self defense

What would you have done?

/ hsoi

Marko points out a thought-provoking article.

Three militants stormed into Rukhsana Kauser’s home in a remote village in Jammu region on Monday and started beating her parents in front of her.

Ms Kauser, 18, and her brother turned on the gunmen, killing one and injuring two more. Police praised their courage.

Here in the US there would be little praise for those actions, and likely followed by recommendations that people not fight back and take that course of action, and probably saying such things should call the police or just say “NO!” in a loud voice, run away, or other such fairly useless actions.

“Without saying anything they [the militants] started beating my parents and my uncle. They beat them so badly that my parents fell on the ground. I could not see that and pounced on one of the militants while my brother hit him with an axe,” she said.

“I thought I should try the bold act of encountering militants before dying.”

Ms Kauser said she grabbed one of the militants by the hair and banged his head against the wall. When he fell down she hit him with an axe, before snatching his rifle.

“I fired endlessly. The militant commander got 12 shots on his body.”

Her brother, Eijaz, 19, grabbed one of the other militants’ guns and also began shooting.

Ms Kauser said the exchanges of gunfire with the militants had gone on for four hours.

“I had never touched a rifle before this, let alone fired one. But I had seen heroes firing in films on TV and I tried the same way. Somehow I gathered courage – I fired and fought till dead tired.”

So to those that wish to ban guns, to those that feel women and elderly are better left at the mercy of predators, that feel violence is never the answer… tell me, how would you have handled this situation?

OMG! It’s a bear! Run!

/ hsoi

Bear sightings are on the rise in Aspen, Colorado.

If you see a bear, what advice do authorities give on dealing with them?

They are now actively telling residents to be, literally, mean to the bears. Yell at them, throw rocks and if they charge you, stand up to them.

Be a big meanie.

Well, I would agree you shouldn’t invite them in for tea, but that advice doesn’t seem to sit with me. I mean, are they expecting people to keep a pile of rocks in their home and throw them when the bear attempts to invade? Or how about if they’re walking down the street, hauling a sack full of rocks? Kinda cumbersome, and you can’t throw them that well anyway.

I know something that’s easier to carry, to keep handy, and can throw things a lot faster and more effectively at a bear. But let Greg Hamilton of InSights Training Center sum it up better.

The US forest service has done extensive study on bear behavior, OC for bears, and guns against bears. I have been involved in all aspects of that from the beginning.

Almost everything you hear or read is personal opinion based on either no or very limited data points.

Looking at all the data for 100 years presents a very different story.

For bear defense it cannot be shown that the type or caliber matters, people that shoot back with anything win, people that don’t shoot back many times lose. All calibers and action types have been used. Handguns are almost always used at mauling distance. Longarms at 25 yards to dead at your feet.

There is no evidence to support 44 over 357, revolvers are more reliable at contact distance but people have won with semi-autos (but the data pool is very small, as it grows we would at some point start to see malfunctions)

A good revolver in 357 or 44 with powerful solids made to go deep and not deflect is probably the best answer for carry. The pump shotgun still has more kills of grizzly than anything in defense, believe it or not with OO buck, though common wisdom nowadays is use brenneke slugs. Pre WWII 90%+ of the kills were OO.

Tales from a Pizza Hut

/ hsoi

Scumbag walks into a Pizza Hut in Statesville, North Carolina intent on robbing the place. Scumbag demands employee opent the safe, but employee can’t. Scumbag escalates things, drags the employee into the bathroom, held the gun up on the employee and fired but nothing happened.

The employee fought back.

The employee fought hard.

The employee came out on top, including taking control of the gun.

The scumbag begged for the gun back, because it wasn’t his. Uh…. OK?

‘You shouldn’t have been here trying to rob somebody who’s trying to make a living,’

And the ironic thing is? I bet the employee gets fired because Pizza Hut (like many other companies) would say this is against employee policy, the employee broke the rules by fighting back trying to save his life.

That would be a travesty of justice. I hope I’m wrong.

To the employee, Therman Martin, I say, good job. You did what was right. Let’s hope your employer recognizes that.

Footage of an attempted burglary

/ hsoi

A homeowner in South Austin has surveillance cameras on his house. He captured footage of someone trying to break into his house. You can view the footage here. Sorry, can’t embed it, but go to the article then click on the video link.

