The idle musings of a former military man, former computer geek, medically retired pastor and now full-time writer. Contents guaranteed to offend the politically correct and anal-retentive from time to time. My approach to life is that it should be taken with a large helping of laughter, and sufficient firepower to keep it tamed!
Big Country Expat is experimenting with a couple of low-cost entry-level quadcopter drones. He suggests it's a good idea for everyone to get to know at least the basics of how to operate them.
The Scout is a good practice drone, and small enough to get in and around the interior of the house (or any house for that matter) for recon pretty well.
The problem is that it’s so lightweight, ANY and ALL breezes affect its flight. One time I was working on going room-to-room in the house, and the Central Air Conditioning kicked on, and the bird ‘lurched’ across the room in the draft of the AC blowing out of the vent.
So I’m not sure of the utility of it outside in real crosswinds.
This is a standard problem for the cheap ‘practice’ drones if you will. No real weight. One of my early $30 Amazon Chinesium drones I actually lost when practicing outside with the Redhead Nukular Gran. If you recall while I was flying it, I had a BIG gust of wind show up unexpectedly, and grab it, and last I saw of it, it was headed due south towards the Publix a quarter mile away…
Never did find out what happened to that ‘un LOL.
It literally faded to a teeny-tiny dot and then >poof<
So tonight, I tried to to fly this new quad inside BUT had a minor issue. Or maybe not minor per se…
The doggos.
Chili AND Stella both seem to think that the quadcopter is something they need to ‘fetch’ out of the air… I tried to get them to leave it alone, but nope. They weren’t listening at all. In fact Stella got too close while lunging at it, and the rotor blade caught her on the nose. She yelped pretty loudly as it must have hurt, but did that stop her?
She’s a ****ing rockheaded Pittie…
What do you think?
Riiiiiiiight.
Now it’s a challenge apparently.
Must. Snatch. The. Flying. Thing.
So this means in the future, I’ll have to either practice in the bedroom for the initial ‘tuning’ of it and getting a feel for the flight characteristics, or take it down to the park at the elementary school we used to take the Grans to after school or on a Saturday and give it a try there.
When I say ‘tuning’ I mean that the controls and servos need to be dialed in for accuracy, otherwise it might have drift already in the settings, and I need to make sure that it does a steady hover, and do some other things, to include getting the 4k Cameras ‘dialed in’ as well.
Seeing that drones are the future and at least trying to learn how to use them is a good and necessary thing. Better to learn on the short $$$ models than to spend a grand on a nice DJI Drone like the Ivans and Krainians use and have that get wrecked?
I’d rather burn through a half a dozen ‘practice drones’ learning how to ‘fly’ a drone rather than buying a $$$$$Mondo-Expensivo$$$$$ one and wasting/crashing/destroying it by accident.
I think he makes a very good point. While cheap entry-level quadcopters are still freely available, I think it's an excellent idea to learn to use them. They may not be Predator- or Reaper-class weaponized drones, but one can use them to fly around one's property, or up and down the street, and see what's going on in the neighborhood. If there are reports of rioting or unrest nearby, one can keep an eye on the situation, and if one sees "undesirables" heading in one's direction, one can be proactive in responding to them, either by "getting out of Dodge" before they arrive, or getting together with neighbors to greet them, in full readiness to protect one's loved ones and property, when they arrive.
I think I have a new project for the next few weeks . . . Finding a low-cost drone that can cope with North Texas winds might be a challenge, but I'll do my best. If anyone sees a drone heading for the wild blue yonder, coming from my general direction, let me know, will you, please?
I note the ongoing argument over whether a Michigan resident was defending himself, or acting recklessly, when he fired at intruders.
Sivan Wilson, 17, was with six other mainly teenagers when the group broke into Dayton Knapton’s garage in White Lake shortly after 1 a.m. July 8, authorities said.
Knapton, 24, got an alert from his home security system, grabbed a .9mm gun, ran outside and fired two shots into the garage through a windowless door, striking Wilson, according to prosecutors and cops.
As the group fled, Knapton fired five more shots before going back into his house, reloading his gun and returning outside, according to a statement by the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office.
Another teenager in the group also was shot in the leg.
. . .
“This defendant crossed the line by firing outside his home at fleeing persons,” prosecutor Karen McDonald said of Knapton. “His actions not only took a life but potentially endangered the surrounding community by firing his weapon into the night.”
Laws differ in the 50 States, but legally there's one principle that generally has to be clearly visible before a shooting can be ruled self-defense: namely, that there has to be a clear, imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or serious injury to the person defending himself. In this case, it's immediately obvious that this did not exist, because:
The shooter could not actually see the people at whom he was shooting. He fired through a closed door without any windows. He could not have known whether his targets were armed, or whether they intended to pose any physical threat to him at all.
The shooter went on to fire at fleeing people - their backs to him, running away as fast as they could, presumably with their hands clearly visible. They could not have posed a threat to him under those circumstances.
Mr. Knapton may have been angry at having been repeatedly burgled in the past, and may have been afraid or upset at finding it happening again: but there's no evidence at all that he was actually threatened, or faced any real danger of assault, injury or death. Under the circumstances, I don't see how a claim of self-defense can be made to stick.
Some states (for example, Texas) allow one to use lethal force in defense of one's property, not just one's life, under certain circumstances. However, one has to be very careful not to take that as a carte blanche to do whatever one wishes with intruders, whether they're accidental or deliberate. If there is no physical threat, one has every chance of being indicted for using more force than necessary to remove them. Frankly, I think that's the way it should be. Our response should be proportionate to the threat. Tragedies occur every year when a homeowner's response is not proportionate, such as this case in Indiana or this one in Texas. One has to draw a line, and in most cases our laws do just that. We can't use a firearm when our lives are not in danger (for example, to stop a fleeing thief who's not a threat, and is only trying to get away).
Those of us who espouse the right to self-defense, and the right to keep and bear arms, need to think about this often. Our actions and reactions may provide ammunition to those wanting to take away those rights.
Arthur Sido is what I would consider a right-wing blogger (some would say he's extreme right-wing, but I know of others much further along that spectrum than he is). I disagree with many of his views on race and culture. However, sometimes he hits the nail on the head, as he did yesterday.
Back in the years following Obama we saw a less than subtle shift taking place, one that really took off with the death via heart failure of George Floyd. It was in place and just waiting the right trigger, and the carefully edited video of Floyd’s death was just what the doctor ordered. No longer was it sufficient to be “color blind” or “not racist”. Now we were told “silence is violence” and that failure to be sufficiently outspoken in condemning “racism” was no different than lynching.
It wasn’t enough to simply not disagree with them, instead you were required to vocally agree with whatever they said. I recall vividly mobs confronting timid Whites in restaurants and forcing them to repeat “black lives matter” . It didn’t matter whether they agreed or not, the point was intimidation and humiliation.
We have moved into a new stage, one where you can now be forcibly silenced through violence, and a significant number of people on the Left seem to have no problem with using assassinations, whether the target was Trump or Charlie Kirk, a decidedly mild conservative ... Kirk for his faults was out there in the open. Even with Trump already in the White House he was outspoken and doing events, and because he was known he was able to be targeted. They couldn’t defeat even a fairly genteel conservative in debate so they shut him up the same way the Bolsheviks and their bastard offspring always have done: by terror and murder.
My general rule of thumb in the past was to say that the last thing I wanted was for the Left to be silenced or censored. Letting those idiots talk conveyed my arguments far better than I could dream of by blogging. Let them speak and let people see how stupid and vile they are.
