for running the drill again)

I also make sure to move at every non-shooting portion. Draw? move. Clear malfunction? move. Reload? move. It’s just a large side-step, but it’s still moving while doing “not-shooting” actions. Most write-ups I’ve seen of the drill do not discuss movement one way or the other.

Performance? Well, I’ve seen various numbers as well for what performance should be. I’ve seen students should be able to shoot it in 18.25 seconds. I’ve seen that students should be able to do it in 15 seconds. I’ve seen it said that instructors should be able to do it in 12 seconds. But then, how much of a standard can this be with so much variation in procedure? I mean, if you load the mag with 4 live rounds and shoot 2 after the reload vs. 5 live and 3 after, those additional 2 rounds will consume more time. So…. well…. that’s why it’s just hard to compare this across the board. Regardless of minutia, it’s a great drill that incorporates a great many parts of defensive pistol shooting. It provides a good measure of ability and performance. While I cannot compare so much to others, I can at least compare to myself.

My first run, “cold from the car”, all I knew was I told myself to go slow. I had to clean it, timer be damned. Go too slow, be certain of every shot, and just ensure a clean run. That I did, and ran it in 12.63 seconds. It felt glacially slow to me.

I opted to run it again, speeding up a bit. 11.10 seconds.

Then I changed course. See, I was going to just run that drill twice to get a feel on things then move to other stuff. But I decided to keep running the drill over and over and from it take what I could regarding my speed vs. my accuracy. How fast could I push myself before things fell apart? So I kept running the drill over and over, pushing myself faster every time. A couple times I pushed myself to a level that I felt was certainly “too fast” and I really didn’t care if I did miss because the goal was to find the point of “too fast”. I shot it in 8.56, but with 4 holes just outside the ‘-0’ ring, that was obviously too fast. Interestingly, I did shoot it in 8.84 clean. When I thought about the two runs, what was different? What I saw… or rather, didn’t see. On the 8.84 run I may not have seen perfect “target shooting” sight pictures, but I saw enough and was clearly seeing enough, brain was processing “yeah, that’s good (enough)”. On the 8.56, my brain wasn’t as “there” as the other run; I recall my eyes were just taking in noise, and it was akin to just “blazing away” at the target. Was the speed of shooting really any different? I’m not sure; I wish I had looked at the shot-to-shot times because that would be more telling, because maybe I was blazing away, or maybe I had greater time differences during the reloads or some such? I didn’t look. *sigh*  But I did note that even on the 8.84 run I had fumbled a bit, but still got a decent time. I recall Tom Givens shooting this drill (or whatever his flavor of it was) in about 8.5 seconds, so hey… I can live with this.

Averaging out the strings, I generally shot it in about 10-ish seconds. I’ll analyze in a bit.

After doing this drill a bunch, I decided to do a basic thing from the IDPA Classifier: Mozambique. I stood at 7 yards and fired. All 3 rounds must be acceptable hits. Shot from concealment, par time of 3 seconds. This was not only to nod towards my desire that the first string of the IDPA Classifier is something I should be able to clean on demand, but it was also some time to work on my concealment draw.

Finally, I ran the 3 Seconds or Less drill. That’s another drill that I should be able to do, cold, on demand, and clean every time. Only ran it once, but did clean it.

Analysis

I must remember to forget the timer and focus on accuracy. Even if that means I’m last in the match, if I can show “no points down” I’ll be happy about that. If that means in classes I’m the last guy, fine, because I’ll have no tape on my target. Accuracy is my focus, even if I’m slower.

But on that token, I must keep pushing myself on speed because I have to know where my limit is, and if I’ve improved.

One thing certainly is what I see. Those two 8-second runs were quite different in terms of the visual information gathered and processed, and I have to remember what I saw, and didn’t see. And I’m probably due for a refresh from the Enos book.

