Guns

What should she have done?

/ hsoi / 7 Comments

What do you think this 12-year old girl should have done?

Fine. You don’t like guns. You think guns are horrible, evil things that should be banned and no one should have them. Fine.

Given that, tell me what this 12-year old girl should have done?

Oh, here’s some more information:

Supposedly the dude was arrested previously for an alleged abduction of a 17-year old girl. That wouldn’t have been known to this 12-year old girl at the time he was making his way through her house, but does it matter?

She’s home alone.

She cannot escape, because obviously the dude is out there and his intentions are quite clear.

She doesn’t go to confront him, she doesn’t go looking for trouble (smart). She retreats to a safe area, hunkers down, and is on the phone with 911 the entire time.

Dude continues his way through the house, makes his way to where she is.

If you were her, how would you be feeling right about then?

And really, if this 12-year old girl didn’t have that gun, what sort of story would likely have been reported on the news that evening, especially given dude’s past?

So tell me, how was it a bad thing that this girl had a gun? And that she used it to ensure her safety?

Please… I’m really wanting to know.

And if you can tell me, could you look her in the eyes and tell her the same?

Guns are a force equalizer. As humans, we are tool-users, and a gun is a tool to help us overcome force disparity. A 12-year old girl cannot overcome a 32-year old man, especially a 32-year old man determined to do evil.

Do not deprive those on the lesser. You just empower those of the greater.

Wiser choices

/ hsoi / 7 Comments

We always make choices. Some are more wise than others. Some are more foolish than others.

While police operate under different conditions than private citizens, this lapel-camera footage of an Albuquerque police interaction with a hammer-wielding suspect provides us with some information from which we should be able to make wiser choices.

That’s a KRQE report of the incident. More raw lapel-camera footage can be found at LiveLeak. More story here.

There’s much to take from this, but I want to focus on one thing: ammunition selection.

There’s a lot about the shotgun that’s great, because it can be so versatile. There’s all sorts of useful, and then all sorts of exotic ammunition one can buy for it. Because of that, some people feel a need to use that exotic ammunition for whatever reason. In such a case as this, using bean bag rounds because they are “less lethal” and because “they don’t want to hurt anyone”.

Here’s a tip.

While you not wanting to hurt anyone is commendable, look at dude in the video — he very much wanted to hurt people. He was quite happy to hurt people, which is what caused police to be initially called to the scene. Then when 2 police officers confront dude, he charges them armed with a hammer — and yes, a hammer is a deadly weapon. Dude was quite determined to hurt people!

First officer fired 4 bean bags — they didn’t stop the threat. In fact, the threat got WAY too close for comfort, before second officer stepped in with a more effective mechanism for stopping the threat.

We’re not out to kill. We want to stop the threat. We want to go home, we want to be with our spouse, our children, and see our great-grandchildren graduate from college. When your life is at stake, you want the most effective tools for preserving your life. Choose wisely.

Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol – Revisited

/ hsoi / 13 Comments

I’d like to revisit a series I wrote some months ago about “Minimum Competency for Defensive Pistol“.

After presenting the series at the 2nd Annual SDS Conference, I looked at how I did and coupled that with some feedback I received from an attendee whose opinion I greatly value (thanx, Sam!). His assessment and feedback reinforced my own thoughts on my performance, and with that, I figured it was right to revisit some things.

Presentation

The presentation itself? I thought I could have done better. I realized as I was putting the presentation together that I had organized it well for serialized presentation on the blog, but that didn’t lend so well to a public speaking forum. Alas, I didn’t have time to revise the presentation, so I presented it with only minor adjustment. It went over alright, but I know there was structure I could have improved.

One of the biggest parts? I spent a good deal of time talking about defining minimum standards, but not enough on how one can go about achieving them. Again, this worked well for the serialized blog presentation, but wasn’t as engaging for a listening audience.

I also realized, I never explicitly defined a drill or other test that helps one assess meeting those minimum standards. I implied it to be the “3 Seconds or Less” drill, but as it stands now? Well….

On Minimum Standards

If you haven’t, go back and read the original article so you can be aware of the foundation.