Maybe that was a mistake, and maybe I am guilty of some of the same naive thinking that normies are guilty of ... The one thing that has marked leftist politics from the beginning is violence to overcome resistance to their retarded ideas. They are returning to form in America and Kirk won’t be the last to fall.
We can already see deliberate attempts from the progressive left to portray Charlie Kirk's murderer as a young man driven to extremes by his youthful love story. Walter Kirn put it like this:
Here's how this will play out, here's the meta-script, and please don't laugh it off.
How this all started is not how it will end. A story that began with a clear traditional moral shape, an innocent victim, a vile perpetrator, will be transformed using secondary characters, new revelations, and other dramatic elements into its very opposite -- a story of forbidden love, persecution by religious bigots, a poignantly rebellious heartfelt protest against a World that Doesn't Understand.
There will then be a total split, far deeper than mere "politics," between the segments of the public that were captivated by two incommensurate tragedies.
Sure enough, look at Montel Williams on CNN, saying that poor sweet Tyler was simply trying to “defend his lover,” not attack an ideology. This is the play now.
Like I said, trying to keep a cool head, but … what world do these freaks live in?! Tyler Robinson blew a hole in Charlie Kirk’s throat because he despised what Charlie Kirk said, and this ABC News reporter has a sentimental boner about how sweet their gay-lover chit-chat is?!
. . .
I am seriously, seriously shaken up about the country. People don’t even know what reality is! These left-wing people will believe whatever they need to believe to maintain their narrative. Do I need to remind you that one of the signs that a country is ready to receive a totalitarian dictatorship is a refusal to believe in Truth, only “truth” as what satisfies you emotionally?
These people who are turning to their AI lovers for emotional gratification, while knowing full well that these things aren’t real — it’s a sign, y’all. It’s a sign of ever-growing detachment from reality. They prefer the “truth” of the way the Machine makes them feel to actual reality.
The people dancing on TikTok and laughing about the murder come from all walks of life, from teachers to social workers and, of course, mainstream journalists. The widespread vitriol has debunked the longtime claim that such psychopathy is relegated to a fringe minority.
In reality, violent bloodlust is a feature of the political left, not an anomaly. We saw it after the multiple assassination attempts on Donald Trump and we see it even more after the death of Charlie Kirk.
The justifications are rampant, with leftists claiming (falsely) that Kirk was a "fascist, misogynist, racist, homophobe, etc.", thereby absolving themselves of their elation over his shooting. The real issue is that Kirk told the truth, on DEI, on transgender cultism, on feminism - And because they could not win against him in open debate, they wanted him dead.
. . .
Being a left-wing journalist, [Washington Post columnist Karen] Attiah's comments are strategically open to interpretation. In the worst case, she appears to be justifying Charlie Kirk's killing because continuing to allow him to live is the same as absolving "white" American violence. In other words, Kirk's words are the same as violence, therefore killing him is an act of self defense.
However, like most leftists in the media, Attiah is unable to produce any examples of Charlie Kirk actually espousing violence, or calling for violence.
. . .
Woke activists have been scrambling to control the narrative on Kirk's assassination for the past several days, at first applauding the incident as righteous vengeance, then claiming that the shooter was "right wing" (a false narrative), and now calling for conservatives to "cool things down" as if conservatives are the source of the problem.
We've seen this barrage of lies, propaganda and vitriol erupt and expand over the past week. It's going to go on, and get worse, because the progressive left has to have a cause around which to gather. If they can persuade people that "We're the oppressed ones here!", they can generate renewed and increased resistance to President Trump and his policies. In reality, of course, they'll be relentless and merciless in pursuing those who expose their falsehoods and fanaticism. I doubt very much whether Charlie Kirk will be the only martyr to their efforts.
Those of us who believe in our constitutional republic and the rule of law would do well to read the words of those I've quoted above, and gird our loins, both physically and metaphorically. If we live in areas infested by such radical leftists (or even within striking distance of them), we should be prepared to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and our homes. That may be more of a reality than we'd like to admit.
An Arkansas man is to stand trial after killing the man who, after already being charged for abusing his daughter, apparently kidnapped her and did so again.
According to records obtained by the Arkansas Times, Spencer initially called 911 just after 1 a.m. on October 8, 2024, to report his 13-year-old daughter missing. Spencer told police he’d been awakened by his dog barking, went to his daughter’s room to check on her and saw she was missing. He said he suspected she was with Fosler, 67, who had been arrested in July and charged with 43 counts, including sexual assault of a minor and internet stalking of a child, related to Fosler’s pursuit of Spencer’s then-13-year-old daughter.
The arrest affidavit for Spencer says he went to look for his daughter and Fosler after calling 911 the first time. The Lonoke County Sheriff’s Office contacted Cabot police to ask them to check a specific address. Prior to hearing back from Cabot police, however, 911 dispatch got a second call from Spencer, who said he had located the “man who kidnapped his daughter” and his daughter, but that Fosler was “dead on the side of the road” and that “he had no choice.”
. . .
On November 27, prosecutors charged Spencer with second-degree murder and commission of a felony with a firearm. That same day, Spencer’s attorneys, Erin Cassinelli and Michael Kaiser, issued a statement calling Spencer “a decorated war hero who protected his country and a loving father whose heroic actions protected his family.” They said Fosler “repeatedly violated his child” and “kidnapped her in the dark of night to continue his assaults on her.”
The statement criticized prosecutors for bringing charges against Spencer at all, accused prosecutors of “perpetuating these horrors instead of protecting legitimate victims and punishing true criminal offenders,” and thanked those who had “voiced their outrage over the treatment Aaron, his child, and the rest of his family had suffered.”
Based on the evidence available so far, if I were a member of the jury at Mr. Spencer's trial, I'd be voting him "not guilty" before the trial began! Sure, he did it, and he admits he did it, but there appears to have been more than enough moral and ethical reason for his actions. Sometimes jury nullification is the only appropriate response to a letter-of-the-law "crime".
The organization Gun Owners of Arkansas has a legal defense fund that's contributing to Mr. Spencer's case, and they've arranged for his legal representation. I'll be contributing to it, and I hope my readers will consider doing the same. At the link, you can read more about the case from Mr. Spencer's wife, Heather.
Overshadowed by the tragic flooding in TX, there was an well-funded, violent attack, a “planned ambush,” by at least ten heavily-armed leftist terrorists on Federal Officers at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, TX on Friday, 4 July 25. At least one officer was injured by gunfire.
This incident began with vandalism, graffiti, and fireworks. It was all clearly intended to draw Federal Officers outside and into a deadly ambush.
Terrorists used M4 rifles (with “high-capacity” magazines), were equipped with body-armor, radios, and other military equipment, and the selection of a national holiday to stage this attack was no accident.
There was a simultaneous, separate shooting-attack on Federal Officers at the Border Patrol Facility in McAllen, TX. At least one armed terrorist was fatally shot by officers during that armed assault.
As expected, no Democrat politician has publically condemned these shooting attacks on our Federal LEOs. In fact, Democrats are self-righteously calling our courageous ICE Officers “terrorists.”
. . .
In 2020, these same leftist terrorists, openly incited by Democrat politicians, destroyed historic statues and burned large swaths of business districts (in an effort to punish “hated capitalists”).
In 2024/25, these same terrorists violently attacked Jewish students and trashed college campuses, all with the approval of leftist-supporting college administrators, who simultaneously exclude Christians and Jews from being hired (in the name of “DEI”)
Today, these same leftist terrorists, now using “assault weapons,” are openly shooting at our police, all as their supporters (which includes most Democrat politicians) remain silent, or in some cases cheer them on!