The other is “other stuff”. My concealment draws were consistently around 1.7 seconds. Not bad, but certainly room for improvement. But that said, I’m not sure that’s the best place to focus my time. I don’t think it’s so much speed getting the gun out of the holster as it is on my presentation. It’ll go back to the visuals. I need to get on the trigger sooner, allowing the shot to break when I have a “good enough” sight picture. I know I’m waiting a little too long, for more visual feedback than I actually need. Just gotta get on it sooner and allow the shot to break when I have the good enough picture, not after I have it.

It’s even visuals with split times. I actually didn’t look at my splits, but I know I’m going slower than my eyes and brains need.

Plus, reloads. I got caught in my concealment garment too much or had other little fumbles.

But I think the biggest help is my mindset: accuracy is final.

Still, while keeping the mindset is appropriate, if there’s anything to specifically work on it’s “see what I need to see, and ONLY what I NEED to see”.

AAR – KR Training, 2 Feb 2013 – Basic Pistol 1, Basic Rifle 1

/ hsoi

More women want to learn how to shoot guns. Look at the growth of groups like A Girl & A Gun, the Sure Shots. NPR just did a story on it.

And in the two classes we held yesterday at KR Training, there’s no question about women’s growing interest in shooting. About half the folks in both classes were women.

I don’t know all their reasons, but it’s evident many come to overcome. It may be to overcome lack of knowledge about guns. It may be to overcome their fear of guns. It may be to overcome fear of the crazy ex. Some come because they accept their male partner nor society’s appointed protectors won’t and cannot always be around to protect them. Some come because it’s just a fun time to do something with their girlfriends. Whatever the reason, it’s great they come.

I support a woman’s right to chose. She can choose to remain ignorant, or choose to gain knowledge. She can choose to remain at the mercy of others, or choose to empower herself. She can choose to remain in fear, or choose to gain confidence. She can choose Glock or choose Smith & Wesson… just please, don’t choose Sig. 😉

And so, Basic Pistol 1 proceeded as it does, introducing folks to handguns, with a large emphasis on safety, and laying good foundations to build upon. It’s always a trip to watch people’s expressions after they shoot for the first time. You see some overcome their fears — especially evident when they look at you and eagerly ask “Can I shoot that again?” 🙂

Yes, guns can be scary, but it’s amazing how gaining even a little bit of truthful knowledge overcomes that fear.

Basic Rifle 1 is a brand new course. There’s a growing curiosity in rifles, but many don’t know how to jump into the pool. So we took the Basic Pistol curriculum and modified it for rifle, since at that level, a lot of the structure remains the same. Big emphasis on safety, fundamental shooting positions and skills, and then shooting a lot of rifles. One difference was instead of being more “brand-focused” like Basic Pistol 1 is, there’s such a wider variety of options with rifles be it brands, models, actions, calibers, purposes, that instead we focused on action types. What’s a pump? what’s a semi-auto? what’s a lever-action? what’s a bolt-action? What’s this “AR” thing and why is it so cool? Shoot a few of them, see how they work, roll from there.

BTW, there are some that think AR’s are too hard for women to use and “traditional rifles” are better. Hogwash and ignorance. You should have seen the ladies in this BR1 class.

For a first class, it went alright. John, Tom, and I spoke afterwards and we’ve got ideas on what to improve, what to refine. Always striving to be better.

Oh, where was Karl? He and Penny were helping with the NSSF’s Scholastic Pistol Program. I hope there will be a write-up of the event soon, because I spoke with Karl on the phone during my drive home. He told me about what went on and it sounded like a spectacular day. What sounds even better is hearing about the caliber (pun intended) of the kids involved in that program. Hard-working, dedicated, good sportsmanship, no drama, positive, happy… gives me hope for our future.

The weather was awesome, the people great. And I got to stop into Buc-Ee’s. Made for a great day. 🙂

Feeling safe vs. Being safe

/ hsoi

I could lay a strip of fabric across your shoulder while you drive a car. That might make you feel safe, since it would feel like a seat belt and look like a seat belt, but it wouldn’t actually make you safe because it’s not really a seat belt and will not work like one if the car crashed.

I could stamp the words “air bag” onto pieces of the car’s dashboard, but leave the space behind the dashboard empty. You’ll have an illusion of safety, but no real safety.

