The Gunner's Blog

The Israeli pistol technique--reconsidered

2019-04-07T15:59:00.000-04:00

The Israeli shooting method is controversial in America. It is taught at some American gun ranges, demonstrated and discussed on YouTube, written up in shooting publications, never losing its ability to spark discussions as to whether it does things all wrong. The controversy centers on the Israeli practice of carrying the pistol with the chamber empty, loaded magazine inserted. You rack the pistol as you present it, which readies it to fire. Some Americans insist that this is sure to get you killed, though a lot of live Israelis could tell them otherwise if asked.

But let us leave aside, for the moment, the question of carrying chamber empty. It is only one part of the Israeli technique. Some Israelis in particularly tense duty assignments have taken up the practice of carrying the holstered pistol with a round in the chamber. It saves them less than one half of a second to the first shot, in an emergency draw-and-fire scenario. I suppose every little bit helps.

When you do the Israeli technique starting from chamber-loaded carry, you do not rack the slide on the draw, but the rest works the same. Apart from the question of racking on the draw, the method consists of a particular shooting stance and aiming method.

The stance is a good one, the isosceles lowered a bit by placing the feet apart in the martial arts horse stance (ma bu, kiba-dachi). It's very stable and encourages you to aim with your arms thrust equally outward and forward, the gun's barrel approximately perpendicular to the line between your shoulders.

The aiming method is to focus your eyes on the target, the pistol well up into your cone of vision, so that you see the target over or through the sights. It is target focused shooting, not a technique that focuses on the front sight al la the Modern Technique, but it establishes a coarse visual reference between gun and target. It works better than pointed fire from the hip or some other low hold, in which you cannot see where your gun is pointed.

My experiments to date lead me to the odd conclusion that the Israeli method is something I can fully recommend, whether or not you feel comfortable walking around without a cartridge in the chamber. If you simply cannot stand the idea of an unloaded chamber, you load it. For a long time I have endorsed the Modern Technique, but I am rethinking that. At the least, I have to say the Modern Technique is not the only good method. The isosceles works really well. Stabilizing it by lowering it works well too, and takes into account the natural tendency to crouch in a gunfight. Taking coarse aim with your focus downrange works all right on close targets, which are the most common kind. Aiming that way is quick and does not fight the natural tendency to look at deadly threats instead of your front sight. Pulling your attention back to focus on the front sight, as the Modern Technique requires, is counterintuitive. We know that some people have had trouble doing it under stress.

The Israeli SOP of carrying chamber empty makes sense for that country's circumstances. It is an extra layer of safety, appreciated where nearly everyone has military training and knows, more or less, how to use a gun, but not all are equal in skill and attention to detail, and some may be out of practice. It allows the Israelis to have guns available where guns are likely to be needed, in the possession of those who may need them, with little chance of accident, giving up less than half a second as time penalty for the extra margin of safety an empty chamber affords.

Like the rest of the method, the procedure for racking the weapon to make ready is well thought out. Bring the gun, held sideways, to chin level. Clamp your off hand's thumb along the top of the slide, clamping with your fingers from the other side, and push the frame of the gun forward with your firing hand. When the slide is fully to the rear, push the gun forward and out of the grasp of the off hand. Now turn the gun upright. The gun is charged and can be fired one-handed, or you can now bring your off hand forward to take up a two-handed grip on the gun.

You don't like the Israeli method because you just have to have a round in the chamber? Try the method but skip the part about carrying with the chamber empty: It's excellent either way.

A noisy trend: .357 compacts

2019-01-26T19:03:00.001-05:00

I notice that since November I have reported on three new .357 Magnum revolvers with SA/DA lockwork, three-inch barrels and compact frames. Kimber was first, with a thumb-cockable version of their K-6, previously produced as double action only. Then came Colt's King Cobra, the up-gunned magnumized version of the new model Cobra .38. Ruger just introduced an LCRx in three-inch .357 form.

It is a trend I approve. A gun in this general format is a very good balance of power and portability, range, and practical accuracy. It's a town-and-country gun useful for personal protection or for woods tramping.