This all precisely fits the Leninist pattern for the violent seizure of power, as the DNC’s current spokesman, Zohran Mamdani, so candidly articulates.
I can't disagree with Mr. Farnam. I fear we're going to be sending out patrol cars in pairs, at least, in our more dangerous cities, and probably in larger groups where hot-button issues such as illegal migration or other left-wing shibboleths are concerned. Where I live, this hasn't been a problem (yet), but I understand from talking to a couple of cop friends in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex and Houston that they're already preparing for that. Unfortunately, their city governments are more inclined to pander to the extremists than crack down on them - which means that ordinary citizens are probably going to have to shoulder more of the burden of keeping their neighborhoods crime-free and regressive (as opposed to progressive, you understand).
Fair warning. Take a close look at the political and social environment in and around the area where you live, and plan accordingly.
HMS Defiant warns us that our fundamentalist enemies in the Middle East and elsewhere are very likely to take advantage of public celebrations to attack those attending.
The deranged lunatics who make up the foot soldiers of the enemy invasion do not need to turn to guns and mass shootings in order to slaughter thousands of innocent people who are out enjoying the 4th of July, they merely have to get behind the wheel of a big SUV or a truck and drive endlessly through an unwary and completely unprotected crowd so this year, protect yourselves and your families.
If you line a parade route as I did for so many years, make sure the barricades preventing vehicle access are meaningful and placed with care and attention to detail by a man who KNOWS that they are the only thing that will stop a maniac from driving into a peaceful crowd looking the wrong way.*
Make sure that you have a safe haven selected for you and your family and that you can get to it safely when the entire crowd bursts into panic and flight. Be ready to deal with avoiding trampling and keeping safe from the panicked crowd.
Know that the enemy we have in the middle east is one that really and truly does like to strike back on days that are already memorialized in one way or another and they will take days like the 4th of July in a heartbeat over even attacking on 9/11 or Christmas or New Years and take note that none of them are holidays in their religion.
He's absolutely right, of course. We've all seen such attacks in Europe, and a few that came close in our own country (although, thanks be to God, most of what we've seen here has been smaller-scale and/or less motivated). There are a lot of raw, humiliated, angry people in the fundamentalist Islamic community right now, furious that Israel has destroyed their compatriots in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, and outraged that the USA has supported Israel in its efforts. As far as they're concerned, we all share the guilt for such actions, and they're entitled to seek revenge against us.
Bear in mind, too, that a firearm is often far from the most useful response. Sometimes it can help defend one's life and loved ones, but if a wannabe terrorist martyr is barreling towards a crowd in a heavy truck, gunfire is unlikely to stop him before he runs right over you. By all means carry a gun - I do, almost all the time - but having a head on a swivel, constantly evaluating the situation around you, looking for potential choke points and escape routes, and watching for suspicious behavior, will do more to save you in most situations than pulling out a gun and starting shooting. That's even more true when you consider that, if such a situation goes down, the authorities - and many other armed civilians such as yourself - are highly likely to regard anyone waving a gun around as part of the problem, not the solution. They may start shooting at you on general principles (i.e. the modified Golden Rule: "Do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you, only do it first"). There are seldom happy endings to that.
That's the title of a lengthy article by Marc MacYoung, a well-known self-defense and street-smarts instructor. He offers ways to analyze a situation and assess the real risks it entails, rather than merely react in a knee-jerk fashion to events you don't understand. Here's an excerpt.
I came up with a list of the six most common results when someone IS trying to kill you. They are:
1) You die
2) You spend a long time in the hospital
3) Someone runs away (usually you)
4) You shoot back (often prompting the other person to retreat)
5) You retaliate with such ferocity the other person is injured, killed or runs away
6) Someone else intervenes resulting in some combination of 1-5.
If those weren't the results, then the person WASN'T trying to kill you -- no matter WHAT you want to believe or tell others.
In a similar vein, just because someone is waving a gun, that isn't the same as them shooting. And– in a bit you'll see why this is important– just because you're in an area where someone is shooting doesn't necessarily mean they're shooting at you specifically.
If there's a gun spitting lead, it's safe to assume the person is trying to kill. The question is "Who?" If not you then someone else. People intending to kill you usually don't stop until
a) they've succeeded,
b) they believe they have succeeded or
c) the danger to them becomes too great to continue.
The importance of that is simple: People who are trying to kill someone else don't really care about you unless you get in their way. Someone who is trying to kill you specifically will be more dedicated to that task than someone intent on killing someone else or anybody in the area. This strongly effects what your options are.
That is why you must look at what happens before it becomes physical -- even with weapons. Because what is going on before the weapon is drawn and what occurs while the weapon is displayed is critical for assessing what is the best course of action for you.
Mr. MacYoung is well qualified to talk about the overall environment of crime and violence "on the street", as opposed to in textbooks. He goes well beyond the "how to use a gun to defend yourself" perspective, and discusses whether or not you should use a gun at all, and how using one may get you into more trouble than refraining. He also points out that if you don't understand the situation, you're much more likely to make a mistake that lands you in trouble with the law rather than your adversaries. Best of all, of course, is not to be in an area where you're exposed to trouble of that sort.
As another well-known instructor, John Farnam, has said (and we've repeatedly quoted in these pages):
The best way to handle any potentially injurious encounter is: Don’t be there. Arrange to be somewhere else. Don’t go to stupid places. Don’t associate with stupid people. Don’t do stupid things. This is the advice I give to all students of defensive firearms. Winning a gunfight, or any other potentially injurious encounter, is financially and emotionally burdensome. The aftermath will become your full-time job for weeks or months afterward, and you will quickly grow weary of writing checks to lawyer(s). It is, of course, better than being dead or suffering a permanently disfiguring or disabling injury, but the “penalty” for successfully fighting for your life is still formidable.
Crowds of any kind, particularly those with an agenda, such as political rallies, demonstrations, picket lines, etc are good examples of “stupid places.” Any crowd with a high collective energy level harbors potential catastrophe. To a lesser degree, bank buildings, hospital emergency rooms, airports, government buildings, and bars (particularly crowded ones) fall into the same category. All should be avoided. When they can’t be avoided, we should make it a practice to spend only the minimum time necessary there and then quickly get out.
“A superior gunman is best defined as one who uses his superior judgment in order to keep himself out of situations that would require the use of his superior skills.”
I know exactly how many knees I’ve hit, says Eden, who completed his service in the Israel Defense Forces as a sniper in its Golani infantry brigade six months ago. For much of the time, he was stationed along the border with the Gaza Strip. His assignment: to repel Palestinian demonstrators who approached the fence.
“I kept the casing of every round I fired,” he says. “I have them in my room. So I don’t have to make an estimate – I know: 52 definite hits.”
But there are also “non-definite” hits, right?
“There were incidents when the bullet didn’t stop and also hit the knee of someone behind [the one I aimed at]. Those are mistakes that happen.”
Is 52 a lot?
“I haven’t really thought about it. It’s not hundreds of liquidations like in the movie ‘American Sniper’: We’re talking about knees. I’m not making light of it, I shot a human being, but still ...”
. . .
Shedding light on this very recent slice of history entails talking to snipers: After all, they were the dominant and most significant force in suppressing the demonstrations at the fence. Their targets ranged from young Palestinians who were trying to infiltrate into Israel or who threw Molotov cocktails at soldiers, to prominent, unarmed protesters who were considered to be major inciters. Both categories drew the same response: Live ammunition fired at the legs.