Seeing a fire extinguisher hanging on the wall is nice, but unless it’s the right type (e.g. ABC), full and functional (you did check the valve? you did inspect it at least yearly, right?) it won’t be much use when you need it.

I frequently see expressions of a “need to feel safe”. That this feeling trumps measures that actually provide true safety. I don’t understand this line of thinking because you’d rather have a measure that makes you feel safe but doesn’t actually make you safe, instead of a measure that actually would make you safe which would naturally also provide the feeling of safety (and the confidence of that knowledge). Both steps give you the feeling of safety, but only one actually makes you safe in the face of danger. Why choose the illusion over the reality?

This isn’t just about guns, so please don’t get hung up there. We could apply this to the TSA. We could apply this to “self defense” programs, including most martial arts. We can apply this to products in our homes. We can apply this to our homes and neighborhoods. We can apply this to laws and regulations. Really, it’s about a concept that can be applied throughout life. Step back and think about it. Be honest with yourself, and be willing to admit if you are holding on to an illusion. It’s good to follow dreams, but it can be unhealthy to cling to illusions.

 

Question for those who support banning guns

/ hsoi

I need some enlightenment. Friends, please help me for I do not understand.

I’m reading through Sen. Feinstein’s bill.

By name she explicitly bans the Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rifle. Later in the text, she exempts the Ruger Mini-14 (w/o folding stock) and the Ruger Mini-30.

Could you please explain to me the logic behind this? Truly, I am curious. I’d like to know how this qualifies as a “good law” founded in reason, facts, and logic. Is it not reasonable to expect our laws to be based upon such things? Is it unreasonable to want to know what those reasons, facts, and logic are? What Feinstein proposes here defies all logic and reason — towards the supposed goals of “stopping the mass murder of innocent children” — but if you know how such wording and logic achieves the goal, I would love to know.

And if you don’t understand what the problem is with the wording of her ban and exemptions, then I’d suggest taking an honest step back and admitting you don’t understand, that you are, well, ignorant about the topic. It’s not a bad thing to admit ignorance — but it is bad to willfully remain as such.

2A in 2013 – the Federal legal structure

/ hsoi

David B. Kopel, of the CATO Institute, takes a look at the Second Amendment in the scope of today’s political and legal environment.

While some will dismiss this out of hand because it’s Kopel and CATO, it presents a great deal of factual information about the federal legal structure that we presently operate within. It looks at the National Firearms Act of 1934. It looks at Executive Orders. It looks at magazine capacity restrictions. It talks about recent SCOTUS decisions. Given our current legal environment, what can be done? what can’t be done? What stands up to Constitutional scrutiny? This is a fair discussion, and I’m sure some of the things Kopel says will make pro-gun people cringe as much as other things he says will make anti-gun people cringe.

Kopel also makes a sound point about solutions that work now, that have immediate impact. Sure, maybe we can have greater solutions that may bring about greater change in time, but a solution that fixes things 5 years, 2 years, 2 months from now… is that too much time to let pass? too large a window of opportunity for the next madman spree? You may not agree with Kopel, but if you know anything about dealing with active shooter situations and how law-enforcement has changed their own procedures for dealing with active shooter situations then well… it’s tough to refute the present law enforcement tactics and the reasoning behind them. Thus, if you wish to offer up other solutions, that’s fine. If your solution is successful, how long will it take before it is? What do we do between now and then? Can you offer a solution that brings about immediate results, especially given the context law enforcement works within and why? It’s a fair point to consider when discussing solutions to this problem – the timeframe in which a solution will have the positive, desired impact.

Facepalm – Vice President Joe Biden

/ hsoi / 8 Comments

Vice President Joe Biden explains what one should do for self-defense: get a shotgun.

Biden, doing a Google+ “hangout” to promote President Barack Obama’s proposals for battling gun violence, had been asked whether a new assault weapons ban might infringe on the Second Amendment rights of those who want one “as a last line of defense” to fend off looters after “some terrible natural disaster.”