Each of these newly introduced guns has smooth lockwork that produces lighter double-action trigger pulls than older types, another development I heartily approve. I can shoot the old school Smiths and Colts and Rugers and so on, with their heavier triggers, but less pull weight doesn't hurt anyone's shooting ability.

Not everyone will like the recoil of a small and short .357 revolver, and oh my, the noise. What a lot of people will do is load with .38 Special instead of magnum ammunition. But you have the option, if need be, of loading with full-blooded magnums and holding on tight.

Kimber

Colt

Ruger

New! Ruger LCRx .357 Magnum with 3" barrel

2019-01-23T07:24:00.000-05:00

New from Ruger, a .357 Magnum version of their popular kit gun, 3" barrel, adjustable sights. Capacity is five shots. Spec sheet: https://www.ruger.com/products/lcrx/specSheets/5444.html . This gun has proven popular in .38 Special and .22. The .357 version should prove a very capable and useful sidearm for those who want a bit more power.

A very good feature of the LCR design family is its smooth, light double action trigger pull, lighter than previous generations of Ruger's DA revolvers. The LCRx type is both double and single action so you can thumb cock it if the occasion seems to call for that.

Overheard at the range

2019-01-12T17:19:00.001-05:00

A visiting canny Canadian remarked: "If you cannot kill it with a .303, perhaps you should not be bothering it."

Sheriff suspended in Parkland shooting aftermath

2019-01-11T19:11:00.000-05:00

From the Sun-Sentinel:

Gov. Ron DeSantis removed Broward Sheriff Scott Israel from office Friday, replacing him after 10 months of turmoil spawned by the slaughter of 17 staff and students in Parkland.

The governor replaced Israel with former Coral Springs Police Sgt. Gregory Tony, 40, who has a background in active-shooter training. . .

Israel vowed to vigorously fight the suspension, accusing the governor of carrying out a political mission because the sheriff had spoken out against gun violence.

“This was about politics, not about Parkland,” Israel said. . .

I guessed right: New Colt King Cobra .357 Magnum

2019-01-09T00:53:00.001-05:00

New from Colt, the .357 Magnum King Cobra, shown here. I applauded the new model Colt Cobra .38, introduced in 2017, for updating the Detective Special with a lighter DA trigger pull, a more comfortable grip frame and much better interchangeability of parts. Noticing the Cobra's strong construction, I supposed when it came out that a magnum version would be along if the basic gun sold well.

Tah-DA! I had rather hoped the magnum version would have a 3- or 3.5-inch vent-ribbed barrel and adjustable sights. Perhaps that is in the works, but what Colt has come up with is more utilitarian, with no vent rib on its 3-inch barrel. Sights are fixed but the front one can be swapped out easily.

On the web: https://www.colt.com/series/COBRA_SERIES

Lawsuit: The Parkland shooting and duty of police

2018-12-14T10:07:00.002-05:00

Judge rejects embattled school deputy's claim he had no duty to confront Parkland gunman: CBS

"A judge has rejected a deputy's claim that he had no duty to confront the gunman during the school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Refusing to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the parent of a victim, Broward Circuit Judge Patti Englander Henning found after a hearing Wednesday that ex-deputy Scot Peterson did have a duty to protect those inside the school where 17 people died and 17 were wounded Feb. 14. "

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marjory-stoneman-douglas-shooting-judge-rejects-officer-scot-peterson-claim-he-had-no-duty-to-confront-gunman/

This is, I think, going to take a while for the courts to sort out. What is the particular duty of a cop on the scene?

Buckshot at a distance

2018-12-08T07:52:00.000-05:00

Interesting video that proves what many assume. Buckshot pellets are lethal far beyond the range at which the pattern is still holding together in a tight clump. See also: https://shootery.blogspot.com/2013/09/riot-gun-part-1-what-ammo-is-best.html

This information should both warn and reassure. It should warn you that the pellets are dangerous a long way downrange, making you very attentive to Rule Four, and it should reassure you that you are not altogether helpless if you must defend yourself with buckshot at a distance. Your pattern density will be appalling, truly hit and miss, but the pellets are dangerous if they hit. You can increase your effective pattern density with multiple shots at the target. That is a "spray and pray" tactic and not very good, but it does exist and is worth knowing about.