In the end, I think “minimum competency for defensive pistol skills” lies with the ability to:

  • Draw from concealment
    • Perhaps with movement (sidestep) on the draw)
  • Make multiple, acceptable hits
  • In a small area
  • From close range
    • Think “within a car length” (0-5 yards)
  • Quickly
    • 3 seconds or less
  • Using both hands
    • Enables multiple acceptable hits, quickly

Skills beyond that (one-handed shooting, reloading, malfunction remedy) are useful but above minimal. And of course, both safety and etiquette are expected.

Remember: this is about “minimal”. Put it this way. You have a friend whose crazy ex is now stalking them, threatening to do them harm. They have the restraining order, but they know how useful that is so they choose to get a gun. You have an afternoon to get them some basic skills. What is most vital for them to learn how to do? That’s what I’m talking about.

So yes, I was figuring the “3 Seconds or Less” drill was a good answer to this question. But now? Not so much.

Karl has evolved the drill. One change was in the ordering of the course of fire, merely to facilitate running the drill (eased the ammo and reload requirements so you could more easily run it with semi-autos or revolvers). That sort of change doesn’t really matter towards answering the question, and frankly it’s a good revision.

But Karl also changed the content of the drill. For example, in the current version of the drill there’s a reload, some walking backwards while shooting, and a turning draw; none of these were present in the original version of the drill.

This is why I think this drill no longer answers the question: it involves skills that are above minimal. This makes sense for the context in which Karl uses it: as a core test for KR Training’s “Defensive Pistol Skills” course progression. However, it is doing more than minimal, so it’s not strictly the correct answer for “minimum competency”.

That said, I’ve maintained that minimum competency is not good enough. You need to work to a higher standard (that Paul Ford comment about 70% of your worst day). I would say the current “3 Seconds or Less” drill is a good “higher standard” to work towards. Other good “higher standards” would be:

But again, this is higher. We’re talking minimal.

A Possible Minimal Drill?

As much as I hate to say it, I think the Texas CHL test COULD be it.

But it needs work.

Here’s the drill:

  • 3 yards
    • 1 shot, 2 sec., 5x
    • 2 shots, 3 sec., 5x
    • 5 shots, 10 sec., 1x
  • 7 yards
    • 5 shots, 10 sec., 1x
    • 2 shots, 4 sec., 1x
    • 3 shots, 6 sec., 1x
    • 1 shot, 3 sec., 5x
    • 5 shots, 15 sec., 1x
  • 15 yards
    • 2 shots, 6 sec., 1x
    • 3 shots, 9 sec., 1x
    • 5 shots, 15 sec., 1x

Here’s how it could be changed to make it a better test of minimum competency:

  • Needs to be shot from concealment
    • Current test has you working off a bench, and shooting from a ready position. Unrealistic.
    • Must shoot from concealment, whatever your chosen carry and concealment method would be. If that’s from a hip holster under your shirt, fine. Pocket carry, fine. If that’s from a purse, fine.
  • Use a better target
    • The B-27 is like hitting a barn wall. Furthermore, it’s not anatomically correct.
    • Use a target like an IPSC or IDPA target. There are a host of such targets out there. The key is a target that provides a smaller “acceptable hit” zone, and that is anatomically correct.
    • Make scoring more difficult. It’s “hit or miss”, “acceptable or unacceptable”. There is no graduated scoring scale, it either is or is not. If it’s on a line, if it’s questionable, score it unacceptable. 90% minimum score, or better, 100%.
  • Do not adjust the listed par times.
    • Having to shoot from concealment adds enough time to make the published par times more difficult.
    • This could be debated, and probably debated per-string. Like the first string (3 yards, 1 shot, 2 seconds) is probably sufficient, but the last 3 yard string (5 shots, 10 seconds), should that time be lowered? Probably, but this is splitting hairs at this point. Keep it simple and keep the test as written. These other modifications are more important.
  • The 15 yard strings are debatable.
    • That’s a pretty long car…
    • If I was using my above example of needing to get a friend some quick skills in an afternoon, I’d focus on the 3 yards, then on the 7 yards; I’d skip the 15 yards.