What I saw in the video:

  • It was the middle of the day, not the dead of night. Most home invasions happen between 10 AM and 3 PM. Why? Because people are at work. Less chance of someone being home, less chance of any neighbor seeing them.
  • The criminal was looking for easy access. He checked the front door to see if it was unlocked. Went around back and checked the back door. Looked like he was also checking windows. While wood doors, hardiplank and drywall, glass, and the simple locks on most houses aren’t going to stop a determined individual, they certainly can work. A lot of crime is crime of opportunity. If they can find an unlocked door, slip in, grab something, slip out, all the better. Trying to kick down a door risks attracting attention, which is the last thing the criminal wants. Lock your doors and windows.
  • As the footage was edited I’m not entirely sure about this, but it looked like when he checked the front door he was making an effort to verify if anyone was home. He looked through the door’s window, and it appeared like he was ringing the doorbell. If there’s a ring at the doorbell, remember that you are under no obligation to answer the door. Or if you do wish to answer it, you’re under no obligation to open the door (you can say “Who is it?” and have a brief conversation through a door just fine).

What did you take from watching the video?

Worthwhile quotes

/ hsoi

Joe Huffman has taken classes from InSights Training Center. I have too (and would love to take more if they weren’t so darn far away, or if they get back down to Texas).

Greg Hamilton and crew there have a lot of experience and wisdom to share, and Joe has rounded up a great selection. Go read.

DVD Review – ShivWorks’ Reverse Edge Methods, Volume 1

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

This is my 3rd of 4 reviews of the ShivWorks DVD series. I previously reviewed the Practical Unarmed Combat DVD and the Fighting Handgun Volume 1 DVD.

The intent of this DVD is to provide an introduction to ShivWorks’ reverse-edge knife skills, for use in extreme close quarters combat situations.

Continue reading →

MUC applied

/ hsoi

One of the best parts of SouthNarc’s curricum is MUC: Managing Unknown Contacts. Effective MUC can stop a situation before it has a chance to get ugly.

John Farnam just posted a quip that provides a pretty good example of MUC. I don’t know if this student was formally schooled in MUC, but it appears at least something similar.

Some key points from the quip:

  • She was aware of her surroundings. Not just observing a strange man and his behavior, but also being aware of the time of day and her location.
  • She kept up a monologue, not a conversation.
  • Her voice and demeanor were emphatic.

ShivWorks’ Practical Unarmed Combat DVD gives a good introduction to SouthNarc’s MUC material. Better is getting some training direct from SouthNarc.

My flashlight

/ hsoi / 21 Comments

I carry a flashlight with me wherever I go. Why? Because it’s useful.

I never carried a dedicated flashlight, even something like a cheap little keychain fob LED. A couple years ago I started to carry one, and now I can’t live without it. You just don’t realize the utility and cannot appreciate it until you have one on you. There are more than enough times you’ll find yourself out and about, in a low light situation, and you will find it useful to have a light. Our eyes tend to work better that way. 🙂

The flashlight I carry is a SureFire E2L Outdoorsman.

I know. It’s boring. It’s not some tacti-cool flashlight like their Z2 or G2Z or the E2D Defender or 6P Defender. That’s OK and how I wanted it. I didn’t want a flashlight that draws attention. I wanted a flashlight I could take onto an airplane and have no one think twice about. I wanted a flashlight that I could pull out at a Scout campout and no parent or BSA policy would freak out over. I wanted a flashlight I could use on a daily basis, but that I could also use in a self-defense situation if necessary. I think the E2L fits that bill.

Many of the “tactical” flashlights are designed around a very powerful beam of light. That’s great for blinding people, for flooding an area with light. But what if you’re working on something close up? What if you’re out camping, it’s nighttime, you need to read a map. Having 100+ lumens reflecting off the map back into your eyes is not enjoyable. The E2L has two settings: a low power with 3 lumens, and a high power with 60. The low power is actually still fairly bright: shine it in someone’s eyes and they will be blinded; I’ve had it reflect off some close-up materials and still mess up my vision. The high power may not be as bright as some other flashlights, but it’s still amazingly bright. I recall on one campout using my E2L as a floodlight, holding it at arms length above my head, to light the way for a bunch of Cub Scouts and it lit up the pathway some nearly 100′ out like daylight. Another parent was using one of their cheap-o $2 special flashlights and it didn’t illuminate much past the end of their feet. So the variable light output is a big part of why I like this flashlight, because it enables more practical daily use.