"Trigger Happy Harry," 1946 gun safety video from the NRA

2018-12-07T06:21:00.000-05:00

It is engaging and covers the main points. Hat tips to A/V Geeks for resurrecting this from the archives and Gun Culture 2.0 for bringing it to my attention. Its gently amusing tone is a reminder of simpler long-ago times.

Mass shootings: worldwide problem

2018-11-28T03:31:00.000-05:00

John Lott writes:

Of the 97 countries where we identified mass public shootings, the U.S. ranks 64th per capita in its rate of attacks and 65th in fatalities. Major European countries, such as Norway, Finland, France, Switzerland and Russia, all have at least 25 percent higher per capita murder rates from mass public shootings.

While Americans are rightly concerned by the increased frequency and severity of mass public shootings, the rest of the world is experiencing much larger increases in per capita rates of attack...

More at: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-mass-shooters-russia-public-shootings-thousand-oaks-mercy-hospital-chicago-1121-story.html

The broader thrust of the article is to say that gun-free zones invite these atrocities. That is, though, an international phenomenon, not something particular to America.

Kimber DA/SA revolver

2018-11-09T18:56:00.000-05:00

The newest version of Kimber's K-6 has an external hammer, unlike previous models; you can cock it to fire single-action if you prefer. It is offered with 2" and 3" barrel lengths. It holds six shots and is made without a superfluous keyhole.

I have not gotten this version in hand yet, but Kimber's double action only gun impresses me with its very smooth and fairly light double action pull, which cycles through without noticeable "stacking" toward the end of the trigger stroke. I would expect the same great DA pull in the new model. Size and heft are similar to the old Colt Detective Special or the new model Cobra. The Kimber, though, is chambered for .357 Magnum. I suspect many owners will load the Kimber with .38 Special, for stout loads in small revolvers produce more shooting excitement than a lot of people want, but you have the option of shooting magnums if something calls for it. https://www.kimberamerica.com/pistols/revolver?layer&cat=480

Remington 700 Settlement : File Your Claim now

2018-10-27T14:01:00.001-04:00

You have 18 months, so do it now so you don't forget. What you get is a free trigger replacement if your rifle has the old style Remington 700 ("Walker") trigger or a certain version of the X Mark Pro trigger. To have Remington fix your gun for free, go here and follow the prompts to file online:

http://remingtonfirearmsclassactionsettlement.com/

The guns covered are Remington Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722, and 725.

The problem is some examples of these guns firing when the trigger is not pulled. Surely you do not want that to happen. Quit using your Remmies. Send them in for the free overhaul.

Background on this story: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/24/remington-rifle-settlement-is-official.html

More: http://www.captainsjournal.com/2018/10/24/the-remington-rifle-settlement-is-final/

I gave this story some coverage in the past, saying that I would send in my rifle, but also pointing out that media coverage may have given an exaggerated idea of the prevalence of the problem, and little or no attention to possible contributing factors in the accidents reported. I also pointed out that uncommanded firing can occur in other brands. It may be that other lawsuits, against smaller makers, will be along in the wake of this successful settlement. A cynical view of the matter is that giant Remington was singled out for their deep pockets.

I noted in my past coverage that the Marine Corps encountered the problem. (Their M40 and its variants are 700's adapted to the Corps's preferences.) They addressed the matter by telling the grunts to quit messing with the trigger settings. It is a mistake for Marines (or anyone else) to try to make a hair trigger out of a field trigger. It is not necessary for good accuracy and it is not safe. Another possible contributing problem is dirt, gummed oil and so on: Cleanliness is related to functionality, in any gun.

In any event, Remington is replacing the triggers with something new and improved, so get on board. Remington has not acknowledged blame but settled to avoid further litigation. That, I find, is a common face-saving way for product lawsuits to end.

Adequacy

2018-10-21T14:47:00.000-04:00

Sometimes I feel surprised at how old I have become. I am not sure when I aged. I was too busy to notice it happening, but here I am. Waiters and clerks ask me if I get the senior discount. I do: But at least they are asking not assuming.