Looking at the violent demonstrations on TV, I suspect a few perforated kneecaps could be classified as a relatively mild response. If the demonstrators complain that it hurts, we could always suggest that they put an ICE pack on it . . .
Following my recent article about snubnose revolvers, I've had a few readers ask whether the long double-action trigger pull of most such weapons can be lightened and/or smoothed, to make it easier to shoot them accurately.
A competent gunsmith can do what's called an "action job" on them, which involves stoning the mating surfaces until they're as smooth and slick as possible, and perhaps adjusting spring tension (lopping a couple of coils off a factory spring, or installing a new spring kit from a company such as Wolff Gunsprings - you can also install the latter on your own gun at home, if you know what you're doing). However, you can expect to pay at least $150 for a good action job, and possibly double that, depending on the expertise and reputation of the gunsmith involved.
There's a quicker, simpler, easier way that isn't necessarily as good, but can be surprisingly effective. It's known as the "toothpaste action job", or words to that effect. Toothpaste is a very mild abrasive: it has to be, to clean gunk off your teeth when you brush them. That makes it suitable for delicate surface smoothing on things like trigger mechanisms. You can also use actual abrasive solutions such as valve grinding compound, but they're usually far too abrasive to use safely unless you're a qualified gunsmith and/or mechanic and really know what you're doing. I do not recommend them.
How does a "toothpaste action job" work? Obviously, you need to know your way around the innards of your firearm. If you don't, ask a knowledgeable friend or your local gunsmith to show you how to disassemble your gun to the level required (and make sure your friend[s] really are knowledgeable - they may not be as good as they think they are, which can lead to very expensive damage to your gun!). For a quick visual introduction to how the trigger mechanism looks, see this short video on how to improve a Smith & Wesson revolver's trigger pull. Even if yours doesn't look quite the same, the way it works will be basically similar.
Take off the sideplate of your snubnose revolver (or, if yours doesn't have a removable sideplate, do whatever yours needs to expose the trigger and hammer mechanism), and smear toothpaste over and well into all the moving parts (i.e. the mating surfaces, that move over and/or against each other when the trigger is pulled) of the trigger and hammer. Reassemble the gun, and (making sure it's not loaded - use snap-caps if the owner's manual recommends them) dry-fire it several hundred times; then disassemble it again and clean it very thoroughly, probably using hot water and a toothbrush to make sure all the toothpaste is removed from the moving parts. Dry the gun thoroughly, and before reassembling it, give the moving parts a good spritz with WD-40 to ensure that all water has been removed. Oil or lube as normal, then reassemble the gun and test it. You should find that the action is smoother, although not necessarily lighter unless you've worked on the springs as well.
You can read more about the "toothpaste trigger job" on firearms forums: an online search will reveal several links. Here are three representative discussions:
That should give you enough information to understand how this works. I've done it to several of my revolvers, and found a noticeable improvement in trigger smoothness. If you're still not happy about trying it yourself, there's always a professional trigger job by a gunsmith to make things even better.
You mentioned once awhile back about pocket carrying a Bulldog 44 special, and I found that intriguing, as I'm starting to experience some back pain carrying a duty size pistol on my hip every day. I think it would be interesting if you wrote a blog post about that, what you carry, where at, how, etc.
I'd be interested to read that, as well as all the comments that are sure to come from it.
As requested, here goes.
First off, let's get arguments about the platform out of the way. I agree that a semi-auto pistol has several advantages over a revolver when it comes to defensive shooting (which is why I usually carry one). They include a more easily concealed weapon, larger ammunition capacity, greater ease and speed of reloading, (usually) a smoother, easier trigger, and greater familiarity with the platform among most modern shooters. However, for pocket carry in particular, a pistol has corresponding disadvantages. The greatest of these is that, if it's necessary to shoot from the pocket, the slide can (and usually will) get caught up in the material of the pocket, preventing its normal operation and jamming the pistol. Secondly, in order to fit in a typical pocket, the pistol must be smaller in size than a normal full-size or compact pistol. All other things being equal, in the hands of all but well-trained and -experienced shooters, smaller handguns are harder to shoot fast and accurately than a larger weapon. Finally, many modern pistols are equipped with optical sights. It's very hard to fit such sights into a pocket, on top of the gun itself, meaning that the shooter will have to rely on old-fashioned, much smaller "iron" sights - something with which they may no longer be very familiar.
On the other hand, small "snubnose" revolvers offer advantages and disadvantages of their own. Their ammunition capacity is smaller, generally 5 or 6 rounds, and reloading them is more complicated (thanks to the need to remove empty cartridge cases before inserting new ones in the cylinder) and slower than simply swapping out a semi-auto pistol's magazine. Their long double-action trigger pull is often more difficult to master than a shorter, crisper semi-auto trigger, requiring more training and practice. Their sights (particularly on pocket-size revolvers) leave much to be desired; there's a reason early models were often referred to as "belly guns", because that was the range at which they were intended to be used, and it was hard for most shooters to aim them accurately at longer ranges. That does not apply to experts, of course, as Jerry Miculek demonstrates!
We can't all be Jerry Miculek, unfortunately, but with training and practice, we can certainly learn to use a snub-nose revolver well enough to defend ourselves with it. Nevertheless, it's one of the more difficult handgun options to use well, and does require time, training and practice (and the expenditure of a fair amount of ammunition) to master it. It is not, repeat, NOT a "gun for beginners". I get very annoyed when I see ignorant gun store clerks try to sell a novice shooter a snubnose revolver for defense. It's actually one of the worst choices for new shooters, for all the reasons mentioned above, and under the wrong circumstances might even contribute to their death or serious injury. Buyer beware!
Notwithstanding the factors mentioned above, a snub-nose revolver (usually defined as a revolver with a barrel less than 2 to 3 inches long) has several real advantages for defensive use. First, a .38 Special or .357 Magnum snubnose is small enough to fit into most trouser pockets. If your pockets aren't quite big enough to conceal it, simply cut open the bottom seam, add an inch or two of suitable material, have your local tailor or seamstress stitch them together, then sew the (new) bottom closed. That should take care of concealment problems. If you're using a slightly larger snubby, like the Charter Arms Bulldog in .44 Special, you might want to add a little width to the pocket using the same technique. Just make sure the mouth of the pocket is wide enough to allow you to draw your weapon without it getting caught on the edges.
Weight is a major factor for pocket carry. Steel-frame snubnose revolvers weight the most; an aluminum-and-steel version (which Smith & Wesson calls the "Airweight") is a lot less; and the modern titanium and scandium versions are almost feather-light by comparison. A heavy gun will drag your pocket down, making it difficult to conceal and rendering your appearance less smart: but it'll be easier to shoot, as its weight will absorb more of the recoil. A lighter version won't drag down your pocket nearly as much, but you'll feel much more recoil - and have the problem of controlling a hard-kicking gun in rapid, aimed fire - when you use it. You have to make that call for yourself. As I get older, I've come to intensely dislike the sharp, painful recoil of a scandium or titanium snubby. I've stayed with the "Airweight" or medium-weight versions, except for .357 Magnum, where I want all the weight I can get to handle that kick! (That's one reason I don't like carrying that caliber in a small gun.)
