The KR Training June 2011 newsletter is up.

In celebration of the 20th anniversary of KR Training, Karl is running a survey with a chance to win an $80 gift certificate good towards any Fall 2011 training class.

Click the above link, take the survey, and enter for chance to win. And yes… take the survey seriously because that will affect what class you might win. 🙂

I was talking with a friend about the recent AT-6 class and he was saying one thing that class did for him was helping him with realizing to change your cadence when changing distance. That is, when the target is up close, you can shoot faster and still get good hits. When the target is further away, you have to go slower to still get good hits.

I’d actually simplify this notion a bit.

It’s not about distance to/from the target, it’s about the size of the target.

You have to go slow to hit small things, you can go faster to hit big things.

If you have an 8-inch circle for your target, at 3 yards it’ll be “so big” and you can go at a faster pace and still get all your hits within that circle. If you then step back to 25 yards, that 8-inch circle is going to look pretty small and you’re going to have to slow down. The target didn’t actually change size, but relatively speaking it did and that’s what matters. If you put a 8-foot circle as your target and went back to 25 yards, I betcha you could still shoot pretty fast and still get all your hits in that 8-foot circle. If you had a 0.8-inch circle, even at 3 yards you’re going to slow down and really be sure of a precise sight picture to hit that tiny target.

So it’s not really about distance to/from the target, it’s more about the (perceived) size of the target. To hit smaller things you’re going to have to slow down. If the thing is bigger, you can go faster. Implied in that is if the target size changes, your shooting cadence must also change.

I spent Saturday helping out at KR Training. Two classes that day, one from each end of the spectrum. First was a Basic Pistol 1, second was AT-6: Pistol Workout.

Neither class was sold out, which was a bit unusual (especially BP1). But it’s that time of year, school ending, shifting to summer mode, so it’s not too surprising. Still, a good turnout for both classes. BP1 was about half women, and AT-6 had one woman. I’m acquainted with the woman and we spoke a bit on the issue of how women tend to turn out in good numbers for beginning classes but it’s rare to see them in the more advanced classes. She had some good theories, which upon reflection bear out in my observations. Another topic for another time.

The day went really well. I actually got to do some of the lecture during BP1, which I don’t normally do. I liked that. I covered the section on revolvers and tried to keep it short because I know we often run long. Unfortunately in trying to keep it short I missed a couple useful points that I realized while on the range since there I worked the revolvers: I forgot to mention revolver cylinder rotation (and how to determine it), and also demonstrate loading and unloading. I did show this stuff to anyone that came up to me on the range to shoot a revolver, but I should have also covered it in the classroom. doh! Live and learn.

AT-6 didn’t really require much since everyone in there is skilled and knows the protocol. It’s just shoot shoot shoot drill after drill. I think the hardest part for me was all the walking, since we’d be at the 3 yard line, then the 25 yard line… keeping the wagon-of-stuff back that far and constantly fecthing the Pistol Pro Grip for folks. 🙂  Folks shot well, learned a lot.

Here’s some observations:

• Trigger control! It’s fundamental and never stops being important.
• Distance exposes problems. If you do all your blasting at 3 yards, you probably look great. Now take it back to 7, 10, 15, and 25 yards and see how well things look.
• What’s the most important shot? The first shot. What’s the easiest shot to screw up? The first shot. First shots are any shot that doesn’t immediately follow another shot. So, you draw and shoot? that’s a first shot. You reload then shoot, that’s a first shot. You deal with a malfunction then shoot, that’s a first shot. Read this.
• Double-action/single-action guns suck. 🙂  This goes back to trigger control, and how it’s hard to manage a 14# trigger — especially for your first shot — and then immediately shift gears to a 4# trigger.
• We all need more group shooting at long distances.
• Don’t shoot faster than you can get good hits and do things correctly. We get caught up in the need for speed, and then our trigger control goes to crap. See all the above points.
• Your stuff will break in class. If you’ve never really put your gun through its paces, a good class will do so. If it breaks, fix it. If it keeps breaking, get a new gun. Fancy guns, tight guns, all nice, but not always going to get you through a “serious” time… maybe nice for a casual day of plinking at the range, but for serious purposes get a serious gun. Don’t be too emotionally attached to your gear, especially if reality demonstrates its failings.
• The class was intended to just work drills, so we didn’t teach things like malfunction clearing… but a lot of people got practice in that very thing. Just remember: first you tap, then you rack (not the other way around). 🙂
• 98º, blazing Texas sun, all the sunblock in the world doesn’t help much, but you still better use it and other means to keep yourself covered and cool. Hydration is important — drink more than you think you need. Water is the minimum requirement, but in trying circumstances like we had, Powerade is better (IMHO) since it’ll replenish a lot more that your body is losing. We’re working with guns, and you and the other people on the line want to ensure your body and mind are working well. If you do feel a need to take a break, take one.