One of the things to astonish me is that the "Modern Technique of the Pistol" is now antiquated, at least in the eyes of marksmen priding themselves as au courant. When I learned the technique, Col. Cooper and his methods were state of the art, and very influential upon police and military training programs.

I feel a bit old fashioned when I put one foot forward, raise the pistol in a two-handed push-pull grip and catch view of the front sight as the gun rises. Here is the thing, though. It still works. Because I am habituated to the process, it is probably what I will do if I need my pistol in earnest. About the only thing I do that is not Antiquated Modern Technique is that I now prefer guns without external safety catches to manipulate: auto pistols of the plastic kind, or else revolvers.

Along the way from there to here, I have tried, at least briefly, many other ways of shooting a pistol: Isosceles, Fairbairn-Sykes shoulder point, Israeli crouch, one-handed bullseye, and even the weirdly logical Center Axis Relock method.

Every one of those methods will do everything it was designed and intended to do. Any of them can be used to life-saving effect. Some are better than others, but none is inadequate to the particular types of challenges around which it was framed. The Fairbairn-Sykes method, for example, is none too precise. As taught in bygone days, it had a rather minimal accuracy standard for qualification, 50% hit ratio, and hits anywhere on the silhouette target counted. That, though, was deemed sufficient at the time, and a reasonable tradeoff for the method's simplicity and speed in close range encounters.

If you have a proven method, one that has shown itself to work for what you are trying to do with it, well and good, whichever method that is. Your method is adequate. It makes no sense to say another method is more adequate, for a thing is adequate or it isn't. It is silly to argue the case to anyone who has seen his preferred method used to deadly effect, or so used it himself, or gotten after-action reports that it worked.

I well recall the polite disinterest with which American shooters greeted the Israeli Instinctive Method when trainers tried to introduce it to these shores. We already had the Modern Technique ingrained as a habit. It looked to us as if the Israeli experts were doing several things wrong. No one could argue with their good results against very serious terrorist threats, but what they were doing didn't quite look right, somehow. One may suppose we looked rather like that to them as well.

I suppose my perspective, looking down the hall of years, is that you should have a method. You should practice it and ingrain it, and not worry about what sort of fashion statement it makes on the range.

The elusive "flash sight picture"

2018-10-20T19:34:00.001-04:00

"As you raise your pistol, you shift your focus back to pick up the front sight..."

Many have tried this and pronounced it useless foolishness, but there is a detail they miss. "As you raise your pistol" is an important part of the instructions. Before the gun makes it up to eye level, the front sight is visible above the rear sight. If you pick it up then, you have no trouble finding it, and no trouble keeping track of it as the gun rises.

You lock your gaze onto the front sight while there is no interference from the rear sight to doing so.

I have on another page suggested "shark sights" for fast shooting at short range. That is much the same idea, but when using that method you intentionally hold the gun slightly low so the front sight is always clearly visible, standing proud of the rear notch. The sight picture resembles an inverted letter "T."

In the flash sight picture technique, that inverted "T" is what you see for a moment as you raise the pistol. It is then quite natural to continue to raise the pistol in such a way that the sights end up in coarse alignment with the target. The people who cannot do the flash sight picture are not pulling their focus back early enough to catch the front blade on the rise. It is counterintuitive to take your focus away from the target to look at the end of your gun, but you need to do it sooner rather than later.

People who learn flash sight alignment with no difficulty are doing this without analyzing what they are doing. If you are one of the people to whom the thing does not come naturally, work on pulling your focus inward sooner, so that you see the front sight in clear focus earlier.

The matter of revolvers

2018-10-20T14:18:00.000-04:00

There is in the Greek chorus of Internet gun didacts a claim that revolvers are not reliable; usually this buttresses with too much enthusiasm, not enough fact, the idea that automatics are plenty reliable: why, they're really more reliable than revolvers!

Hmmm. Big hmmm. If you know how to do a preflight inspection on a revolver, and if you keep a small wire brush handy to deal with a few known problem areas where revolvers need to be kept fairly clean to work, the things are as reliable as doorknobs. Yes, sometimes doorknobs fail to work, but for reasons that are obvious matters of wear, parts breakage, or accumulated detritus (crud).

