Firearms Friday: Continuing The Dialogue

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a “Firearms Friday” post which was requested by a friend. I did what I could to address their original query but had no illusions that it would be an answer to their question. There are simply too many aspects to this whole discussion to offer a definitive response but it was a means to have a respectful dialogue. And so, with that in mind, below is their response to that post:

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question seriously. I really do appreciate it. Like you, I'd rather have smart laws and knee jerk reactions. As you say you may not be an expert, but you have more experience on this topic than I do and can point out the flaws in my arguments. My goal is a reduction in gun violence and I don't really care much how we get there, as long as it's a path that works and not a token effort.

Here are my immediate thoughts:

When I've been thinking about the problem of shootings I've been dividing it into three categories: one-on-one (most self defense cases would fall into this category, I imagine), one-on-many (mass shootings) and many-on-many (gang violence maybe?). I'm mostly concerned about the one-on-many, mass shooting case. I'm looking for ways that could render a gun less effective when attacking a crowd that would have minimal impact in the one-on-one case, and thus minimal impact on self defense uses. In our legal system it is considered inhumane to maim. If lethal force is warranted you are supposed to take lethal force. That is a sentiment I support. To be 100% clear: If your family is threatened, I want you to be able to defend yourself with lethal force.

I do think there are ways we can make guns less lethal in the one-on-many case that have little impact in the one-on-one case since. Bullet ricochet increases the number of casualties, whereas (I believe) it is a virtually non issue in most self defense cases. It's my understanding that most (all?) bullets are deadly, but not all bullets are equally effective at passing through a person harming the person behind them. Most one-on-one situations don't require dozens of dozens bullets be fired in mere seconds. This is why the arguments of limiting gun magazine sizes, limiting bullet caliber, and firing rate make so much sense to me. (Guns are machines and it is possible to engineer them to fire no faster than a specific rate, regardless of how fast one can pull the trigger.) For a one-on-one scenario, there is no rushing the shooter/person defending themselves. In a one-on-many such changes might give the crowd a chance. At least the casualty count should be lower.

I was unaware that there was a sport dedicated to conduct speed reloads. How long does it take the average-to-above-average person to reload? If it's non trivial, than limiting capacity sizes still makes sense to me. I think (hope) most would be mass shooters are not in the elite class.

I strongly agree with both your points that gun violence is glorified in the media, and that the way the media reports on shootings encourages copycats. I have no idea how this can be addressed given the first amendment.

I also agree that we as a nation need more support for mental health issues. What's less clear to me is what this kind of approach would look like, especially since mental health status can change. I think it's a noble, but unrealistic goal to catch everyone who would commit a mass killing before they have a chance to follow through. Besides, hate is protected under the first amendment. One cannot be committed saying people of a certain race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or anything else should be executed. (David Duke is a terrifying example of this.)

I know I will not change your opinion on the matter, but I support gun free zones. For what it's worth, I don't think the intention behind gun free zones is to prevent intentional shootings. As you, and others, have pointed out, there's nothing magical about a gun free zone that keeps bad guys with guns out. Rather, I thought gun free zones are intended to limit guns from areas where thinking may be impaired (such as places that serve alcohol) or judgement lacking (schools). They're intended to prevent heated arguments and rash decisions from turning into tragic mistakes. While I agree with you that we should hold the shooter responsible for his or her own actions, it's little solace to the person whose life was lost. In these situations I feel the potential for tragic accidents is so great it warrants special treatment.

In this response I will focus on where we seem to be the furthest apart. Let us begin by discussing “limiting gun magazine sizes, limiting bullet caliber, and firing rate” which, to this person, seem to be the options that make the most sense regarding the prevention of mass shootings while having little to no impact on the ability to defend themselves. Unfortunately, this is a flawed argument as the assumption is that “there is no rushing of the person defending themselves”. On the contrary, in many self-defense scenarios there is immense pressure for quick and effective action as seconds count… if you hesitate you are most likely dead. Further, under duress the use of multiple rounds is commonplace. This makes all three of the above options dangerous in a self-defense situation.  

While caliber is something that is thoroughly discussed within the firearms community the simple fact of the matter is that in a self-defense situation accuracy diminishes and stopping power and capacity play critical roles in eliminating the threat. Further, there is no predicting the size of the assailant or how they will be dressed so, personally, I would prefer to have a little more punch than average. Over-penetration is a reality which is why anyone with a reasonable amount of training (and, in my opinion, anyone who owns a firearm) should always be aware of their surroundings and what is behind their intended target. The final point in this is that limiting calibers is a slip and slide that I don’t car to ride as it is nearly impossible to enforce, it would put those who reload in a precarious position, and, most importantly, it is completely against the rights for which I stand.

