The Importance of Practice - Correctly

Once a person has made a decision to own and/or carry a firearm for self defense and they have obtained the appropriate legal permission to do so, the very next step is proper training which was previously discussed in this blog. The far too often overlooked and very important followup is constant practice of what has been learned.

Drawing and firing a firearm to win in a gunfight is substantially a matter of muscle memory tied to the mental process of recognizing a threat and deciding what to do about it. The only way I know to reenforce muscle memory is through constant repetition of the same movements over and over again. That means practice and plenty of it. One needs to practice until whatever one is trying to do becomes as routine as scratching an itch.

How Much Practice?

In the beginning, more is certainly better. Under ideal conditions, that would mean at least two hours every single day for 90 days. Unfortunately most do not have ideal conditions or circumstances, so the answer must be as often as possible. At a minimum, at least once a week for an hour which is really minimum maintenance time for a very experienced shooter.

It would help those challenged by conditions and circumstances to at least practice a hour a day at home drawing and firing from various positions and dry firing at a variety of targets in the clothing they would normally be wearing when away from home.

Every practice round on a once a week schedule should include the discharge of at least 100 rounds of the ammunition one chooses as a carry round. So called "practice rounds" will do one no good and possible harm when engaged in drills. Practice ammunition should be reserved for those interested in target shooting, or while learning basics or improving position and grip.

How to Train

While taking the time to train is important, it is just as important to train correctly. Training correctly, means going as far as possible to duplicate the conditions and situations where you are likely to encounter a need to utilize the firearm being carried. Those include:

• Using the firearm or firearms you normally carry;
• Using the same holster or retention device you would normally retain the firearm with;
• Using the ammunition you have selected as your carry ammunition;
• Wearing the same type of clothing you would normally wear;
•  Duplicating the conditions under which you might draw and fire the firearm or firearms.

Down and Dirty

Sometimes, time critical situations arise where an individual needs to suddenly start carrying a firearm because of a likely need for its use in self defense. Because of time and situation constraints, they need to learn some very basic things quickly. In those cases, revolvers become the only choice when and where available and normally in a midsize frame and in .38 Special using ammunition intended for defense. At least one trip (preferably more) to the range and a minimum of 50 rounds of ammunition are called for with a focus on just being able to hit a man sized target as close to center of mass as possible at no more than ten yards. As often as possible this should be repeated until the individual has the time and circumstance to actually get a proper introduction to, and training in, firearms.

For everyone else, training should be scientific and methodical with constant progress to becoming very efficient in weapons use for self defense. That starts with the gun itself.

Beginners
Some people will make a choice to own or carry a firearm with little experience in firearms. The right way to start is either with a .22 revolver or full size automatic. Before I would start training any neophyte, it would be necessary for them to handle the firearm extensively and to learn to field strip and clean the weapon. Then they would need to learn the technique of aiming that weapon choice two handed as well as learning the "aiming circle" so they understood what kind of hold and trigger mistakes they could make and what the results looked like when they made those mistakes. They would also learn the methods of correcting those mistakes for the firearm they were training with. Finally, they would get to go to a live fire station and learn to load and unload the firearm. Not until they had mastered all of that would they be allowed to actually fire the firearm.
The revolver is always the best choice for new shooters of either sex. It is simpler to learn the drills on, less intimidating, and easier to field clean. It is also far safer for the beginner and bystanders like the instructor. The .22 is preferable because beginners will be less frightened of the noise and recoil and the cost of learning the basics will be less expensive even with the current much higher costs of rimfire ammunition. That means they will be more likely to practice their gunhandling and shooting and fire far more rounds than they would with centerfire cartridges.

Everyone Else


Practice ammunition usually means cheaper and normally lower powered rounds and while such ammunition has its place, that place is not when practicing defensive drills. Every brand and configuration of ammunition normally hits the target in a different place and when someone is shooting at you, or about to, you need to know, with confidence, where your rounds are going to go. It is hard enough to hit a moving target, and harder still with your adrenaline gland working over time and your practice and confidence can and will make a difference. There can also be a difference in the way the recoil affects followup. Much of the practice ammunition is so low powered it is almost, but not quite, like practicing with a hot .38 Special when you are really going to carry a mid range .357 Magnum. Finally, for those choosing semi automatic pistols, different rounds cycle and function differently in the same pistol. Your mind and body needs to be prepared for what is going to happen during a serious social situation.