A revolver combines two simple mechanical principles, those of the ratchet and the trip hammer, and works via the mechanical energy supplied by the hand of the user, not the firing of the cartridge, so you can spot arising difficulties by inspection. With an automatic, you sometimes need to shoot the gun to see what is wrong.

The preflight inspection to tell if your revolver is going to work next time you try to shoot it is the same type of check-over recommended before you buy a used revolver. Here is a good example. I repeat this inspection every month or so on revolvers that I am using frequently.

That leaves the problem of low ammo capacity, compared to modern auto pistols. Many years ago, when more people in harm's way carried revolvers, two answers emerged as serviceable. Carrying more than one revolver was popular; the "New York reload" consisted of drawing a loaded spare revolver to take over from the one you just emptied. This practice also provided a backup gun, an idea still seen as useful in the era of the auto pistol. People going into circumstances of unusual hazard would sometimes carry three revolvers, but carrying two was more usual.

The best bit of advice, though, was to make sure your first shot was a hit. It was, and is, a stern dictum. It is something of a scary idea because instinct tells you, instead, to draw and blaze away. I think, though, that going against nature in the matter, if you can bring yourself to do it, gives you the best chance of prevailing whether your gun holds five shots or eighteen.

Kavanaugh confirmed to Supreme Court

2018-10-07T00:51:00.000-04:00

It was a close-run thing, but the outcome was as I predicted. Yet, there is something further to look at here. In the process of trying to sabotage Kavanaugh, Democrats gave us a chilling insight into what the party has become.

In the end, the case against Kavanaugh came down to thought crime. We the people were supposed to infer that this judge was, at heart, a beast. Several women said so--did that not prove his inward misogyny? The Democrats' failure here may signal the end of #MeToo eruptions, which have been so fashionable of late. Here was a notable failure of accusation to equal guilt.

All's well that ends well. The constitutional originalists get another player in their dugout and the other side got caught pitching spitballs. Play ball.

The Speech or Debate or Calumny or Innuendo Clause

2018-09-13T16:13:00.000-04:00

United States Senators and Representatives have ironclad immunity for anything they say in the course of their actions when serving as such. They can't be held to account for slander, for example.

...for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

On some level that is a good idea. It frees them from worry that they are going too far in speaking their minds, so presumably they will not hold back when something needs saying. That should help them to pursue the nation's business without fear or favor.

The Kavanaugh hearings have turned over that rock to show what scurries about underneath. Groundless allegations and innuendos have been flung at the nominee, or whispered in corners, to the keen interest of a news and social media audience that may not recognize the groundlessness. Kavanaugh's only remedy, if it can be called as much as that, is to be a terrific Supreme Court justice. For I do not think the smears will work to prevent his confirmation, but they will prejudice the public against him.

The most recent of these attacks is bizarre when you recount it. A senator says she has a letter from someone--she is not saying who, the sender wants to be anonymous--saying something bad about the nominee--no definite information on what it says--so the senator has forwarded the matter to the FBI. Anonymous accuser, unspecified allegations, but broad hinting that there is something big here. Sweet.

Okay, it was no Spartacus moment, but it was another in a parade of legless allegations that Senators have raised because...because they can, and because it serves the purposes of political grandstanding.

The original intent of the Speech or Debate Clause was to shield our legislators from reprisals for doing their jobs. Its uses, unfortunately, go beyond that to making cheap shots that would not stand if made by anyone else. There is another law that stipulates (without exceptions and exemptions for office holders) "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Perhaps the Senate thinks that court lacks jurisdiction.

Addendum: There are increasingly damaging accounts as to what the letter might say, but no letter and no author.

Additional Addendum: 9/16, The accuser has come forward. I suppose the backlash built up. Even in our far-fallen state of social decay, anonymous and indefinite allegations are still not how we do things in America.