Shooting the TX CHL test with these changes (call it “TX-CHL++”, that’s “Texas CHL plus plus”) doesn’t make you any sort of bad-ass gunfighter, but I think it does a fair job at addressing the minimum requirements.

Remember: the intent of trying to establish “minimum competency” is because we, as humans, tend to overestimate our skills and abilities. We tend to think we have the skills, that we’ll handle ourselves just fine when the flag flies. It’s better to test yourself against standards such as these to see if you really do or do not. It’s better to have a dose of reality now, when you can afford it and can then work to remedy any shortcomings.

How to get there

So you’ve shot some tests and determined you need some work. How to get there?

After talking with Sam, I felt like maybe there should be a program to help you out. Like when doing all this weight lifting, a program like Jim Wendler’s 5/3/1 program is a great way to get going and address a lot of things. Could such a program be devised for shooting? I think so. Look at the books and DVD’s from Mike Seeklander. He takes a bit of a different approach, but that could certainly get you there.

I think in most regards it’s going to come down to the individual. What is your learning style like? Are you self-motivated?  Do you have enough to be able to self-diagnose and improve? In the beginning, we all need good teachers, and there are good schools and instructors out there. Take advantage of those opportunities to have a teacher, a mentor. There’s a lot of DVD product coming out that can be a help for sure, but I’ve found that those tend to be most useful to folks that already have a clue. You don’t have a be a master, but a rank beginner is going to get a lot more from having a real instructor looking over their shoulder, that can see precisely what’s going on and offer ways to correct, improve, and progress.

You have to practice the things you don’t want to practice. You have to be willing to push yourself outside your comfort zone. And I think another key factor is having a tangible goal. You can have a lofty goal, then break it up into smaller milestones. Perhaps it starts with shooting the TX-CHL++ clean with no time limits. Then you work towards the time-limits. Then you pick a harder standard, like the Farnam Drill, with a 15 second par, then 14 second. As you work, you’ll find where your weaknesses are and use dry fire practice to improve those. And so on. Be willing to be patient, but work consistently.

In the end, the desire is improvement. That we understand what “minimum acceptable” is so we can ensure we’re at least that, but then work to exceed it. Set a new level, then rise above it. And so on, and so on.

Just say no — to drawstrings

/ hsoi / 8 Comments

The drawstring of a jacket, caught in a holster, entering a trigger guard… and you can figure what happened.

Thing is, this wasn’t just anyone — this was a Police Chief.

Yes, this can happen to anyone.

I’ve seen this before. It’s not an uncommon thing for clothing to get in the way of a holster. Something like a shirt-tail can just prevent reholstering. But these drawstring toggles? This is what happens. As the video shows, it’s not the first time.

Solution: cut the toggles off.

I do have to wonder why the Chief was handling his gun in the first place. You put your gun in the holster, and you leave it there. A casual use for comparison? Geez man, it’s not like there aren’t a host of guns behind the counter there that you couldn’t use for comparison! I also didn’t like how at around 0:50 it appeared like he was muzzling his hand; it could be the camera angle, but it sure looks like it.

Consider as well what the shop owner said: “in 34 years, this is the first time that has happened”. Take home here? You cannot get complacent. You cannot think you are immune. It doesn’t matter how long you’ve been around guns, been using guns, sooner or later, it can happen.

There is nothing wrong with looking when you reholster. Have a good holster, that keeps the mouth open; holsters where the mouth collapses are generally bad news because you have to use something to open the mouth — all too often, it’s your other hand, and that puts the hand in front of the muzzle, and hopefully you can now see why that’s a bad idea. Use a good holster, holster “one-handed”, and if you need to look to ensure things are clear, do so.

I will give credit to the Chief for wanting to use this as a teachable moment, to encourage others to learn from his mistake. I will also give credit to the TV station for informative reporting (maybe fair and factual journalism isn’t dead yet).

So go… find your jacket, and cut off those drawstrings.

AAR: MAG-20 2014-03-08/09

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

There’s a great deal of focus out there on how to keep yourself out of trouble and what to do if you find yourself in trouble. There’s a huge market out there of both producers and consumers of the “before” and “during” parts of personal defense.