If you are training for encounters outside the home, practice in the type of clothing you will likely be wearing during an encounter. If you normally wear a suit, then wear a suit when training. Use an old suit or go to a thrift store and buy one, but wear one for training if that is your normal garb. Practice for cold weather by adding a topcoat or whatever you normally wear in cold weather. Practice in summer wear as well.

I once watched a long time LEO who had been in soft clothes (read:suit) for over ten years miss a real life draw because he had never practiced his draw with a sport coat or suit on at the range and did not know how to "sweep" his coat. He took a bullet because of it.

Accuracy with a carry piece is important, but the speed and smoothness of the draw is also very important. This is even more true for non LEO encounters because normally the adversary already has a weapon out and ready to use. The majority of armed encounters for uniformed LEOs occur when the LEO has warnings or already has drawn their weapon. Even most soft cover investigators fall into the same situations. Admittedly, there are some encounters that are different. Once in a while LEOs are ambushed but that is rare. Only the deep cover LEOs face situations similar to what civilians are normally subject to and must train to deal with - a surprise encounter with an adversary who already has a weapon in hand and ready to use.

Deep cover LEOs are different from almost all other types of LEOs in that they normally have no ready back up when a situation turns serious, and it is far more likely they are going to encounter armed confrontations. When special squads are taken out of the equation, only about 12% of local and state LEOs ever draw and fire a gun in a serious social situation during their entire career. They, like civilians, often have little or no warning of when a firearm is needed and as a consequence, have a critical need to train in drawing and firing.

The ability to draw and fire rapidly is often overlooked, or poorly handled, in most training classes, including in law enforcement range training. As a result, even LEOs considered experts in firearms average about three seconds to draw and fire after they have made a decision to do so. While that might seem adequate, it isn't. A fairly athletic attacker with a knife would have stabbed them at least once, assuming they were less than eight yards apart.  A attacker with a drawn gun could have shot them twice, and truly expert gun handlers could have easily emptied a revolver before they could get a single shot off.

 The primary reason that this critical training element is overlooked is safety on the range. Part of the safety issue is that most LEO ranges and almost all civilian ranges are set up as target ranges designed to maximize the number of people who can use the range at the same time. For those who want or need to carry a firearm for self defense, this must be overcome. Unloaded practice is part of the solution, but ultimately drawing and firing every single round is the goal. Most highly skilled gun handlers spend at least 1/2 hour every day on unloaded practice drawing and "firing" and at least three days a week doing the same with live ammunition.

Once accuracy is sufficient, those who carry firearms should spend 98% of their range time drawing and firing live ammunition - preferably at moving person sized targets at seven to ten yards.

Practice drawing and firing from a variety of positions including sitting down at a "desk" or in a car. While some retention methods may work fine standing up, they may be practically impossible while sitting in a car, or in a cafe, or at a desk. It is better to find that out in unloaded practice first before attempting it with a loaded firearm or worse in a critical situation. Make any necessary corrections and practice the corrections.

Whenever conditions permit, practice, unloaded at first, the draw and fire with other weapons (or firecrackers) going off while doing so. At the now defunct Illinois Bureau of Investigation deep cover LEOs were trained to draw and fire while surrounded on four sides with strings of live firecrackers about two feet away from them. They had eye protection but no hearing protection. The results were startling with many experienced officers not even able to hit stationary targets at seven yards with any degree of consistency.

The Armed Civilian as opposed to the Armed LEO

First, lets deal out the uniformed LEO because most private citizens are not going to be in the same situations. The comparison will be based on plain clothes officers and agents.

LEOs have more access to superior training than most private citizens but, as a group, pay far less attention to it, and often don't take advantage of any non mandated training opportunity.