Ballistical Correctness

2018-09-11T18:43:00.000-04:00

YouTube is a silly place, at least when you are there looking at the channels about guns and shooting. Oh, there are some good ones here and there, but a lot of it is pompous bloviation. A case in point: A chap practically raving about how bad the Weaver stance is and why you should not use it, but use instead the competition-proven isosceles. His demonstration is a Weaver stance so bad that it amounts to a parody of the real thing. Well, if that were really what the Weaver is, I certainly would not recommend it either.

The Weaver stance, provided that it is correctly executed, is a good one for recoil control. You appreciate it more with pistols that kick hard. (I do not think any of the common self-defense rounds, when fired in full sized pistols, kick hard.) It also improves trigger control when pressing through the long heavy cycle of a double action trigger. Moreover, the Weaver's body geometry comes naturally to riflemen, so that they have less to learn or remember when operating pistols.

Clicking along to another channel, I find a fellow heaping scorn, practically sneering, at anyone who would ever load an auto pistol with a magazine of ammo without placing a round in the chamber. His presentation fairly drips with condescension. But managing a pistol that way, racking it to make ready, has worked out satisfactorily in many cases. It is not my preferred method but it sometimes makes sense. Blanket condemnation of the practice is not borne out by the facts. I see it as no different from keeping a shotgun in "cruiser ready"; if the one is ever justified, so is the other.

A situation in which it clearly is wise to carry a pistol without a round in the chamber is when you lack a proper holster, one that positively shields the trigger from unintentional operation. I have experimented with the string holster, an old OSS dodge that gives outstanding concealment. But the trigger is left unprotected, and so it certainly makes good sense to carry with the chamber clear, and so I did.

The trouble with YouTube might be something very simple. Perhaps people these days are not taught in school the art of presenting balanced, reasoned, polite statements of their views. Calumny is the new proof, contempt is the new argument, and snarkiness substitutes for wit and cogency. Sad times, and YouTube reflects the times.

The Jacksonville shooting in perspective

2018-09-07T20:21:00.000-04:00

The well-written and well thought out op-ed I have linked below points out what the gun control crowd are getting wrong. They are steering their part of the debate in an unproductive direction. They are oblivious to the problems with society's first lines of defense, strict legal requirements that still fail sometimes to keep unsuitable persons from buying guns. They are hostile toward any use of that last line of defense a homicidal shooter must cross. If any of the potential victims is armed, you see, he (or she) turns from victim to a possible victor. The situation ceases to be a hopeless one. I'll take those odds.

---------------------------------------

Existing Law Didn’t Protect Victims From the Jacksonville Shooter. It Left Them Defenseless.

Amy Swearer / @AmySwearer / August 28, 2018 /

. . . Court documents reveal that the suspected shooter was involuntarily committed to mental health facilities on six different occasions as a teenager, spent 97 days at a Utah facility for youth with behavioral health problems, and routinely had the police called on him by his mother. Under both Maryland and federal law, the involuntary commitments were enough to disqualify him from legally purchasing or possessing firearms. . .

Strategy, again and briefly: red dots

2018-08-19T18:57:00.000-04:00

It has been a long while since I wrote anything about strategy for personal, that is individual, self-defense shooting. I have had little new to say. In any case, few readers are interested in my take on the topic. Instead of fashionable and exciting run-and-gun my approach is more nearly described as hide-and-bide.

What I have that is new to say, or new for me anyway, is an endorsement of red dot sights on rifles. A decent quality dot sight increases your hit probability when shooting fast. To briefly recap, the points I like to raise about defensive shooting are three.

Fight from an ensconced defender position. Or at least, find the best cover you can.
Use a weapon that maximizes your hit probability. That is where the dot sight comes in.
Use the advantage of surprise if at all possible.

I still endorse the shotgun as a better weapon than a rifle, for the self-defense scenarios that are most likely. Its hit probability is better. Many people, though, are of a mind to say a rifle is better, for various reasons that to me hold lesser importance. For example, long-range capability does not figure into my concerns. My recent experiments with riflery suggest that the red dot is fast and easy to aim with, enough so to make a difference when you are trying to shoot and hit as quickly as you can manage. If you are going to use a rifle to defend yourself, a red dot sight is the best available gunsight.