But what about the “after”?

The reality is, if you find yourself in a situation where you must defend your life or the life of a loved one, there is going to be an after. It may be as simple as some interaction with the police, all good, and you’re on your way. It may be as complex as being arrested and spending millions of dollars and many years of your life tied up in court cases (even if you were righteous). The after may be littered with dreams, flashbacks, hospital visits, affected relationships, and all manner of other “side-effects” for the remainder of your life. The after may even wind up with you being sent to prison for the rest of your life for a crime you didn’t commit. There’s going to be an after, and it behooves you to prepare for it, just like you prepare for the “before” and “during.”  And while it may not be as sexy as learning how to use some shiny toy or learn some cool tactics, it is a reality that should not be denied. When you are in a situation, that is not the time to acquire knowledge about how to deal with the situation.

This is where MAG-20 comes in.

MAG-20

If you don’t know who Massad Ayoob is, just Google search on his name. His resumé and legacy speak to what you need to know about him. The depth and breadth of his experience, not just as a cop, not just as a “gun guy”, not just as an author, but also as an expert witness with his extensive time in a courtroom along with his intensive study and research of these issues, he brings an immense amount of knowledge and wisdom. And he’s willing to share it, in courses like MAG-20.

I spent this past weekend (2014-03-08/09) taking his MAG-20 Classroom course (classroom only, no live fire). It was hosted by KR Training and held at the Red Oak Ballroom in Austin, Texas. Here’s the summary of the class from his website:

A two-day, 20-hour immersion course in rules of engagement for armed law-abiding private citizens, emphasizing legal issues, tactical issues, and aftermath management. Topics will include interacting with suspects, witnesses, responding police officers…threat recognition and mind-set…management of social and psychological aftermath after having had to use lethal force in defense of self or others…and preparing beforehand for legal repercussions and minimizing exposure to them. Situations in the home, at the place of business, or “on the street” will all be covered.

Now don’t think this is any sort of “Hey, learn how to work the legal system so you can kill people you don’t like, then get out of jail free!” sort of thing. No, that’s the furthest thing from the truth (and any sort of moral or ethical behavior). This class is about helping private citizens who have accepted the responsiblity for the care of themselves and those they love, to understand the realities of the full scope of their undertaking. The class conveys the weight and true gravity of the matter. Yes, there is a measure of preparedness for things like the potentially inevitable courtroom battle; why shouldn’t we be prepared for that? Not to dodge the law but to ensure we act in a lawful manner, and in a manner that doesn’t allow the law (or unscrupulous prosecutors) to steamroll us for trying to remain alive to see our grandchildren graduate college.

Yes, this is an important course for everyone to take.

Sure, Mas can be polarizing. Some consider him to be strongly on one side of the spectrum. Well, that’s alright. He’s got decades of experiences and research that back up his knowledge and why he views things as he does, why he teaches what he does. That doesn’t mean everyone accepts Mas’ teachings and stances lock, stock, and barrel. During the weekend I spoke with Mas about a particular topic where he and another respected trainer disagree, and both have valid arguments for their stances. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth your while to listen to what he has to say.

Furthermore, given Mas has been around for so long, written so much, and spoken to so many, there’s no question some of the things he has said have become distorted. Case in point, Mas’ stance on using handloaded ammunition for self-defense. I know what I’ve heard over the years, and just like any round of “the telephone game”, the truth gets distorted as each person retells it from their foggy memory. In fact, back in 2009, Kathy Jackson posted a comment to this very blog about this very subject, working to clear the air on what Mas actually says (and yes, I stand corrected)! But anything you can hear straight from “the horses’ mouth” is always going to carry more weight, and certainly ensures clear air. Many things were said over the weekend that I’ve heard before, but to hear them from Mas gives a different weight, a different perspective, and certainly ensures a clarity and authority you can’t get from the Internet message boards.

Our Class

So how was the class itself?

Intense and intensive.

Two 10-hour days is a long time for your butt to be in a chair. Furthermore, we lost an hour due to Daylight Saving time starting, so by day 2, everyone was feeling a little run down. But class was never boring, never inattentive. In fact, I don’t think I’ve taken notes like this since college.