The rounded profile of a snubnose revolver is less likely to catch on the inside of the pocket than the (usually) sharper edges of a semi-auto pistol's frame. The hammer of the revolver is also prone to catching, but you can buy revolvers with concealed hammers (e.g. Smith & Wesson's Centennial style) or shrouds that fit over exposed hammers, which remove this danger. A snubby's sights are usually abbreviated, which may make them harder to see in a hurry in poor light conditions, but which slide out of a pocket more easily than the bigger, more angular sights on larger revolvers.
Those small sights bring up a very important point. In defensive shooting, one needs to be able to get a "flash sight picture" - i.e. rapidly line up one's handgun's sights on a target - in order to stop the threat; but hard-to-see sights, particularly in low light levels such as on the street at night, don't make this easy. For many of us, this gets worse as we get older. My eyes can no longer focus on the front sight with any clarity unless I'm wearing reading glasses or bifocals. My almost universal recommendation to my disabled students was that they fit Crimson Trace Lasergrips or an equivalent device (do a search for "laser sights for handguns" and you'll find several options). I particularly recommend the Crimson Trace version because their activation is one-handed. The button is right underneath the middle finger of one's firing hand as one grasps and draws the revolver. The laser sight will come on almost without thinking about it; you don't need a second hand to press a button or flick a switch. One can look at one's attacker - rather than hunt for a sight picture - and see where the laser dot appears. Where the dot is, that's where the bullet will go.
Here's a video clip illustrating the concept.
Laser sights are particularly useful if you've been knocked off your feet, or are trying to push an attacker away from you with one hand while drawing your pocket firearm with the other (another argument for using a laser sight that doesn't need both hands to activate it). You don't need to raise the gun to your eyes to use the sights. Even from waist height, or rolling around on the ground, simply placing the laser dot on your attacker and pulling the trigger will achieve results. That simplicity might be a lifesaver. Equally, laser sights may be a mixed blessing, because the laser beam will reveal where it's coming from, exposing your location; but in a close-range emergency requiring you to get your gun out in a hurry and use it, that's not going to be a major factor. Staying alive and uninjured comes first!
You may find different models of laser sight grips to fit your particular weapon, particularly if it's a common one. I like this, because I can put a smaller grip on a handgun for deep concealment, or a larger, easier-to-handle grip for the same size gun in a heavier-recoiling cartridge. The larger grip will, of course, be more difficult to conceal in a pocket, but that's the price one pays for greater recoil control. As an example, on a Smith & Wesson J-frame .38 Special Airweight for deep concealment, I like the Crimson Trace LG-105 grip, but on a steel J-frame in the heavy-recoiling .357 Magnum cartridge, I prefer the larger, rubber-covered LG-305 grip (which is more difficult to conceal, and is one reason I seldom carry .357 Magnum rounds in a snubby). Neither grip fits my hand perfectly, but their other advantages outweigh that factor. It's one of the situations where the conditions under which I carry have a "power of veto" over a part of the gun I'll use. You should try to shoot a few rounds of both heavier- and lighter-recoiling cartridges in a snub-nose revolver, using different grips if possible, before deciding which gun to buy and what grip to put on it. It is not a choice to make "by guess and by God": only actually seeing and feeling the difference will show you what you can shoot best, and which fits your conditions of carry. Find friends who have different guns and grips, and ask them to let you fire a few rounds, or rent guns from a shooting range - but don't make the decision "blind", if at all possible. How well the gun fits your hand is a critical element of defensive shooting.
Remember that your laser sight is not a magic wand, guaranteeing a hit every time. You still need to have mastered the basics of shooting, and practiced often enough to be confident in your ability to use the weapon. You should also align the laser sight to the distance over which you expect to need it, if possible. Crimson Trace factory-aligns their laser sights for a range of 50 feet (just under 17 yards), which works for most people, but a typical engagement range in a crowded environment might be ten feet or less! Adjust your laser sight accordingly, and then practice with it to see how high or low the sight is at different ranges, so you can allow for that if necessary. (Crimson Trace has a good video presentation on how to do that.)
Of course, with a snubnose revolver you may not have enough space or time to draw your weapon before shooting it (for example, if accosted on the street at close range by an attacker jumping out at you from between two parked vehicles). However, you can, if necessary, shoot through clothing or a handbag without drawing the gun. A semi-auto pistol might jam in such circumstances, but a snubnose revolver is less likely to do so. Muzzle blast may well set your coat or trousers on fire, but if you have a bad guy trying to bash you over the head with half a brick at halitosis range, you need to stop him just as fast as you can. Clothes can be replaced. Your head can't! I had no choice but to fire a handgun from inside my clothes, once upon a time. The shot ruined my clothes (and gave me a hellacious flash burn in an embarrassing area of my body - the comments from the ER nurses were epic!), but it ruined the target, too. I called that a win, under the circumstances.
What about cartridges and calibers? Right now, you can buy snubnose revolvers in .22LR, .32 H&R Magnum, .327 Federal Magnum, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, 9mm Parabellum and .44 Special. I've recommended the lowly .22LR to many disabled shooters who don't have the wrist or arm strength to cope with heavier recoil. It may not hit very hard, but with practice it'll certainly do the job (and you can afford to practice with it a whole lot more than snubbies in larger calibers, where their ammunition costs a lot more). I've tried the .32 rounds, which have the advantage that their revolvers have 6-round cylinders as opposed to the 5-round capacity of larger cartridges, but I haven't read much about actual street shootings involving them and whether (or not) they delivered effective performance; so I won't (yet) recommend them. I've carried and used the last four cartridges mentioned above, and know of many shootings using them. They've developed a reasonably good "stopping power" reputation, PROVIDED THAT:
The bullets are placed where they need to go (i.e. a vital target zone) to stop the attacker; AND
The right (i.e. most effective) bullets are used.
Both of those criteria are vitally important. Aiming and shooting the gun is a matter of training and practice, and we've covered those subjects extensively elsewhere. However, the choice of the right defensive ammunition becomes critical when using a snubnose revolver.
Most modern hollowpoint ammunition is designed to expand within the human body, transferring more of the bullet's energy to the target and causing greater pain and injury. To do that, the round needs to be moving at an optimum speed to aid expansion: but snubnose revolvers have short barrels, reducing the bullet's muzzle velocity and therefore their potential for expansion. Many ammunition tests using ballistic gelatin have shown such rounds to have less than optimal expansion out of short barrels; indeed, more than a few show no expansion at all. Discussions with emergency department physicians, coroners and morticians tend to bear this out. Therefore, I don't see much point in choosing a hollowpoint defensive load for a snubby. I'd rather choose a round that will inflict as much damage as possible within the initial capability of the firearm and bullet combination, rather than hope against hope that it'll expand and do better. Fortunately, there is a solution.
The late Jim Cirillo was a member of the New York Police Department's famous "Stakeout Squad". He survived multiple gunfights with criminals, and wrote an excellent book about his experiences and subsequent activities (which I highly recommend you read). Among the lessons he learned, and passed on to subsequent generations of shooters, was the terminal effectiveness of the so-called "wadcutter" bullet style as opposed to rounded bullets. The wadcutter is flat-nosed, having no rounded shoulders to slip more easily through flesh. When used on paper targets it cuts a crisp full-caliber hole in the target, and does the same to human flesh when used for defensive purposes. Light-duty target wadcutter bullets are often not strongly made, because they're not designed for defensive use, but several companies make hard-cast, heavier wadcutters that perform very well in the latter role. (Two that I carry in my snubbies are Buffalo Bore's 150-grain .38 Special load and their 200-grain .44 Special manstopper, both of which I recommend very highly. There are others out there.) They don't need to expand to do their job, and have built up a solid "street stopper" record.