How to adjust the brightness? This trick worked well for me. Turn up the dot until it is plainly and unmistakably visible in contrast to the scenery, then turn it up one notch brighter, so that the dot is what draws your eye. (Hat tip to Erik Äs.)

Two cures for scout scope glare

2018-08-17T09:48:00.000-04:00

Some riflemen find that the scout scope (forward-mounted scope sight) becomes a problem when the sun is low and behind them. The sun causes glare in the scope. I have two solutions, either of which solves the problem.

Either
Put a lens hood on the back (ocular) end of the scope
Or
Wear a broad-brimmed hat.

So much for the main objection to the forward mounting position for your optic. A lens hood is ordinarily seen on the front of an optical system, for the purpose of eliminating glare when bright light strikes the lens from an angle, but there is no reason it cannot serve the same purpose on the back end. You may need to improvise a suitable hood, but it is a simple project.

As to hats, I am comfortable in a Stetson, but if your favorite boots have shoelaces you may feel differently. A Smokey the Bear hat will work, or a felt crusher. You could rock the safari retro style and wear a pith helmet...

"California kneeling" rifle position

2018-08-15T22:20:00.000-04:00

The so-called California kneeling position, known also as double kneeling, places both of your knees on the ground. It is great for field rest shooting. By field rest, I mean improvised firing positions in which you lean over a solid and steady object or lean up against one. You can easily adjust the height of the California firing position to shoot leaning over a rest such as a boulder or a fallen tree, or as easily lean your body slightly to one side to gain support from a vertical object such as a fence post or a wall. You would not ordinarily adjust by leaning backward, for bending forward is more natural and better balanced, yet the occasional situation might call for a backward lean, such as needing to shoot at an upwards angle. Because of its great adaptability to the height of the field rest and the target elevation angle, California kneeling is useful with nearly any rest you find.

If you cannot find a field rest, you can shoot from California kneeling just as you would shoot offhand, because the positions are alike from the waist up, but with the advantage that sway from your legs is taken out of the equation.

I am much in favor of using field rests when they may be found, or improvised, so California kneeling makes good sense to me. Prone is, of course, best if you can achieve it. Where the circumstances do not permit prone, but the wretched last resort of shooting offhand can be avoided, consider California kneeling.

Red dots and bolt actions

2018-08-08T11:31:00.000-04:00

The way I set up a lightweight bolt action sporter rifle is to mount a red dot sight, micro size, on the receiver ring. The sight is not in the way of loading the magazine, cycling the bolt, or clearing a jam. The sight picture is instantaneous when you raise the rifle. The rifle is light and well balanced in the hands, making it quicker to the first well-aimed shot than typical semi-automatics.

I do not regard backup iron sights as essential. A spare optical sight is at least as good to have instead, if it is in some sort of return-to-zero mounting and you have brought with you whatever tools are needed to install it. You should, of course, have spare batteries always on hand for electronic sights. It is best not to trust in the claim that you have years and years of battery life. It may be true, but a defective battery can make nonsense of claims like that.

For some riflemen, the backup is a conventional telescopic sight, for they reason that the scope can do some things the dot sight cannot, and vice versa. I cannot fault that reasoning, but prefer a spare dot sight, myself. A scope would, though, go along with me if my business seemed likely to involve distance shooting, beyond what can be accomplished with a dot sight and a bit of squinting.

The dot sighted bolt action is fully suitable for ranch and utility use, woods hunting and anything else where distances are moderate and high volume firepower is not needed. The best case to be made for such a rifle is one that points to the convenience the type offers. Operation, maintenance and cleaning of a bolt action rifle are simple matters. The dot is the fastest sight yet invented and the simplest to use. The gun is easy to hit with, which builds your confidence in it as you use it. In all, it is an agreeable companion afield, unlike some rifles that burden the shooter with their over-complexity, excess bulk and sighing systems that are fussier to use.