• FWIW, I’ve started to prefer Powerade ION4 over other such drinks because they aren’t just sugar and sodium. They do sugar, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium — all important electrolytes.

Well… what some of us already knew. A simple Google search shows that much myth and misinformation are still being passed about.

There’s a post over at DefensiveCarry.com that discusses “stopping power” (h/t Packing Rat). This is a topic that gets beat to death, but at least here we’ve got someone actually working with data and not personal bias. He collected some 10 years of data and looked at the following:

• Number of people shot
• Number of rounds that hit
• On average, how many rounds did it take for the person to stop his violent action or be incapacitated? For this number, I included hits anywhere on the body.
• What percentage of shooting incidents resulted in fatalities. For this, I included only hits to the head or torso
• What percentage of people were not incapacitated no matter how many rounds hit them
• Accuracy. What percentage of hits was in the head or torso. I tracked this to check if variations could affect stopping power. For example, if one caliber had a huge percentage of shootings resulting in arm hits, we may expect that the stopping power of that round wouldn’t look as good as a caliber where the majority of rounds hit the head.
• One shot stop percentage- number of incapacitations divided by the number of hits the person took. Like Marshall’s number, I only included hits to the torso or head in this number.
• Percentage of people who were immediately stopped with one hit to the head or torso

I think that’s a pretty good set of things to look at, given the goals and the typical arguments that surround this issue.

Then he looked at the common carried pistol rounds:

• .25 ACP
• .22 (short, long, and long rifle)
• .32 (long and ACP)
• .380 ACP
• .38 Special
• 9mm Luger
• .357 (mag and SIG)
• .40 S&W
• .45 ACP
• .44 Mag
• Rifle (all centerfire)
• shotgun (all, but 90% were 12 gauge)

But he also doesn’t think he has enough data to back up .25, .32, and .44 well enough. He also noted that over half the 9mm shootings were with ball ammo, and that likely skews those numbers.

Before getting into his numbers, my quick conclusion from the number is what has long been said: all pistol rounds suck. It doesn’t matter the caliber, that it begins with a 4 or doesn’t… they all suck. Now, let’s start talking rifles and shotguns… but, you can’t carry a rifle around (in many places), thus why we carry handguns.  As well, “one shot stop” is possible, but you shouldn’t bet your farm on it. You must work to stop the threat, and if that means more than one shot, it does.

Side note: shotgun seems pretty darn effective at getting things to stop. Tom Givens touched on this in his Defensive Shotgun class. That we consider the low ammo capacity of a shotgun to be a negative, and in a way it is, and the likelihood of needing a second shot is small(er), but still possible (click-chunk-chunk is the sound of 1 shot from a pump shotgun). This data appears to back that up. So, more ammo capacity is good, a side-saddle or buttcuff or some other means of having more shells on the shotgun is good, a habit of “shoot one load one; shoot two load two” is good, but we shouldn’t get too caught up in the shotgun capacity argument.

Now, onto the study author’s conclusions.

One thing that stood out to me was his take on number of rounds and rate of fire:

The average number of rounds until incapacitation was also remarkably similar between calibers. All the common defensive calibers required around 2 rounds on average to incapacitate. Something else to look at here is the question of how fast can the rounds be fired out of each gun. The .38spl probably has the slowest rate of fire (long double action revolver trigger pulls and stout recoil in small revolvers) and the fewest rounds fired to get an incapacitation (1.87). Conversely the 9mm can probably be fired fastest of the common calibers and it had the most rounds fired to get an incapacitation (2.45). The .40 (2.36) and the .45 (2.08) split the difference. It is my personal belief that there really isn’t much difference between each of these calibers. It is only the fact that some guns can be fired faster than others that causes the perceived difference in stopping power. If a person takes an average of 5 seconds to stop after being hit, the defender who shoots a lighter recoiling gun can get more hits in that time period. It could be that fewer rounds would have stopped the attacker (given enough time) but the ability to fire more quickly resulted in more hits being put onto the attacker. It may not have anything to do with the stopping power of the round.