I don't normally recommend heavy-recoiling loads for use in a snubby, because the smaller weapon is hard enough to use even without the handicap of excessive recoil. Remember that one has to be able to shoot accurately and repeatedly, because one round might not be enough to stop the attacker. If that first round recoils so hard that you can't rapidly bring the gun back into line for the second and subsequent shots, it's not going to be much help to you! You'll have to test-fire different guns with different ammunition to see what works best in your hands.
For that reason, even in a .357 Magnum snubby, I usually carry the above-mentioned .38 Special wadcutter. I don't usually carry 9mm. in a snubby due to the problem of bullet expansion out of a (very) short barrel compared to most semi-autos. As for the smaller .32-caliber cartridges, there are wadcutter loads available, but I'm not certain that the smaller calibers will be adequate for the job, so I haven't yet carried them "socially". The heavy .44 Special load mentioned above does kick hard, but I don't know any other round that approaches its effectiveness, so I've learned to live with that.
What about reloading? A snubnose revolver doesn't lend itself to rapid reloading, due to its small size. Also, few people seem to carry reloads for it. If I'm going into a situation where a reload is likely to be needed, I'd rather carry a bigger gun with greater ammo capacity! Others prefer to carry a second snubnose revolver, so that instead of reloading one, they simply swap it for the other gun. That may not be possible for everyone, of course. Speedloaders such as HKS and Safariland work well, but add bulk to your defensive load, so many people prefer the simpler speed strips, even though they're slower to use than a speedloader. It boils down to your personal preference.
As for pocket holsters, there are many of them out there. I like the DeSantis Nemesis holster, but it has many worthy competitors. Do an online search for "pocket holsters" and you'll find them. Examine them in gun shops and decide which is best for you. I strongly advise against carrying the gun in a pocket without a holster. It can get tangled up with other things in your pocket; and yes, I know you should not carry other things in the same pocket as your gun, but we're all human and make mistakes. The same goes double for a lady carrying a firearm in her purse or handbag; there's so much other stuff in there that without a holster to secure the gun, tangling is inevitable. A holster keeps the gun in the same position all the time, and keeps alien objects out of the mechanism and the trigger guard. It also means that the gun is less easily identifiable from its outline in your pocket. It's an essential accessory, IMHO.
As for what snubby to buy, there are so many out there that you have to make up your own mind. For myself, I've standardized on Smith & Wesson J-frames, Ruger's LCR and LCRx (which tend to have the smoothest, lightest "out-of-the-box" trigger pull, in my experience), and the Charter Arms Bulldog. I use and recommend them all. You pays your money and you takes your choice. Handle as many as you can to see how they feel, look up videos about them on YouTube and elsewhere, and try to shoot them if you can (ask your friends who own them, or see about renting one at a local gun range).
I hope this answers reader E.W.'s question, and helps others too. If you have more questions on the subject, please ask them in Comments, and I'll do my best to respond.
The state of the art in so-called red dot sights (which, confusingly, also come in green, and may be a simple dot, or a circle-dot, or a more complex reticle) has advanced considerably in the last few years. I've previously used Swampfox Optics units such as the Liberty, Justice and Liberator, all of which have since been updated to second-generation versions (follow the links provided for more information). More recently, I've been mounting Gideon Optics Omega and Advocate units, both for my own use and for a few of my disabled students from earlier times. I'm also testing two new models from Riton Optics.
As part of the process, I researched the problems some have reported with mounting red dot sights. Common complaints include (but are not limited to):
Mounting plates required by some pistols (e.g. Glock MOS, S&W M&P 2.0, etc.) can be too light and flimsy to truly secure the sight to the gun. Some are even reportedly made of plastic rather than metal.
Mounting screws for sight to plate, and plate to gun, can be simply too small to maintain their tension, even if thread locker is used. The G-forces generated as a semi-auto pistol's slide moves back and forth under recoil are very hard on screws at the best of times, and even more so on small screws, which can "back out" under the pressure. Some gunsmiths specialize in drilling out and re-tapping the relevant holes to take larger screws, but not all of us have access to them, or sufficient funds to allow for such modifications.
Some lower-cost red dot optics find it difficult to stand up to a heavy diet of rounds. This applies particularly to competitors, or those who practice and train frequently with their weapons. For such individuals, cost of optics is secondary to the requirement that they be tough and reliable. Cheaper sights such as those I mentioned above are simply too cheap to stand up to the treatment they give them. For the rest of us, who shoot (say) several hundred rounds a year over five to ten range sessions, the lower-cost optics will generally be OK. If it lasts the first few hundred rounds, it'll probably last the next few thousand! Also, companies like Swampfox or Gideon warranty their optics, and will repair or replace them free of charge if necessary.
There are answers to the first two problems. First, mounting plates. Mass-produced firearms have mass-produced plates, stamped out by machinery designed to do a reasonably good job at an economical price. They're about what one can expect. However, there are specialist suppliers out there who put much more time and attention into designing and making the best part they can. They tend to cost more than the OEM units, but deliver higher quality (at least in my experience). Two that I've used in the past, and whose products I like, are Apex Tactical and Forward Controls Design. (I'm sure there are others, whose products may be equally good: but unless I've tested and used a product myself, I'm not prepared to endorse it. Shop around and see what you find.) I suggest that choosing the best plate you can afford is a worthwhile expense.
Second, the mounting process. Using a thread-locker on the screws (such as Loctite, Permatex, or a competitor) is essential! I strongly recommend using a gel-type thread-locker, rather than a liquid, for two reasons. One is to avoid splashes or drips on things you don't want to lock (and believe me, that happens!). The other is that thread-locker liquid appears to be a perishable substance. Leave it unused too long and it becomes less effective, to the point that it may no longer serve its purpose. Gel thread-lockers, in my limited experience, don't appear to have the same problem. Can any more knowledgeable reader comment on that, please?
Another useful technique helps overcome the limited holding power of smaller screws. Apply RTV silicone gasket maker, sealant and adhesive to the base of the sight and the base of the mounting plate before installing them on the gun (or directly between gun and sight, if it doesn't use a mounting plate). That will hold them pretty strongly in its own right, even without the help of the mounting screws. Be careful not to use too much, or too strong an adhesive, because you will probably want to remove the sight at some point! I use Permatex 80050, but there are many other brands and varieties out there. You pays your money and you makes your choice.
One potential problem is that on some firearms (particularly the Glock MOS narrow-slide models, but including a few others), the extractor system is fitted beneath the screw holes used by the red dot sight and/or mounting plate. If a screw is too long, it can protrude into the space used by the extractor system, and cause problems. Filing or cutting a small amount off the bottom of the screw (being careful not to interrupt or damage the screw thread) will cure them. You'll find videos about it on YouTube; for example, try this one. If you have a different type of pistol, but the mounting screws can still interfere with internal parts beneath them, the same fix may work for you.
So, there you are. Sealant-adhesive holding the sight to the mounting plate, and the mounting plate to the gun, plus clean, thread-locked screws, and you shouldn't have a sight come loose just when you need it to be rock-steady.
I'm obliged to Divemedic for linking to this post on X. I can't embed the video here, but it's only one and a half minutes long, so please click over there and watch it for yourself. It's a very important look at the radicalized, dangerously violent views prevalent in certain sections of our national community.
In far too many of our larger cities, this sort of attitude is a direct, immediate threat to the safety of all citizens - including you and I. You can't reason with this sort of bigoted hatred. You can try to avoid it, but that may not work. If those who have such an attitude insist on confronting you, there's likely to be only one end to it - a violent one.