Rate of fire is something that is already regulated as automatic weapons are classified as Class III firearms and only legal for ownership with those who undergo the scrutiny of the ATF application process (and pay the tax). To regulate rate of fire would not only be dangerous in a self-defense situation but would add over-complication to a rather elegant mechanism. We don’t need to Rube Goldberg firearms… look what that thought process has done to our government.

As for “gun free zones”, the idea that these places are made any safer by eliminating the presence of legal firearms is preposterous. It has proven, time and again, to be a fallacy… nothing more than a means to provide a “warm and fuzzy” feeling for some people. Anyone who has carried a firearm and knows others who carry on a regular basis knows that the one thing that maintains a person’s even temperament is not a sign but the fact that they are carrying a firearm. Those who accept this responsibility also accept the fact that they must go above and beyond when it comes to keeping calm in precarious or stressful situations. This also means that those who responsibly carry will not allow themselves to enter into an altered state of rage or intoxication.

While I would like to say that there is an answer to preventing, as a whole, the practice of mass shootings in this country that is simply not a part of reality. I have already made a few suggestions regarding how we can go about addressing the issue of mass shootings but they are by no means a way to “solve” the problem. The best way that we, as a society, can face this is to come to terms with the fact that this is the reality in which we live. And while the contrary is reported on the daily news, this persons primary objective has already been realized... shooting deaths and gun violence continue to decline while gun sales continue to rise.

However, an important point to remember is that while this person, and many others, continue to make statements regarding the importance of the first amendment and how it limits our ability to address certain statements, stances, and positions that heinous people take, those same people are willing to do anything to limit the second amendment. Remember, the only reason that the second amendment is second is so the first amendment has backup. Why is it that so many people are willing to acknowledge that heinous people are outliers regarding the beauty and effectiveness of the first amendment but those who commit heinous acts are representative of those who support the second amendment? While the person with which I am having this discussion isn’t one of these extremists, the position is all too common.  

If we really want a solution to the situation that we find ourselves in it would be to face the reality that there is evil in this world. Evil people will commit evil acts and we need to confront that evil head on by defending ourselves, defending others, and eliminating the threat when we are threatened. We can’t rely on government in general or legislation in particular. If anything, we need to eliminate the hurdles that continue to plague law abiding gun owners. We must educate ourselves, our families, and our fellow citizens about firearms. We must respect what they can do and appreciate the freedom that they represent. So, my advice is simple, go to a range. Understand, appreciate, and respect firearms. Teach one another. And never allow yourself to be helpless and maintain your self-reliance. I’m sure that this is not the response that they were looking for but it is an honest response and one that has proven, time and again, to be the most effective was to address the issues that we are currently facing.

Firearms Friday: Magazines

There are many consideration that need to be made when purchasing a firearm, especially handguns. I have previously addressed the fact that the process is an individual decision and one firearm may work for one person but not for another (some may even detest the selection). I have also written on the considerations that need to be made regarding ammunition. All in all, it is a very personal process but there are a few things that should be considered with every purchase whether this is your first time or far from your first time.

Again, we have already addresses a few key considerations that being range time and equipment. This time around I want to discuss the topic of magazines. Please note that I am not talking about clips which are completely different.

An all too common comment made by those new to firearm ownership is “why do I need an extra magazine? It came with two, I don’t need any more than that.” While that may seem to make sense to some, the reality is that you should have at least 5 magazines for every firearm you own. In addition to the simple fact that magazines break, you should have 5 or more for the scenarios that you may not be thinking of and because it makes practicing at the range an easier and more enjoyable experience. Five is the baseline but don’t just buy any brand.

There are varying qualities of magazines on the market these days which include factory production (the same manufacturer of the firearm for which it is intended), less expensive models (i.e. Mec-Gar and ProMag), and better quality magazines than what come with the firearm (i.e. Magpul, Wilson Combat, Chip McCormick). The prices of these can vary significantly from $10 to over $50 per magazine and those are just the ones that are readily available. And sometimes that really nice 1911 you just bought does not come with a reliable magazine (i.e. Kimber). This brings up another important consideration at the time of purchase… can I find magazines for this firearm and, if so, can I afford them?