It might come as a surprise to some gun owners, but the majority of LEOs have little interest in firearms and hope they never have a situation where they might need one. To them their career choice is a job, just like any other job and they just want to put in their time, get paid, and go home. Getting involved in serious social situations where guns are drawn and fired is a nightmare to most LEOs, and many go to great lengths to avoid it. The average cop never fires his weapon during his entire career except on the range, and they like it that way.

• Most LEOs tend to be terrible shooters who struggle to pass required proficiency examinations.
• Many LEOs are very careless with their firearms often failing to clean them or check them unless they are attending a mandatory training or qualification event.
• Some actually (in violation of their own agency rules) often work days at a time without being sure where their duty weapon actually exists.

The key protection LEOs have is that they usually travel in groups when serious confrontations are expected, which is a protection rare for the private citizen at a time they encounter a need for firearms. They also have the authority of law which frequently (but not always) helps when they encounter one or two adversaries, and in their self assurance going into a situation.

Notes: I had a very good friend (LEO) who unloaded his duty weapon under instruction at a training range, and spent two months on the job carrying a totally empty sidearm before discovering it was empty. I have know at least a half a dozen FBI agents who were always looking for their sidearms when they thought they were going to need them. I was once in a firefight where I had to loan two LEOs two of my backup weapons because the driver couldn't find his (we found it later under the seat of the car) and the other had forgotten his altogether. I once watched two city police officers discharge 12 rounds between them (six each) in an alley at a rabid raccoon without hitting it. When one of them suggested going for the riot gun, I stepped up, identified myself, and dispatched the terrified raccoon with a single shot from my smallest backup weapon. When certain federal agencies were attempting to train experienced officers on single action semi automatics, the number of "accidental discharges" were legion and  frightening. Unfortunately these stories could go on and on.

The armed citizen on the other hand knows, or should know, that if firearms are discharged, they often will be the only "good guy" in the confrontation. That means only their skills, their training, and their attitude are going to determine which side is going to win. It also means ten times the potential for immediate hassle, possible arrest, and large legal bills the LEO doesn't normally face which can make the citizen hesitate far longer than they should.

The armed citizen cannot afford to not take advantage of all the correct training they can afford and can access. They cannot afford to not give the training their full attentions and follow up with as much practice on their own as they can manage. The problem is often where and how to get the right training and how to judge if the training is actually appropriate for their needs.

Before jumping into a discussion about training, it is primary to understand what the average armed citizen is training for:

1. Encounters, sometimes in the middle of the night, in their own home and on their own property;
2. Sudden and unexpected encounters out in public;
3. Most encounters will take place at less than 21 feet, and often at arms length.

Rarely does the armed citizen know in advance they are about to be attacked or threatened. This is substantially different than most situations that LEOs face, and the tactics must be different.

Armed Citizen Training

Most military or LEO based training has little or no bearing on what the average armed citizen really needs. I am amazed at all the training being offered to concealed carry permit holders that requires scaling walls, constant running, only to shoot at targets 25-50 years away. I am equally amazed at the training gurus who insist you need a black belt in some martial art along with learning how to actually shoot. All of those are certainly valid for the military and for LEOs, but not for the 60 year grandmother or even the 45 year old white collar guy who just wants to protect themselves and perhaps some loved ones.

Do not misunderstand me. For the citizen that really wants to shoot IPSC matches, that is their choice as long as they realize they are learning to play at combat rather than learning to win in the type of firefight they are likely to engage in. At the very least, they will learn how to focus on what they are doing under stress.

Most LEO background instructors are as lousy a choice as most NRA instructors when it comes to instructing armed citizens in what they need to know and what they need to accomplish to protect themselves in the situations they will encounter. Please do not jump to any conclusions. I am a Life Member of the NRA and am an active member. If you do not belong and you own even one firearm you should join. I am also a former LEO firearms instructor. Here are my reasons for my statement:

• Almost every NRA certified instructor I have ever met focuses on safety in every course. That is certainly an important goal because no one wants an accidental shooting during training. The problem is, certain exercises are often avoided because of either increased costs to stage, or because of too much caution, so far too much goes untaught, and some very bad habits can be learned along the way. The very basic courses are very good for those who know little or nothing about the firearms they intend to use and any neophytes should enroll in the basic course and pay attention. Beyond that point, different training is needed and the NRA is not the place to get it.
• Instructors with LEO backgrounds do have some advantages over many NRA instructors, but most LEO instructors developed their expertise training uniformed officers who (see above) rarely are interested in doing any more than passing the training and the range requirements. They are used to training people to semi accurately punch paper targets at far longer distances than any armed citizen is likely to need. They are also used to people carefully drawing a sidearm from a LEO style holster before even thinking about acquiring their target, which is absolutely wrong for an armed citizen suddenly facing a deadly threat.