BTW, quick shout out to Circus Ponies for their NoteBook for Mac app. I’ve long wanted a good note-taking app, but for one reason or other never got around to finding one (or writing my own). I knew my traditional approaches were fine for my normal daily workflow, but for something this intensive well… Saturday morning before class started I went looking, found Circus Ponies’ app (which I had heard of before but never looked at beyond smiling at the fun company name), download, install, quick tutorial, then off and running. It was a smart move and tremendously helpful in my note-taking efforts. I’m going to continue my 30-day free trial, using NoteBook in my daily workflow instead of what I’ve done for the past 20 years, and see how it pans out. I’m optimistic! But I digress.

The class was logically presented, with each topic building upon the ones before it. Yes, if you’ve been around long enough, read enough, taken enough courses, you are going to be hearing things you’ve heard before. But now, maybe you’re hearing it correctly, or maybe the simple repetition is good for memory retention. This isn’t to say the class is just rehashed stuff; far from it. There’s a great deal of new and valuable information too.

The Power of Language

For me, one of the more interesting aspects was insight into the way the courts can work. The way the lawyers can work. Mas made a point that often a lawyer is going to make more use of Webster’s dictionary than Black’s Law dictionary. Here’s an example.

“I’m sorry.”

When you heard (read) those words, what impression did they leave upon you? Likely the impression that the person who spoke those words is sad… and regretful. Penitence. There’s implication of guilt.

But is that always the case?

What if you didn’t hear someone (loud room)? You might say “I’m sorry?” in an effort to get them to repeat themselves.

What if a friend’s mother just lost her battle with cancer. You might say to your friend, “I’m sorry.”  This is an expression of sympathy, not of guilt.

In each of these, it’s the same words uttered each time, but the intent and meaning behind those words is vastly different! Consider the impression some may take when they hear those words: “I’m sorry”. If you stand up in front of the court and say “I’m sorry”, could that be perceived as confession of a crime? or through some deft use of Webster’s dictionary, a prosecutor choosing to point out to the jury how the use of the words “I’m sorry” can mean penitence: a feeling of sadness because you did something wrong… wrong… like admission of guilt. Can you see how your words, that maybe were expressed out of sorrow, could be turned into an expression of guilt?

That was something from the course that really stood out to me. How yes, everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You’ve heard that phrase, but have you ever considered how your words may then be used against you, given the above example?

No, it’s not fair. But if you can have prior awareness, prior planning, prior knowledge — education! You can be prepared. Again, yet another time where people may not understand the value of a good education, until it’s too late.

Personal Take

All in all, I think the only downside to the weekend was a sore butt and stiff legs from sitting so much. 🙂 Oh, and I somewhat blew out my diet (two words: catered Skittles).  I learned a great deal. I have some thoughts on ways to improve my own planning, my own strategies, my own program. I even have a few things I wish to talk  over with Karl regarding KR Training. Regardless of those, I also have some thoughts on ways to improve myself as an instructor. If that’s what I walked away with, I have to think it was time well-spent.

Oh and my personal highlight of the weekend? I got to be Mas’ chauffeur. 🙂  It was fun to be able to speak with him on a more personal level, and personally experience what a down-to-earth and class-act he is. Yes, I made sure to take him to Rudy’s BBQ (nothing like their extra moist brisket!), and Mas… next time I’ll be sure to find a good BBQ joint that also serves Rolling Rock. 😉 Thank you so much for coming to Austin and sharing your knowledge with us.

Unpossible

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

A Westlake High School student was robbed at gunpoint in the school’s parking lot Thursday [Feb. 27, 2014] afternoon, the school’s principal says. Principal John Carter says the student was not physically harmed. He says it happened at around 4:30 p.m. The student was approached by a man with a gun who took his cell phone and then fled the scene. The student immediately reported the incident to school officials, Carter says. The Travis County Sheriff’s Office is investigating the incident. Carter says as a precaution the school will have extra security staff in the parking lots on Friday.

Original story. (h/t Paul Martin)

But I thought guns weren’t allowed on school property. It’s a gun-free zone, right? Or does this mean that criminals don’t obey the law?