“Guess what? A shotgun will keep you a lot safer, a double-barreled shotgun, than the assault weapon in somebody’s hands [who] doesn’t know how to use it, even one who does know how to use it,” the outspoken vice president, a shotgun owner himself, replied. “It’s harder to use an assault weapon to hit something than it is a shotgun. You want to keep people away in an earthquake? Buy some shotgun shells.”

This is one of those things that is so stunningly misinformed and full of terrible advice that you just don’t know how to respond. I’ll try tho.

First, credentials.

I am an NRA Certified Instructor (Home Safety, Pistol, Rifle, Personal Protection Inside the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home). I am an NRA Certified Range Safety Officer. I am certified by the Texas Department of Public Safety as a Concealed Handgun License Instructor. I have been an assistant Instructor with KR Training for four years. I’ve received hundreds of hours of instruction in firearms and self-defense, with a large stack of certifications. There’s more, but this is enough to make my point. And no, I’m not as awesome as Tom Givens or my mentor, Karl Rehn, but I’ve learned a thing or two.

Joe Biden’s credentials: owns a shotgun.

Maybe Mr. Biden has more credentials that would permit him to speak as an authority on this topic. I haven’t seen them, and even if he showed me a list, after hearing the above I couldn’t believe him.

Let’s see here…

First I will agree that a shotgun is a formidable weapon. It can do devastating things. I do keep shotguns as part of my personal defense plan. I find them to be a solid small armament. They can be the right tool for the job.

I’m curious how Mr. Biden’s statement holds up.

A double-barreled shotgun. So that’s 2 rounds. What if you miss? What if there’s a need to fire more than 2 shots? If the statistical average of a gunfight is “3 shots, within 3 yards, within 3 seconds” then 2 rounds leaves you below-average and behind the curve. Is it legally and morally sound to put good people at a disadvantage from bad people?

A shotgun is harder to hit something with than a shotgun? Um… I’m not sure about that. Well, perhaps. The point of a shotgun is to hit small flying objects, like birds (ducks, doves, pheasants, etc.) or clay discs (skeet, trap). It does this by using lots of little tiny pellets and has them spread out in a cloud. And yes, compared to trying to hit a small flying thing with a single bullet (rifle, pistol) well sure, a shotgun will improve your chances of success.

But we’re not talking about hitting small flying objects. We’re talking about personal defense — even Mr. Biden is speaking in the context of personal defense. In such a case, not only is the target much bigger and moves much more slowly, it needs a far different payload. It’s one thing to take down a 2 pound bird, it’s another to take down a 200# violent criminal actor. You still have to aim. A shotgun is not some “cloud of death”. The spread is not as vast as you think. In fact, you actually do NOT want your pellets to spread out because 1. less pellets on target means less ability to stop the attack, 2. less pellets on target means more pellets where you didn’t intend them to go, which could be bad.

I’ve written at length about rifle vs. shotgun, so just go read.

Let’s continue with Mr. Biden’s statements:

 “This town listens when people rise up and speak,” Biden said

I’m not sure what town he’s talking about. Lots of people are speaking in other ways, and then it’s not like y’all listen when it comes to other topics. It really sounds like you’re pushing a personal agenda.

Biden noted that “it’s not about keeping bad guns out of the hands of good people, it’s about keeping all guns out of the hands of bad people. There should be rational limits.”

Then I guess it’s just “collateral damage” that this also will keep the guns out of the hands of good people?

Or are we considered bad people too?

Mr. Biden, I am not sure upon what credentials you speak, but your words don’t make much sense.

I’ll just say this. If a double-barreled shotgun is all someone needs, then start by equipping your Secret Service detail with nothing but double-barreled shotguns. Your actions will speak far louder than your words.

 

My new EDC Flashlight – SureFire E2D

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

For the past 3-4 years, I’ve carried a SureFire E2L Outdoorsman as my every day carry (EDC) flashlight. I carry a flashlight all the time and at the ready because it’s useful. I didn’t realize how useful it was until I started carrying one all the time — I use it almost every day.