That seems some worthy food for thought. You’d need further study into this particular aspect to really know for sure, but certainly he raises a topic worth addressing and considering.

And in the end, his conclusion reinforces what others have put forth:

 

Now compare the numbers of the handgun calibers with the numbers generated by the rifles and shotguns. For me there really isn’t a stopping power debate. All handguns suck! If you want to stop someone, use a rifle or shotgun!

What matters even more than caliber is shot placement. Across all calibers, if you break down the incapacitations based on where the bullet hit you will see some useful information.

Head shots = 75% immediate incapacitation
Torso shots = 41% immediate incapacitation
Extremity shots (arms and legs) = 14% immediate incapacitation.

No matter which caliber you use, you have to hit something important in order to stop someone!

 

 

So there you go. The “power” only matters so much, but handgun rounds just won’t have it period (move to a long gun for power). Being able to put the shot where it needs to go is what matters, and that’s a matter of both accuracy and penetration.

Don’t get caught up in caliber wars. What matters is that you can have a gun that addresses your needs. By that I mean things like, maybe you are a tiny woman that doesn’t have the body size and shape to conceal a 1911 Government model, or maybe you’re a big man who has to carry in a NPE (non-permissive environment), or maybe you’ve got arthritic hands… so, you need to work within your limitations. But within that, use what enables you to hit what you need to hit. I’d argue you’d want to also ensure it enables you to hit what you need to hit rapidly and repeatedly (e.g. follow-up shots are important to get off quickly and accurately). And then you have further choices as you narrow down your selection, capacity is good because 1. follow-up shots are likely, 2. predators tend to travel in packs. When it comes to ammo, pick quality ammo designed for the task (e.g. expanding ammo, like Speer Gold Dot; not ball like the Winchester white box you use for practice).

Even if all you can have is a .22, it’s better than nothing. Just put it where it matters.

The conclusions of the study are nothing new, but it’s just more data that hopefully will put an end to the endless debate. But, I doubt it, given the 4 pages of debate that occurs after the posting…. 🙂

 

I’m sure I have some readers that know a thing or two about air guns, e.g. Gamo Whisper. Those sorts of things.

I’m considering buying one, but while I stood there at Cabela’s I realized I need a lot more research on the topic.

.177 vs .22?

Are they really that loud, and is something like Gamo’s Whisper technology really that good at dampening the sound?

I saw a Gamo model that had a fixed barrel, instead of their lock open model. It looks like the fixed barrel contributes to accuracy but… just how much? I’m not looking for high-end-competition one-ragged-hole competition…. minute of dead varmint is good enough. But then, that could also affect effective range. Just wondering if it’s worth it because it’s more accurate but seems to have less FPS, and you can get ones with far greater FPS… what’s the trade off? is it worth it?

A lot of the ones came with a scope. How necessary is that? One had a 3-9×40 on it and that seemed like a lot; do these have enough range to matter? Others had fixed 4x and those seemed potentially reasonable enough, if you needed magnification at all. Heck, they all had irons (well, typically fiber-optic types) and that seemed like it might be good enough.

Anyways… if you have experience with them, products to recommend, to avoid, websites with info, or whatever… I’d love to hear it. Please share in the comments. Thanx. 🙂

I was reading this article and shaking my head ruefully at the irresponsible gun handling.

Officials are investigating a weekend incident in which a man said his wife fired an AR-15 rifle at a target inside a master bedroom closet, missing the target and blasting holes in a washing machine.

[…]

Investigators found .223 caliber and .45 caliber cartridge casings in the master bedroom and a wood and metal shooting target in the closet. Bullet holes riddled the washing machine, and bullet exit holes were spotted in the wall across from the washing machine.

A deputy learned they’d been in the bedroom shooting the target in the closet.

“They had done this on multiple occasions,” a report states, noting both had been drinking.

The husband said he was cooking on the grill outside. His wife was inside, and he ran in when he heard shots.