Westlake is the “rich folks” part of Austin. Crime never happens there, right? Well granted, it’s not I-35/Riverside (one of Austin’s crime hotspots), but folks — no where is immune. Not “the good parts of town”, not “in gun free zones”. This doesn’t mean everywhere is a battleground, just that you should not be lulled into thinking that there’s some impenetrable bubble around certain areas. Shit can happen, anywhere, to anyone.

Updated (2014-03-13): I work with folks who have kids that attend Westlake High School. The story is legit. Apparently some dude was combing the parking lot, breaking into cars. This student just happened to stumble upon dude, dude pulled a gun, demanded phone, bailed.

School just let out. Kids everywhere. And doing this? Yeah… just remember that if criminals had the same smarts, standards, and ethics as you, they wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing in the first place.

M&P-19 ?

/ hsoi / 8 Comments

There are numerous handgun models/lines out there that have a “big gun” and a “small gun”. Look at the Springfield XD and XD-compact. Or the M&P and M&P compact. Or probably the easier way to describe it, the Glock 17 and the Glock 26.

This isn’t similar but different guns, like M&P vs. M&P Shield, or XDm vs. XD-S. This is about guns that are essentially the same, but a different size. I could put a full-size M&P magazine into a M&P compact and it works; might look funny, but it works. I can’t interchange a Shield mag with a full-sized M&P.

But for some reason, there’s a gap in many handgun lines. The easiest way to describe it?

Glock 19.

It’s almost “full-size”, but shaves off a little here and a little there. You can still get a full grip (no pinky dangle), but that little bit shaved off here and little bit shaved off there helps with concealment. A half-inch can make a difference.

Ron Larimer (WTBGU!) posted about this very thing.

Imagine a Glock 19 sized M&P carrying 15rds with a 4″ barrel an a fiber optic front sight (Ok maybe you want night sights). It would allow the shooter to get a full firing grip without the need for a pinky extension, a slightly longer sight radius than the M&P9c and a service length barrel.

I mentioned this gun to a marketing guy for Smith & Wesson at the SHOT show, but I think the only way to get it built is to prove there is interest in the platform.

If this is a firearm you would be interested in please leave a comment below as petition for Smith & Wesson. Lets get this built!

I won’t just comment on it, I’ll also write a whole post myself! Give something more to show up when the S&W folk Google about this. 🙂

Would I buy it? Yeah.

Avoiding tragedy

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

Ronald Westbrook, the Alzheimer’s patient, got out of his house during the night of Nov. 27. He appeared hours later at the home of Joe Hendrix, knocked repeatedly on the door and tried the bell, apparently being in a state of confusion. The homeowner, Joe Hendrix, 35, armed himself, went outside, and confronted Westbrook. Eventually, Hendrix shot Westbrook, 72, several times, which proved fatal. According to Hendrix, the elderly man was carrying an object and did not obey his commands.

Full story. (h/t Claude Werner)

By all accounts, Mr. Hendrix acted in a reasonable manner – in terms of the law. However, from outsiders looking in, they will not view what Mr. Hendrix did as reasonable. As Claude states:

While Mr. Hendrix will not face criminal charges, there is no doubt that he will still have issues to deal with for the rest of his life. Assuming he is a moral person, no doubt the outcome of the confrontation will haunt him as long as he lives. He will most likely always be known in his community as “the guy who killed that poor old man.” In some cases, there are aftereffects in family life, as well.

This is why it is important to receive self-defense training, and why that training needs to be more than just about equipment and skills. So fine, you can shoot a gun, so fine you can throw a punch, but if that’s all you know how to do, chances are that’s how you are going to respond. Tactics and mindset are often more important.

Case in point. KR Training alum and Assistant Instructor, Dave Reichek attended the 2014 Polite Society conference. At the conference, Dave participated in a Force-on-Force training scenario. Here’s Dave’s write up, and here’s a video of Dave’s session.

As well, TLG posted about it, and it’s a post where reading the comments is actually a good thing. Please, read Dave’s write up, watch the video, and read TLG’s posting too.