The Cliff Notes version: Why I prefer the shotgun

2018-06-14T16:22:00.000-04:00

Over the years my advocacy for the shotgun, contending that the shotgun is a generally better self-defense weapon than a rifle or a carbine, has filled a number of blog posts. Some of those posts go into detail about pattern size and density, danger radius, and assorted, related minutiae. This time I simply give the topic a once-over. I have not succeeded in convincing very many shooters that you really are better defended with a riot gun than with a modern type of rifle, for all the details I have offered. I don't know that the quick overview will do any better, but here goes.

-----------------------------

I prefer a shotgun for my personal and home defense long gun. I consider it the best fight stopper at short range. Nearly all justifiable self-defense shootings are at short range.

I do not think very much can be said against the effectiveness of 12 gauge buckshot loads. They are deficient in just one respect; they will not go through even the lightest body armor. They do, though, allow you to target, and reliably hit, the unarmored parts of the assailant. That is a good enough solution. Advances in body armor mean that some rifle loads that were surefire armor piercers some years back may not work on today's new and improved armor. I have seen some of the experimental ideas going into the next generation of body armor. You can expect rifle-stopping ability in vests that are lighter and far more comfortable than ever before. The shotgun, though, remains a good way to attack gaps in any armor. I have heard of just one event, the North Hollywood shootout, in which the criminals had equipped themselves with head-to-toe armor that they had improvised for the occasion. They lost anyway, and the fashion did not catch on.

If you feel you need an armor piercing load for the 12 gauge, look into type AP-20 slugs offered by DDupleks for law enforcement use. You may need industry insider connections to get them, but there is at this time no US law against possessing them, and they appear to do as much as is possible toward increasing the penetrating ability of the shotgun. As with most rifle loads, there are some armors that will leave you stymied, but that is in the nature of the game as we now must play it. Armor technology has taken a big leap forward while projectile technology has remained nearly stagnant. The DDupleks slug is simply an adaptation of the conical point steel bullet, which was seen at least as far back as WWII.

An ammunition advance that is significant is the tight patterning buckshot shells using a specialty wad. This ammunition is sold by Federal as FliteControl and by Hornady as the VersaTite. These shells throw patterns half the size of conventional shells when fired from cylinder bored or IC barrels. While a pattern that tight is frequently not what you want, it is a very useful option if you need to extend your shotgun's effective range. I keep regular buckshot shells on hand and also a small supply of the tight-patterning stuff. Usually the conventional shells are more suitable but the ability to simply push in different shells to produce much smaller patterns is a good option, better in many cases than switching to slugs, for slugs give up the shotgun's principal advantage, which is firing a spread consisting of multiple projectiles.

I think some gunwriters have expended far too much ink, and concern, over the scenario in which some of your buckshot misses the target and sails downrange, creating a hazard. You should be aware that it is likely to happen, but not unduly panicked at the prospect. Most shots fired in anger miss, whatever the weapon, with pistol bullets being particularly likely to go astray, so you need to confirm downrange-safe whatever weapon you're firing. You never miss? Yeah, tell me another. The stress of a live fire "two-way range" has a way of messing with your cool execution of practiced skills. In other words, it is not that you should be unconcerned with the cone of danger your shotgun produces, but you should be concerned about a cone-shaped danger zone also if you have a rifle or, especially, a pistol. Misses are a probability bordering on certainty. Look carefully downrange to confirm Rule Four, whatever you're armed with. On a slightly encouraging note, the absolute danger radius of buckshot is less than that of pistol bullets and far less than that of rifle bullets.

All in all, the shotgun seems to me to offer the best armament for the most likely defense scenarios, which are at short range, and are likely also to feature targets in motion and often happen in poor light. The shotgun's hit probability is higher than any other small arm's, its effectiveness is indisputable, and its fearsome reputation precedes it.

GLOCK is promoting the Four Rules: Good for them.

2017-08-19T15:18:00.001-04:00

As readers know, I push the Gunsite Four Rules whenever I get the chance. Glock is on the same bandwagon now. Welcome aboard to them. Avoiding accidents is in everyone's interest.

If they feel they must rephrase Rule One, I would say "Treat every gun as a loaded gun!" is better phrasing than what they went with, but hey, it's the thought that counts.

GLOCK Safety Pledge | #FollowTheFour | GLOCK USA:

'via Blog this'