The clip on the flashlight is also helpful as a daily flashlight. Just attach it to something like a hat brim and you’ve got hands-free light.

To use the flashlight in a self-defense context, I’ve found the flashlight works fine. It provides ample light, even if all you get is the low beam. In fact, to quickly switch from low to high beam is a mini strobe effect which at least when I’ve surprised some friends doing a quick “from darkness, to low beam to high beam” flicker has proven to be a bit more disorienting than just flashing to a single beam. I have not struck anyone or anything with the flashlight, but I feel that it could work fine for such a thing. The bezel doesn’t have the extreme crenellation the “Defender” flashlights have nor the added strengths of say the Pyrex window, but there’s a mild crenellation and certainly if the flashlight doesn’t survive the encounter I’m not going to sweat it too much… I can always buy another one afterwards.

I’ve been quite happy with the flashlight. I’ve tried using a more dedicated “tactical light” as a carry flashlight, but how often do you need such a thing? If you’re a police officer, perhaps so. But for private citizen me, most of my portable light needs are just daily needs to help me see where I’m going or what lurks in some dark area. I feel the SureFire E2L Outdoorsman provides me with a flashlight that addresses daily needs quite well, and doesn’t leave me feeling at any sort of disadvantage in other possible use areas.

Note: I’m not affiliated with SureFire. No compensation or anything for this. This is just private me talking about the gear I use.

Buckshot for self-defense

/ hsoi / 15 Comments

Yesterday I posted how birdshot is for birds. The general maxim is, if you’re using a shotgun for self/home-defense, buckshot (generally 00) is the way to go.

I have heard some people recommend #1 buckshot as being better. For instance, arfcom, Chuck Hawks, the firearmstactical.com brief. There’s also some talk that #4 is better, like here and even Massad Ayoob.

Well, as luck would have it, just today on the InSights mailing list someone posed such a question about shotgun self-defense ammo and one of the instructors, Keven Kerkam, responded with the following:

The “standard” loadout for a self-defense shotgun is 00-buck in the tube and slugs on the side-saddle.

Use 00 or 000 buck. We have observed a direct correlation between shot size (or number of pellets) and pattern size. Unlike what many people (uneducated people) say, you want *tight* pattern. You own each pellet that goes down range, so you want everything to hit the bad guy. We have found that the new(ish) Federal LE 132 00 load produces exceptionally tight patterns in nearly all guns. There is an older LE 132 load — this ok but not great — so look for LE 132 00 with the “flight-control wad” mentioned. Ammoman.com has it, btw.

I notice that there is now a LE 133 00 load that is an 8-pellet load as opposed to the 9-pellet 132 load. That *might* (no idea till we play with it) be even tighter than the already amazingly good LE 132 00 load. For now I am only recommending the LE 132 00 though.

For slugs, I recommend a reduced-recoil variety. The Foster-style works as good as any (most common type of slug on the market). The other common type is the Brenneke, but that one is usually marked “Brenneke” and mostly comes in “max” (i.e. high-power) loads. If it just says “slug” you’re getting the Foster type. Brand doesn’t matter, just make sure it is marked reduced/low-recoil or, sometimes, they’re called “tactical” which makes it even cooler because you’re not shooting a wimpy load that way. 🙂

Between my yesterday blog posting and the #1 buck being on my mind, I thought I’d ask for their input on the matter. John Holschen wrote:

For defensive shotgun use we need:

a.      No stray pellets (each one is a liability, without any positive effect.)

b.      Sufficient depth of penetration of each pellet to reach vital organs.

Detailed Criteria

a.      I would ideally like all pellets in the “A” zone at 25 yds. More realistic is all pellets on target at 25 yds. More pellets does not enhance performance in this criteria.

b.      OO buck is the lightest pellet that will reliably reach vital human organs through clothing at a distance.

Keven’s previous recommendations take into account both of these criteria.