There have always been exceptions. I would have loved to have access to training by Jim Cirello when he was with FLETC. Massad Ayoob is an exceptional trainer in many areas of importance to armed citizens and a valuable contact if an armed conflict occurs and expert testimony is required. Bill Jordan, now long gone, lacked patience at times, but knew what needed to be known.

Why are some LEO firearms instructors very good at proper instruction and others either not so good or horrible for training non LEOs? Part of the reason is that many, if not most, LEO firearms instructors aren't even very good at training LEOs that work as investigators or agents. Those LEOs working as undercover agents or investigators are especially often undertrained or trained incorrectly.

Those working in undercover assignments, like the armed citizen, generally when confronted with a life or death situation have only themselves to rely on. They, like the armed citizen, are normally carrying handguns only, and they are carrying them concealed. Most of the confrontations are at 15 feet or less, and they may be facing multiple adversaries who caught them more or less by surprise.

Conventional LEO and military training does not contain the right components to prepare either the undercover LEO or the armed citizen very well for these types of encounters, nor does the civilian training that focuses or prepares someone to hit targets accurately at longer distances. Because of safety concerns, almost no military or LEO training spends much if any time having trainees drawing from concealment and firing live ammunition at a target. The ease and speed of the draw is extremely important for both the armed citizen and the lone LEO, and yet it is almost never taught, nor is on your own practice encouraged as much as it should be.

In some ways, this is "shades of the old west", but in many important ways, it is completely different. The fast draws seen in old westerns, and the fast draw competitions that still exist depend largely on specially created guns and highly engineered holsters designed to be carried openly. The special aluminum barrels make the gun itself faster to draw, and the steel lined holsters with just the right pitch and cant make sure the gun can be drawn quickly and that, with operator training and coaching, will naturally force the gun to present itself at the target easier than other, more conventional holsters. Unfortunately, these rigs and guns are totally impractical in real life. These setup are as far from what a uniformed LEO needs as the the uniformed LEO rigs are from what an undercover agent or armed citizen is going to be using to carry concealed.

The painful truth can be easily seen in the firearms retention systems chosen by most armed citizens. The systems often chosen are inadequate and not truly purpose driven. While it is important to choose a system that one can live with and will use - meaning it is comfortable over long periods, it is equally important that that system be both reasonably secure against loss during a struggle and fast to access and draw from. Serious questions must be considered when thinking about "on the body" systems as opposed to "off the body" systems, and whatever system is chosen, that real time and live ammo practice with that system be a regular part of any training. Unfortunately, very little of that type of training is actually done or advocated by most LEO or NRA instructors.

One of the most important factors in selecting a training program is to research the instructors themselves. From my perspective any instructor who hasn't been a part of serious social situations (read gunfight) and hasn't been faced with the need to respond by shooting at another human being in order to survive themselves isn't the right person to be instructing. Those who have been actually shot in a situation also bring real value to training. There is no substitute for real life experience.

Unfortunately, people who have this experience are very shy in today's world to publicize or talk very much about it. Charles Askins who certainly had all the expertise anyone could ask for, was very public about his gunfights in the U.S. Border Patrol was often shunned and even ostracized for his public reputation. At one point he was even asked to his face if he considered himself a "psychopathic killer". Jim Cirello was denied promotions in the New York City Police Department because of his reputation. Other very qualified and experienced people learned from this early, and rarely discussed their actual gunfight experience other than what they might have written prior to learning the lessons of others.

In today's politically correct world, it would be career suicide for a LEO who has been heavily engaged in gun fights to discuss them publicly. Incident reports are heavily edited and even the collective data gathered by various law enforcement organizations are difficult to interpret and often far from complete.