Look at the results of how many participants responded. Look at how Dave responded.

I can’t say what I would have done. With the benefit of arm-chairing this, the best I can think of is my initial reaction would have been to respond with “I cannot help you, but I will call the police”, then make myself scarce and dial 911 (i.e. “maxim of beer & tv“, not my problem, need to get home alive to take care of my family, etc.). But who knows if I would have actually done that, given how the scenario itself would have actually played out.

Folks….

Just because you have a Y chromosome doesn’t mean you know how “take care of things”. Just because you know how to shoot a gun, or because you have martial arts training, or took a “self defense course” one day at “the Y” doesn’t mean a whole lot. Yes it’s a good start, but you need to keep going.

As a society, we put so much weight and emphasis on the importance of getting a good education. We understand how knowledge empowers, and the more you know, the more you can do, the better off you’ll be in all areas of life. So why is it folks don’t apply this same value of knowledge to the area of taking care of yourself? Why is ignorance an acceptable trait? (which also spills into folks that attempt to lobby for or make policy/laws based on this same ignorance, but that’s another discussion).

Do not fear force-on-force training. As you saw in Dave’s video, there was nothing physical. It was very mental, it was exhausting, it’s intimidating. But you better believe everyone that goes through FoF gets humbled and walks out far better for the experience. That is the nature of it.

And hopefully, when you have this sort of knowledge, it can help you make better decisions and avoid potential tragedy.

300 meters, 600 meters — safe direction matters

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

Can you shoot and hit a target 300 meters away — with your handgun?

(h/t Shawn)

Now while it’s cool that he can do this, there’s a bigger lesson to take from this.

Your bullets can travel a long distance.

This is why “safe direction” is vital.

Back in 2008 in neighboring Hays County, a 7-year old boy was jumping on his trampoline. A neighbor who lived about a third of a mile away (that’s about 600 meters) was in his backyard shooting his .22 caliber rifle (it’s a rural area). One of the bullets struck and killed the boy. The man claimed he never saw the boy.

True. 600 meters away? It’s going to be hard to see someone, and that’s assuming a clear line of sight. Of course, if you have a clear line of sight, that also means you don’t have a good backstop. I don’t know what he was shooting into, what he was expecting to cause his bullet to come to rest, but it obviously was not adequate.

You must understand that bullets can and do travel for quite a distance. Found this great chart from TX Park & Wildlife:

How Far Can A Bullet Travel?
Type 0 1 mile 2 miles 3 mile 4 miles 5 miles
 .22 Short ········ (.5 to 1 mile)
 .22 LRHV ············ (1-1.5 miles)
 .22 Mag ················ (1.5-2.5 miles)
 .222 ························· (2-3 miles)
 .243 ······························ (2.5-3.5 miles)
 .257 ······························ (2.5-3.5 miles)
 .270 ······························ (2.5-3.5 miles)
 7MM ········································ (up to 5 miles)
Type 0 1 mile 2 miles 3 miles 4 miles 5 miles
 .30-30 ····················· (2-2.5 miles)
 .30-06 ······································· (3.5-4.5 miles)
 .300 Sav ······························ (2.5-3.5 miles)
 .300 Win Mag ········································ (up to 5 miles)
 .303 ····················· (2-2.5 miles)
 .308 ······························ (2.5-3.5 miles)
 .338 ········································ (up to 5 miles)
 .35 Rem ····················· (2-2.5 miles)
 .45-70 ················ (1.5-2.5 miles)
0 1 mile 2 miles 3 miles 4 miles 5 miles
Source: NSSF / SAAMI

 

In short, most rifle bullets can travel a few miles. Handgun bullets can go about 1 to 1.5 miles.

Next time you get in the car, reset your trip odometer and let it pace off 1 mile. Let it pace off 2 miles, 3 miles. See how far from home you are? Or heck, just use Google Maps or Google Earth. Start at your home and measure off 1, 2, 3 miles. Measure off to some common landmarks, like the nearest grocery store, or the gas station. See how those fall within that range?

Hopefully eye-opening.

Your bullets can travel much further than you think.

Safe direction is vital.