Besides, it’s tough finding “smaller buckshot” at retail stores and even online retailers. Most of the time you’ll only find 00 buckshot, maybe 000 if you’re lucky.

Some important things that come from this as well:

  • Use tight(er) chokes.
  • Test your patterns
    • Before you go test, figure out the ranges at which you’ll be shooting. For instance, if it’s a home-defense shotgun, figure out the maximum distance you can shoot within your house.
  • Practice, and know the capabilities of your tool and yourself.

Updated: The original instructor, Keven Kerkam, added some additional information:

Yeah. A good number of years ago I did some pattern testing with all the different buckshot loads & sizes I could find (4, 1, 0, 00, 000) from Remington, Federal, and Winchester and found that the smaller the shot, the larger the pattern. Now with some of the more expensive rounds, you would get tighter patterns with 00 than 000, but if you kept things to the same type of construction/quality, 000 would shoot tighter than 00.

Granted, this was only with one gun, but I’d be willing to bet that 90% of the guns out there would show the same overall behavior, just different scale.

Other than a tight pattern for liability reasons, you want a tight pattern for wounding. When a pattern goes beyond a certain critical size, its effectiveness will drop off dramatically. Since #1 will spread faster than 00 which spreads faster than a good “tactical” 00 like the Federal LE 132 00, your effective range with #1 is significantly less than with a load like LE 132 00.

The typical argument for the #1 loads revolves around its reduced penetration through interior structures. This has some merit and is something that each individual has to work out for themselves and their unique circumstances: whether they want something with more wounding potential or less penetration through interior structures.

Some will argue that you have 16 pellets vs. 9, but if you hit a guy in the chest with a pattern that is, say 8″ (i.e. about 7-8 yards away — shot tends to spread around 1″ per yard give or take – more for lighter/more pellets less for larger/fewer), the majority of the pellets are going into the lungs and periphery (read: not immediately fight-stopping) and you get a few into the heart. But with pellets that are only .30/40.3gr, you may not do significant (read: fight-stopping) damage to the heart. And depending on the angle, positioning of other body parts, etc. you might not even get enough penetration to reach the heart at all. I mean, you’re still going to upset him but, you might be a bit disappointed in the immediate results.

But, if say, you hit him with a tight-shooting load like the LE 132 00, where we’ve seen patterns at 4″ or even <2″ (!!!) inches at 7-ish yards, virtually all of the load will hit the heart (assuming a well-placed shot of course) and the BG will have to be a lot more motivated to continue and physics will dictate that he’s only going for a max of 10-15 seconds more because his pump is no longer running.

Also, lighter shot will not penetrate heavy clothing as effectively. A good number of years ago, a Bellevue police officer used a 12ga shotgun to defend himself against bad guy who was seated in a car and drawing a handgun. The BG was wearing a leather jacket. I don’t remember if he was using #4, #1 or #0, but it was not 00. Where the leather jacket covered the BGs hand/arm that was hit, there was little damage. Only the uncovered portions were severely damaged. The loose leather jacket sucked most of the energy out of the shot.

IMHO, pretty compelling argument to stick with 00 buckshot. And if you can, to get some of the LEO-specific 00 buckshot.

Combined Skills Course Weekend- The Review

/ hsoi / 12 Comments

I spent the weekend of September 12-13, 2009 in a Combined Skills class.

The premise of the class is to provide students with skills that can help you stay alive: skills to avoid violent confrontations in the first place, skills to deal with a violent confrontation should it be necessary. The reason it’s “combined skills” is because a lot of such classes are geared towards a single issue: tactics/mentality, gun handing skills, or empty-hand combatives. This class, as the name implies, combines these things into a single lengthy, advanced-level course. This is not a class for beginners.

Read on for my perspective on the class. I’ll cover who did it, what we did, how I did, what I learned. Yes, it’s a long read, but it’s a good one chock full of information. Note this is all coming from memory after two hard and exhausting days of working, so most should be correct but I may have a detail about a statistic wrong or a quote incorrect. If I do have something wrong, I hope someone will correct me. But you’ll not be able to correct me if you don’t read it all, plus if you skip any of it you might miss the awesome pictures. 🙂

Continue reading →