You may find a great deal on an H&K but how many magazines does it come with and how many are you going to have to purchase at $40-50 each? Or there are some models that are difficult to find… you may have found that S&W 39 (the H&K P7 might be a better example) that you have been looking for but it doesn’t have a magazine with it. The magazines are out there but they are becoming few and far between.

What this all comes down to is a very simple rule of thumb when buying a firearm. Something that new firearms owners need to be aware of and something that all of us need to be reminded of from time to time. You need good quality magazines for your firearms… 5 or more. When you look to buy keep that in mind three basic factors: reliability, availability and affordability. Forgetting these can really be a costly mistake in more ways than one.

Firearms Friday: The Virtues Of The 1911

No matter what range you go to, forum you visit, or magazine you read there is always the debate going back and forth between those who see the 1911 as the be all end all of firearms and those who are of the striker fired persuasion. This has been especially true with the new Army sidearm trials to replace the Beretta M9 (which replaced the 1911 in 1985 at the Army’s service pistol). There are those caught in the middle but there are always people that you can find on either side of the spectrum. It makes you wonder what John Browning would think of these exchanges.

Personally, I like to enjoy a variety of firearms so I was never one to participate in the back and forth. However, it was more due to my lack of experience with the platform. It was basically for the same reasons that you may have heard over and over… limited magazine capacity and a caliber that didn’t have a tremendous appeal to me. I have always been a proponent of accuracy over power.

Over the last couple of months I have come to appreciate the 1911 platform. I have become more familiar with the caliber (largely due to the recent drop in ammunition prices that have been seeing) and I have seen the prices of the firearms come down as well. While there is certainly a big difference between the entry level 1911’s (under $1000), mid-range ($1000-1500), and high end (well over $1500) there have been great deals from quality manufacturers. This was particularly true when Para Ordinance was offering a $100 rebate at the same time that my local shop, Tanner’s Sports Center, was running a special on all stainless steel expert models for just under $450. This is a firearm that is easily on the upper end of the entry level category with an MSRP north of $700.

Once I had gotten a handle on the manual of arms and really started enjoying the firearm itself I started looking at the other options out there. While I did have some familiarity with the market and I was aware that the 1911 is currently manufactured in a variety of calibers, I didn’t realize how much the capacity had increased on some models. I knew that the round count was higher but I wasn’t aware of the fact that it was 14+1 of .45ACP, 16+1 of .40S&W, or 18+1 of 9mm.

Weight and size have also been noted as downsides to the Browning design but even that is changing with barrel lengths ranging from 3-5 inches and frames being made from various materials other than steel including polymer, titanium, and aluminum. While still not light it is perfectly manageable for many who prefer carrying the classic. Weight and size shouldn’t be more of a factor beyond any consideration they are given with regard to any other type of firearm.

In the end, with my experience, many of the arguments against the 1911 have been made moot in recent years. There is a choice in caliber, capacity, and weight as well as a variety of manufacturers across the entire pricing spectrum offering a wide array of options to the shooter. It really has become a truly customizable firearm beyond the confines of the serious competitive shooting market. If you just want something for the range I highly recommend picking one up and if you are comfortable with carry cocked and locked there really isn’t a better concealed carry option available.

Firearms Friday: The “Right” Firearm?

Over the last couple of months I have had numerous conversations with people who are either looking to purchase their first firearm or they are looking to get a new one. The questions are almost always centered on handguns so that is what I will focus on in this post. They always ask me either what my favorite is or which one would I buy but the fact of the matter is that it is not that simple. There are a variety of factors that come into play that determine what firearms should even be considered. And while the list below applies primarily to new shooters, the same can be applied to those looking for something a little different. So, here are the primary considerations that I go over with anyone who asks for my opinion:

• Purpose: How is this firearm going to be used? Range? Competition? Carry? Do you have a carry permit? All of these questions help to narrow down the selection process. Size really doesn’t matter for someone that is simply looking for a range gun but is hugely important when considering a carry option. Even then, their size and the means by which they want to carry narrow the field down even further.
• Caliber: .380 ACP, 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP? Those are the calibers that I am most commonly asked about and while there is a long list of pros and cons to each of them it really boils down to two factors… what can you shoot well and which one do you prefer? While I personally prefer 9mm and .45 ACP, that doesn’t mean that they are the right choice for everyone. That is what I prefer, shoot well, it’s readily available, and what I can find the best prices for range ammunition. Which leads me to the next thing that people should consider…
• Cost: It is not just the cost of the firearm that needs to be considered at time of selection/purchase. Ammunition costs need to be factored in as well. These two primary considerations are in addition to range time, training, holster(s), a means to secure the firearm (i.e. safe), cleaning accessories, and, when applicable, the cost of a carry permit. There are a variety of factors that play into the price and there are a few ways that you can curb costs. Range memberships get you to the range more often and reduce the overall costs per visit. Reloading can reduce ammunition costs and, when done right, increase range performance. And, most importantly, there is nothing wrong with buying a used firearm. With the exception of some insane sales I have seen at Tanner’s, it is the best way to get the most for your money. Take a look at the total cost of ownership before selecting the firearm that is right for you.
• Size: This was covered in purpose but it is worth having this as a separate section. Size not only impacts the purpose but it is also a significant consideration when seeing what fits the shooter. Size and weight also influence how much one feels the recoil of the calibers mentioned above. Overall, when it comes to comfort, size is one of the biggest if not the biggest factor in selecting a firearm (especially for first time shooters).
• Action: For new shooters this can sometimes be the most time consuming point to review. Beyond the whole semi auto vs. revolver debate there are also plenty of options beyond that. Single action, double/single action, and striker fired are ones that I frequently review. Much of this whole category comes down to what you shoot best. Some people are great with revolvers while others, including myself, are absolutely no good with revolvers but are pretty accurate with just about any semi auto. And if the person shoots equally well with different actions, then it all comes down to preference and the other, aforementioned, factors.

With all of that said, in the end, the most powerful part of the process is the preference of the individual. The perfect firearm could be a small, single stack, striker fired, 9mm pocket pistol like a Smith & Wesson M&P Shield but that doesn’t mean they are going to buy that firearm. If they have their heart set on a FN Five Seven or a Nighthawk Custom 1911, there is little that you are going to be able to say to sway them. Preference, especially for a particular model or manufacturer is a powerful persuader. However, there are a few that go through the process and take the time to figure out what makes sense for them and that is why I will continue taking people through this process and doing my best to help them find the firearm that is right for them.  

Firearms Friday: Army Sidearm Competition

Every once in a while, the United States Army makes it known that they are opening up competition to see if the current designs and technology are what they are looking for to replace the Beretta M9. Essentially, every time the Beretta contract begins winding down, there is new talk as to what will be the next sidearm issued to soldiers in the Army. While talks are frequent, it doesn’t mean that a change will be made as since 1911 the Army has only had 2 pistols, the aforementioned M9 adopted in 1985 and the M1911A1 adopted in 1911.

There are numerous factors that will be considered this time around that weren’t really part of the equation 30 years ago. Polymer frames have become an industry standard and preferred material for modern shooters, modularity is both readily available and cost effective as modern materials make for the faster and easier production of such parts, and manufacturing costs have gone down considerably with the advent of new processes and materials.

So what criteria will hold over from the last trial?

While there are some forces that prefer the larger .45ACP round, the Army is still set on issuing 9mm NATO rounds which provide greater round count, better recoil management, and less wear and tear on firearms in comparison to higher pressure rounds such as .40 S&W and .357 Sig. Parts interchangeability will be essential as servicing the sidearm will require readily available and standard sized parts… they want the armorer to be able to drop in a new barrel rather than have to fit it to the individual gun. Cost will be a major consideration as well especially given the history of Sig Sauer previously falling short to Beretta based on this criteria. Also, all firearms must be manufactured in the US.

Of course, the biggest requirements of them all are durability and combat accuracy. As was outlined in a recent Guns America article on the subject:

Whichever guns get entered will have to average 2,000 rounds between stoppages. The guns will have to run an average of 10,000 rounds before a true failure. And the guns will need a service life of 35,000 rounds. They will need to put 90% of rounds within a 4″ circle at 50 meters, which breaks down to about 7MOA. And they’ll need to be able to handle hot loads (at least 20% over SAAMI specs for their caliber).

While there are hundreds of potential participants, and even more opinions in the community as to what should be selected, there will no doubt be designs that we have seen previously and ones that will be a complete surprise. Those mystery entries are what is going to really make this competition interesting as there are always designs or features that will be developed for this competition that will eventually make it to the civilian market. I guess, in the end, the real question is how the previous finalists will fair against newer and younger competition?