But over the years of carrying the E2L, my preferences have changed and a couple months ago I started on a quest for new EDC flashlight. I’ve hit a milestone on that quest – I’ve obtained a new flashlight, a SureFire E2D LED Defender

SureFire E2D LED Defender

First, it’s important to note this is the LED model; there’s earlier versions of the E2D that were not LED. Second, you’ll note the different tailcap in the above picture; I’ll discuss that below.

Why did I pick this? Because it fit all my requirements.

  • I wanted a higher beam output than the E2L, and with 200 lumens the E2D certainly meets that.
  • It has a better beam quality, but I’ll discuss that below.
  • The first click on the E2D activates the high beam (E2L, the low beam). My needs these days find me needing “most light, right now”, which means I want the first press of the button to give me a solid beam of lots of light.
  • It has a clip, and a clip in the “right” direction for my needs. One of my biggest uses of the clip is to hang the light from the brim of my cap so I can illuminate whatever I’m looking at (hands-free), and of course the beam moves with my head and eyes.
  • High and low beams, because while much of my current needs are “most light, right now”, sometimes I need to read something or see something else, so low beam is good. And no strobe.
  • The form factor is right for my hand, for my carry, etc.. BTW, my existing Comp-Tac flashlight pouch works just fine because the E2D and E2L have just about the same form factor. I did note I needed to tighten up the pouch a little bit for the E2D to fit, but that’s not a big deal.

So… my needs were met, thus.

Regarding the beam quality, from what my eyes can tell it’s actually pretty much the same beam as the E2L. But because it’s more lumens, things just look better. So I reckon it’s not so much the beam as it was the strength. To compare, the Streamlight Super Tac-X I have also has a 200 lumen output, but the beams of the Tac-X and the E2D are different — this is due to the reflector. The Tac-X is designed to really throw that light, so the beam is a little more focused and appears to reach further. The E2D certainly reaches far, but the light is… well, the best way I can describe it is closer to a floodlight than a spotlight, but it’s certainly not some sort of “room-filling” light… it’s still more spot than a ceiling lamp, but I’d just say the E2D’s beam is a little more “spreading/filling” than the Tac-X. That’s fine for my needs, because while I do want the throw, I also need the “fill”. What I’d really like to do is get out in the country where I don’t have the light pollution of the city and really see how the beams compare.

The clip is shorter but VERY strong. It’s tough to get under it, whereas the E2L’s is longer and “looser”, very easy to get under. That’s fine, if over time it means more durability and less chance of accidental snagging of the clip.

In the few days I’ve had the light and used it, it’s worked well and I’ve been pleased. It’s what I’ve been after.

However… not everything is rosy.

SureFire E2L (top) and E2D (bottom)

See the above picture and compare the two lights. Certainly they are cut from the same cloth, the difference being the E2D has this “Defender” styling. That’s a bit of a mixed bag.

First, the crenelation is of course part of the purpose of the thing. But it’s a little sharp. While of course that’s part of the point, when you pull the light in and out of the belt pouch all day AND the light is up against your bare skin well… sometimes I skewer myself. Just annoying.

Second, the this affects the accessibility of the tailcap button. Notice in the picture you can see the E2L’s button but you cannot see the E2D’s. They rise up the same, just the E2D has the “walls” around the button. I found this made it difficult for me to activate the button. When I hold the light and hit the button with my thumb, either I’m holding it wrong or I just don’t have enough thumb meat to get that button depressed. For me to work it, I have to come at the button with my thumb pointing down into the button and use the tip of my thumb – hardly practical for me. When I grab the light, regardless of how I grab it, I should be able to just press and go, but alas, the tailcap doesn’t allow it. Thus why you see the mixed light in the top picture – I just switched to use my E2L’s tailcap. It works fine.

Third, note the texturing on the body of the flashlight. It’s a bit more aggressive on the E2D. That’s great for a grip, but in the pouch, on my belt, against my skin? It’s sandpaper. It’s not majorly uncomfortable, but there’s enough times when I bend or twist my body just so and get rubbed and it’s annoying.