"Know your enemy" remains a cardinal maxim of any defensive attitude and training. This video clip shows you one of your real enemies in America today. Watch it, think about it, and ask yourself: "If I ran into this dude on the street today, how would I react? Would I be able to stop him if he decided to suit his actions to his words?"
If your answer is "Yes", good. You've already prepared, equipped and trained yourself to confront this reality. If your answer is "No" . . . it's long gone time you started preparing, because this attitude is becoming more and more common.
I've had a few questions on that subject from readers in recent weeks, enough that I figured it was worth devoting an entire blog post to the subject. However, I'm not an expert on the subject, so allow me to introduce you to someone who is.
Mike Branson was with Swampfox Optics for several years, and then moved on to Gideon Optics, where he works today. He's acknowledged by many in the firearms industry as highly knowledgeable in the field of fighting optics, and has recorded several very useful videos on the subject.
Let's start with an interview he did with Ian McCullum of Forgotten Weapons at last year's SHOT Show about the differences between cheap and expensive red dot sights.
At the same event, Mike described Low-Power Variable Optics (LPVO's), which are a step up from red dot sights, and what to look for in an LPVO.
How do you choose between optics and reticles? Mike explains below.
While choosing one's optic, what sight should one use? Dot, circle-dot, or a more complex reticle? Red or green? There are many options.
Finally, how cheap can you - or should you - go in the price of your optic? It depends on its expected use.
There you have it - about as comprehensive an overview of fighting optics as I think you'll find anywhere. Sure, there are more specialized videos and documents out there, but many of them are classified materials, and others are so specialized they'd be over our heads. Thanks to Mike Branson for producing a very clear summary of the most important information, helping ordinary folks like you and I find what we need. I've bought from him at both Swampfox Optics and Gideon Optics, and I'm a very satisfied customer. (No, I'm not shilling for him, nor is this an advertisement for his company: he's not even aware that I'm writing this article. He's just a good guy whom my wife and I are pleased to call our friend.)
John Farnam advises that a new policy development aid is available for churches and other houses of worship that want to establish their own security teams. (In this violent day and age, I fully support such initiatives.)
When such teams are appointed, organized, and charged with various duties, a competent, comprehensive, written policy quickly becomes an acute necessity for safety, competency, and legal reasons.
My esteemed friend and colleague, Manny Kapelsohn has now composed, and is marketing, such a written policy. I assisted in the final editing.
Manny is simultaneously a renowned attorney and firearms trainer, and the two of us have conducted countess training programs together. Manny also regularly provides professional expert assistance to litigants in deadly-force cases, both criminal and civil, renders critical trial testimony routinely, and is one of the very few who is genuinely qualified to compose such a document.
This “House of Worship Firearms and Use of Force Policy Bundle” (Policy, Comments, etc) document is now available at:
Upon checkout, enter the discount code “FARNAM25.”
Individual users will, of course, need to tweak this policy document in order for it to specifically apply to their particular situation. The final version they intend to implement will naturally need to be reviewed and approved by their own attorney before being placed in force.
Yes, this is passing on an advertisement, I suppose: but I trust John Farnam implicitly. He's one of the best defensive firearm instructors around, and has been for decades. If he says this policy guide is so good, I'm going to take him at his word: and knowing how many houses of worship struggle to define what their security team is, what its duties should be, and how it should operate in the legal constraints that apply to their area, I think such a guide can only benefit all of us.
If your church or house of worship has, or is considering setting up, a security team, I suggest you mention Mr. Farnam's article and the link above to your pastor or church administrator. I think they'll find it useful.
When it comes to the use of handguns in self-defense, the current fashion is to go for high-capacity 9mm pistols. They're ubiquitous, and for good reason: the recoil is manageable for most shooters, there are plenty of rounds on tap (up to 17 or 18 in many examples), and if a quality hollowpoint round is used, they offer adequate terminal performance. Even compact examples, holding only 6-8 rounds, offer slightly greater power than the traditional .38 Special snub-nose revolver, and greater speed and ease of reloading. All in all, very useful weapons.
However, there's another aspect to it, and that is the age-old topic of "stopping power". We've pointed out before that there's no such thing, at least in theory, because one can't measure in any meaningful way how many rounds are required to stop an attacker. If he's merely out for a quick score, and meets spirited opposition, even one round that misses him might be enough to make him turn around and run for his life. On the other hand, if he's hopped-up on drugs, he might not feel half a dozen or more torso shots, and carry on attacking until his body finally shuts down. I've personally witnessed an assailant who'd been shot multiple times in the chest (including one round that went right through his heart), but he still lived long enough to reach the defender and open his skull with a machete. Both died on the scene. Can one call that a "successful" defense, in that it stopped the criminal attacker, but did not save the life of the defender? I can't.
On the other hand, there's a time-honored and generally accepted rule in defensive shooting that tells us the bigger and heavier a round is, the more likely it is to stop an attacker. It dates back to the days of the Civil War and the Wild West, where "manly" revolvers were in .44 or .45 caliber, while "lesser" pistols were in .36 caliber or even below. In general terms, one or two solid lead slugs to the chest from a .44 or .45 did the job, whereas it often took more of the smaller .36 rounds to achieve the same result.
Modern bullet technology has improved the performance of smaller cartridges like the .38 Special or 9mm, but it has also improved the performance of larger-caliber rounds. In general terms, based on actual street performance, the bigger stuff still stops attackers faster and more effectively than the smaller stuff. Of course, any round that shuts down the attacker's central nervous system is likely to achieve a very quick stop indeed, but that takes a shooter who's fast enough and accurate enough to do that on demand. Most of us aren't that good, so a more powerful impact is a distinct advantage when dealing with a hopped-up or fanatical attacker who has no intention of stopping, no matter what.
(As one measure of that: ask hospital emergency room nurses and surgeons how many shooting victims survive hits - even multiple hits - by 9mm or .38 Special handguns, versus how many live through hits from .40, .44 or .45 weapons. When I was a prison chaplain, the medical staff there told me there were any number of convicts with scars from the smaller cartridges, but very few showing scars from bigger ones. That's because those struck by bigger, harder-hitting bullets survived less often.)
That's been borne out over the past few years by videos of police and defensive shootings all over the world. We see how, time and again, those with smaller-caliber firearms (like 9mm pistols) fire half a dozen to a dozen rounds in order to stop an attacker. One or two rounds just won't do the job, because they're not hitting a vital target. In civil war situations, where attackers roam in mobs and attack in large numbers, the higher magazine capacity of a 9mm is valuable - but only if each round stops one attacker. If you put ten rounds into the first attacker, you may stop him, but then you've used more than half your pistol's magazine and other attackers are still coming towards you. You're in trouble.
Therefore, choose your defensive handguns in the light of what enemy(ies) you may face. If you suspect you may have to drive anywhere near, say, an Antifa or BLM demonstration, you might want to carry large quantities of ammunition with you, but you might also (and, to my mind, should) carry a more powerful weapon than a mere handgun. An AR15 or similar defensive rifle can provide far greater stopping power, and far greater practical accuracy, than a 9mm pistol.
If you have no choice but to rely on a handgun, it's worth relying on one powerful enough to get the job done. Most days I carry a 9mm or .38 Special handgun in a pocket, because it's the most easily concealed weapon, and because I'm in a relatively low-crime environment. If I were in a more progressive-left city with legions of aggrieved activists, something with higher capacity might be needed. However, given the realities of so-called "stopping power", and my experience with it in a civil war and unrest environment over many years in Africa, I'd probably choose something with greater power, like a 10mm, .44 or .45 handgun.