“According to (the husband), once inside he observed water all over the floor and learned (his wife) had shot the AR-15 assault rifle, missing the target, going through the wall and striking the washing machine causing the water leak,” a report states.

But I must admit, the author of the article seems to have a sense of humor:

It could be argued that firing a rifle within the confines of a bedroom is unwise.

[…]

It wasn’t immediately clear what the husband was grilling.

Heh. 🙂

I came across that article via Fark. It’s generally amusing to read the Fark comment threads, but this time, it was just depressing. The amazing amount of misinformation about guns and self-defense was astounding. I can say I know because I too was once one of the unenlightened masses and heard all the myths and took them for gospel. I’ve become educated on the matter, and can cite credible sources for my information.

I thought “hey, this could make a good blog posting, to pick apart the myths” but there’s just too much… it’s overwhelming and I just don’t have the energy. But I can say this: there’s a lot of bad information out there in the world, about guns, about everything. Make sure your sources are credible and the information you receive can be backed up. Especially when it comes to matters of life and death, do you want to trust your life to ignorance?

Chances are, if you’re ever going to be involved in a home defense situation with a shotgun, you’ll be in your birthday-suit.  So unless you’ve got ammunition Velcro’d to your ass, all the extra ammunition you’ll have will be on the gun.

– Greg Hamilton, Insights Training Center (courtesy of Joe Huffman)

In light of my recent participation in Rangemaster’s Defensive Shotgun course, I had an opportunity to try out some different modes of carrying shotgun ammo. I had a few thoughts, and here they are. This isn’t gospel, just my opinion, which is well subject to change.

Since a shotgun doesn’t hold much ammo, you really need a supporting mechanism for carrying more ammo. Two of the most popular choices are side-saddles and butt cuffs.

TacStar makes a SideSaddle product for many shotguns, in 4 and 6 shell configurations. These put shells directly on the side of your receiver. Butt cuffs are sleeves or similar contraptions that fit over the buttstock and hold shells there, and there are many many vendors and configurations of these out there.

Tom Givens was saying he’s not a fan of the SideSaddle for a few reasons (but in the end, Tom doesn’t care what you use). I don’t recall them all off the top of my head, but a couple are that it throws off the balance of the gun (it does made it “side heavy”), and it can come loose and rattle. Certainly it could get in the way of things… certain models can’t work with particular forends, and a host of other possible issues.

I actually like the SideSaddle. We always talk about economy of motion, so why traverse all the distance to the buttstock and back to the loading ports, when a SideSaddle is right there on the receiver and it’s minimal movement to get a new shell and put it into the gun? As well, the saddle is in my field of vision, so I can see what I’m doing instead of having to feel around or take my eyes off the threat. Plus, if you orient the shells in different ways (up or down), it’s easier to remove them from the SideSaddle than trying to do the same from the butt cuff (especially shell brass up). I also find it cleaner/easier to remove the shell from the SideSaddle, whereas the elastic and movement of the butt cuff can make it difficult to withdraw a shell. Granted, a good solution here is to just screw the cuff down to the stock so it doesn’t move.

But really, the biggest win for me is the speed of reloading and how the ammo being right there, positioned in a well-defined way, really helps the loading process. If the point of the class I took was all about those manipulations, then pick the ammo solution that’s going to best lend to that. For me, it’s a side-saddle.

That said, I also have a butt cuff on my shotgun. Why? Slugs. The magazine is full of buckshot, the SideSaddle has buckshot too. But just in case a slug is needed it’d be good to have one. So, I put them in the butt cuff. It allows me to have them, but it’s unlikely I’ll need one. It’s more likely for me to need buckshot and to keep that fed into the gun. As well, when you’re working fast and under pressure, you might not remember that “these are buckshot, these are slugs” if you have them mixed on your carrier. Some solve that by putting the buckshot all facing one way and the slugs all facing another. I can’t do that since I prefer 2 brass up in the saddle for the quick ejection port reload, and then 4 down in the saddle for the slower loading port. But it’s well-defined to me to have buck in the saddle and slugs in the cuff; highly unlikely I’ll confuse the two when under pressure.

Granted, there are many other ways to carry more ammo — like a magazine extension. 🙂  But these are two of the most popular. I’m happy to use both and so far seem to have a strategy that works for me. Find what works for you.