All in all these annoyances are minor, but I’ve also only had the light a few days. Over time I may grow to hate them or they’ll fade into the background and I will barely notice them. Time will tell.

But for now, the E2D stays on my hip as my new EDC flashlight.

Illustration of the folly

/ hsoi

In New York’s knee-jerk rush to implement feel-good-do-something-for-the-children legislation, they also screwed their local law enforcement:

The ban on having high-capacity magazines, as it’s written, would also include law enforcement officers.

Magazines with more than seven rounds will be illegal under the new law when that part takes effect in March.

As the statute is currently written, it does not exempt law enforcement officers. Nearly every law enforcement agency in the state carries hand guns that have a 15 round capacity.

Now, state officials are coming out saying this doesn’t affect the police, they are not in violation, but the simple fact is laws are specific and must spell out exemptions if they are to be any. Any time a law isn’t to apply to police, they spell it out. The fact they didn’t, means this applies to police as well. And so, they are working to “fix” the law.

What this demonstrates is the folly of such limitations.

“Why does anyone need one of those?” Well, this is why. If the police need them, first, that’s “somebody” needing one of those. Second, if no one ever needs more than X arbitrary number of rounds, shouldn’t that go for the police as well?

From Reason

DNAinfo.com calls the absence of a law-enforcement exemption a “loophole in the law,” but in fact it is the very opposite of a loophole: Cops are outraged at the possibility that they might be treated the same as “a regular citizen” under the law. One has to wonder: If, as Seabrook says, the new magazine limit will have no impact on criminals and if, as Seabrook and Palladino agree, more than seven rounds sometimes are necessary to “save lives,” what justification can there be for imposing this arbitrary restriction not just on “law-abiding retired cops” but on law-abiding citizens in general?

Indeed. Why should law-abiding citizens be restricted and the police not? What justifiable reasoning can be given? To say “they’re the police, they may need it” assumes the private citizen never needs it. I’ll keep thinking back to that one student of Tom Givens that needed 11 rounds in order to save his life. Obviously he needed more rounds than these laws would permit — are you going to look him in the eye and tell him nobody needs more than 7 rounds or 10 rounds? that his life wasn’t worth it? that saving “just 1 life” wasn’t worth it?

Whodathunkit

/ hsoi

(h/t Brian)

So what you’re saying is… criminals use criminal means to get their guns. They don’t go through channels that fill out 4473 forms, that get background checks. Really? You don’t say.

Furthermore, you’re saying that criminals are deterred by someone with a gun, because they don’t want to get shot. That concealed carry does deter them because criminals don’t know who has and who hasn’t a gun (so this means CC even improves the lives of anti-gun folks, security through obscurity).

That if a home is known to have armed residents, they’ll pick the home that is known to have unarmed residents.

Whodathunkit!

Now I’ll grant. This segment was produced by Fox News. You can see some bias crapola, like needing to point out “illegal immigrants” in the lead-in. Interesting choice of prisons too. And I’m sure of all the inmates they interviewed, they cherry picked the ones with the best sound-bites that served their purpose.

But for those that wish to dismiss this video segment, my challenge is to find refutation of what was presented. Go into a prison, talk with inmates and see how many are willing and prefer to victimize gun owners. I’m sure you too can cherry pick and find a gem here and there, but the fact remains that, on the whole, criminals are not stopped by laws, that adding more laws will not stop criminals from performing criminals acts, and that sometimes the only language a predator is willing and able to understand is seeing the teeth of a sheepdog.

Refresher – safe direction

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

Two men were rightfully arrested for their “target practice”. Basically, they were shooting at paper targets without a proper backstop, and the bullets were hitting homes over 500 yards away.

Seems like a good time to remind people what “safe direction” means.

Folks, when you’re engaged in target practice or just plinking because it’s fun, you MUST consider where your bullets will come to rest, to ensure they do so in a safe and complete manner, and that no unwanted destruction happens between the muzzle and that point of rest. This is paramount, else you are being unsafe with a gun.