Some smaller "heavy" cartridges offer the advantage that a handgun chambered for them can hold almost as many rounds as a 9mm pistol. Looking at my gun safe, a 9mm Glock 17's magazine holds 17 rounds, whereas a .40 S&W Glock 22 holds 15, and a 10mm S&W M&P also holds 15 (the latter round being considerably more powerful than a .45 ACP, while we're at it). A heavier, harder-hitting cartridge does not have to imply lack of magazine capacity. Even that may not be an issue, depending on one's choice of firearm. A .45 ACP Glock 21 will hold 13 rounds, still a useful number. All of the rounds mentioned in this paragraph will deliver a harder punch than a smaller cartridge, and are likely to cause greater pain and disruption to the person hit by them. There's a lot to be said for that.
So, by all means, if you can only manage the recoil of a 9mm pistol, go with that option. It's not a bad choice, and will serve you well if you put the bullets where they're supposed to go. That takes training and practice. However, if you can handle the recoil of a more powerful round and shoot it accurately, there are good reasons to consider a handgun using them. If I'm visiting a city where crime and other hazards to my health are more likely to be encountered, I'm very likely to pick a large-caliber firearm. (To take just one example, a .38 Special snub-nose revolver can be dropped into the average trouser pocket very easily, but a .44 Special Charter Arms Bulldog is almost as light and not much bigger. Given a pocket big enough to conceal it - and there's nothing stopping us from adding cloth to an internal pocket to enlarge it - it makes a handy choice, and using a round like Buffalo Bore's .44 Special full wadcutter, I have every confidence in its stopping power at close range.)
Thoughts to consider in this violent, criminal day and age . . .
I'm sure many of our more enthusiastic firearms owners have already built up quite a large stash of ammunition to support their sport/hobby/whatever. However, there are many others who don't bother; they buy what they need, when they need it, and panic whenever something interrupts normal supply lines to produce an ammo shortage.
The just-introduced tariffs may make some brands of ammunition harder to find, and will almost certainly make them more expensive. Sam Gabbert of SGAmmo writes:
Late in the afternoon yesterday, the US government's new wide sweeping tariffs on imports were announced. In my opinion, they were worse than expected regarding what effect this will have on price and supply for ammo in the USA. In short, it is going to drive up prices for the consumer in a dramatic way and totally cut off supply in certain brands over time.
. . .
Example 1 - PMC from South Korea was hit with a 25% tariff and is a major supplier of the most popular options for 5.56/223 ammo, as well as 9mm and many other calibers. This tariff increases the cost to 1000 rounds of 5.56 by about $100, and 1000 rounds 9mm about $50. At that point they simply cannot compete in the market against US manufacturing and most likely would slowly exit the market over the next year with the most popular products drying up first. Also, PMC's mother company, Poongsan Corporation, supplies US ammo manufacturers with a huge portion of copper strip used to make ammunition, which will drive up cost of US manufactures.
Example 2 - Prvi Partizan in Serbia was hit with a 37% tariff, and is a key supplier of metric rifle calibers, economical handgun ammo, and 5.56 FMJ ammo. This 37% tariff, if it holds, will totally force them out of business and you will see this manufacturer totally exit the US market over the next 6 months.
Example 3 - Igman in Bosnia, a key supplier of 7.62x39 and 7.62x51 ammo was hit with a 36% tariff, which increases the cost of 1000 rounds of 7.62x39 by about $180. No one will import it at all if this cost is added.
Example 4 - , Sellier & Bellot in the EU (Czech Republic) was hit with a 20% tariff. This drives the cost of their 9mm up $40 per 1000 and affects other products in a similar way, and at that point they cannot compete in the market on many popular products.
Example 5 - Magtech in Brazil was hit with the smallest tariff at 10%, but still substantial to drive 9mm prices up $20 or so per 1000 rounds.
In my opinion, unless the tariffs are reversed or reduced to much lower levels, the most likely course for where we are at is that many of the import ammo brands are driven out of business in 6 months to a year or are forced to charge unrealistic prices that very few consumers will pay, shrinking their volume to an unsubstantial point. At the same time, US manufacturing most likely slowly raises prices 3% to 8% once each quarter of remaining 2025 and early 2026, pushing prices up to match import competitors on the most popular calibers like 9mm, 45 auto and 5.56 / 223 and more, where profit margins have been suffering due to price cuts over the past 2 years while also dealing with continuous upward movements in manufacturing costs. What you do is your business, but this will have an undeniable effect of forced price increases at our store and all other ammunition websites and retailers of all types, and it is my opinion that buying today will save you in the long run.
I've got mine, thank you very much; but I've already advised those who expend a few hundred rounds of practice ammo every year (which is a minimum level, let it be said) to increase their stockpile. Furthermore, this might be a good time to invest in a lower-cost training or practice weapon, shooting cheaper ammunition, to back up your primary defensive weapons. .22LR or 9mm ball costs a lot less than some larger cartridges, which can save a bundle on training, even taking the cost of a "spare" weapon into account. The latter can pay for itself very quickly in terms of ammo savings.
I'm sure most of my readers have read The Lawdog Files - either the old blog, or his books. He's a personal friend of long standing. Lawdog is now writing on Substack, and a lot more frequently, too. Do yourself a favor and bookmark his new online home, and visit it frequently.
There are a whole bunch of 50-70 year-olds in the United States who fought the Cold War in dark alleys, midnight ports, and moonlit rooftops with knives, brass knuckles, and silenced pistols.
There are a whole bunch of 30-50 year-olds in the United States who fought vicious CQC battles in places like Mogadishu, Tora Bora, Fallujah, Najaf, and Mazar E Sharif.
There are 20-somethings from places like Compton, El Paso, Chicago, Detroit, Tiajuana, “the barrio”, “the ghetto”, and “the heights” who have stainless-steel teeth and thousand yard stares.
There are uncounted numbers of immigrants who have come here from war-torn hell-holes — and brought the skills and attitudes that enabled them to survive along.
On top of all that — America is the only country that I know of where a man of good record can walk into a school, hand over cold hard cash, and get a weekend of training that Special Forces in the Third World are envious of.
This is what I’m worried about.
I’m worried that when Biff the Hygienically-Challenged and his Coterie of Fanatics decide that sucker-punching neo-nazis just isn’t enough — or torching electric cars doesn’t have that same rush — and mission creep themselves into Proper Fanatical Stupidity, that some truly scary people are going to start whacking and stacking in response.
I don’t want to find myself standing over what’s left of a coyote attack and suddenly realizing that unless coyotes are carrying knives, some unsettlingly well-trained monster has just decided that he has had enough, and has gone hunting.
I fit Lawdog's fourth paragraph quoted above. The group of friends we've gathered here in north Texas includes representatives of his first and second paragraphs, too: and most of us have added the training mentioned in his fifth paragraph to that we received from our respective armed forces during our previous lives, incarnations and careers.
We've all seen the growing propensity to anarchic, extremist violence among certain segments of our population. We're all worried by it . . . and we've all taken steps to ensure that if said segments of our population attempt to get frisky in our general direction, we'll be ready, willing and (very) able to do something about it. The same can be said for a fairly sizable proportion of the residents of the small town where we live.
Therefore, around here, we don't have too many worries about squirrelly extremists. However, where you live, can you say the same thing? If not, go read the whole of Lawdog's article, and think about where you stand (or sit, or whatever).