Worse, the known experts are mostly gone now or so old they are no longer active. The new ones with real experience rarely talk about their background in a public setting but they do exist and they are worth seeking out if one is looking for real world training.

The "Best" Revolver Caliber for Self Defense

This is one of those questions that is often answered by single choice or opinion of whoever is tasked or volunteers to answer the question. Unfortunately, as stated, the question is far too lacking in details to give a proper answer. Here are some needed details:

• Who is asking?
• What is their height and weight?
• What is their general physical condition?
• What is their strength level?
• What is their prior level of experience with handguns?

For the 6'2" guy who can bench press his own weight ten times in a row, the answer might be a hot .44 special out of a custom revolver built on a Ruger Speed Six with magnaporting. For the 6' tall guy who quits at 50 pushups a mild .357 magnum out of a K or L frame size revolver might be a better choice. Of course size and weight of the revolver can make some difference in caliber choice.

• Is it going to be carried openly or is concealment a requirement?
• Concealed carry restrains choices;
• Open carry creates new caliber opportunities.

The larger and heavier the gun, the larger the caliber can be in terms of recoil control. The only caveat is the gun cannot be too large or too heavy for the shooter. While the N frame size can easily tame even hot .357 magnums and very hot .44 specials for many people over 5'10" tall and over 175 pounds with reasonable muscle tone, for the 5'2" tall, 105 pound person, that N frame is going to be both too large and too heavily to handle well. That person might be better served with hot .38 specials out of a K frame sized revolver.

The problem for those who desire or must carry concealed on their body, most revolvers are hard to conceal except in winter, or, in the case of men, when they are wearing a suit or sport coat. Granted the size of the individual makes a difference with larger people being more able to conceal larger revolvers than people of lesser height and bulk.

For those persons of slighter build who need to carry concealed, a hot .38 special in something like a Ruger SP 101 Model 5737 might be the best they can do in caliber and still carry concealed in the late Spring, Summer, and early Fall. Experience has shown that J frame sized revolvers, although only slightly smaller and lighter, (Ruger 26 ounces - S&W Model 60 22 ounces) are not the right self defense revolvers for those of slight build because of the strong recoil. The J frame belongs in the hands of experienced shooters who have the physical size and strength to handle that recoil.

The other option for women and some men is an "off body carry" which generally means a purse or briefcase or message bag. While this is not a carry that the true gun fighters favor, it is one often used, especially by women. (See upcoming article on purses and bags for concealed carry.) This does open up real possibilities to carry large revolvers and more potent calibers much the same as open carry.

A brief discussion of concealed carry of single action revolvers is appropriate. Single action revolvers are normally easier to conceal than double action revolvers of the same caliber and barrel length, if the butts are rounded. That might open up the use of .45 Long Colt or the .44 special to some that could not do so with a double action. The problem is, a single action revolver is a terrible choice for self defense for all but a very few highly practiced and highly trained individuals, so it should never be considered by any but those few.

General Conclusions:

1. Select and carry the largest caliber you can control and shoot effectively.
2. The larger and heavier gun you can carry and handle, the larger the caliber you will be able to control and shoot effectively.
3. Revolvers are generally harder to conceal than semi automatics in similar calibers.

For the record, the only revolver caliber I like for self defense purposes is the .44 special. Bear in mind I can control and shoot the caliber effectively even out of my ASP conversion to a 5 shot .44 special from a Ruger  6 shot .357 magnum Speed Six.  My other choice is a Ruger Super Blackhawk Hunter cut to a 5" barrel and Mag na Ported. It is important to realize that is great choice for me, but isn't the best choice for others. 


 

What to Expect From An Attacker

A common theme taught to Officer Candidates in military strategy is, "Know thy Enemy". So too is it wise for people preparing for self defense to know what to expect should they encounter someone planning on doing them great harm.

A good starting place is a fairly recent FBI study report on how the bad guys train, what their tactics are, and the weapons they chose. Among other things, the data reveal that most would-be killers:

• show signs of being armed that even law enforce officers miss;
• have more experience using deadly force in “street combat” than their intended victims;
• practice with firearms more often and shoot more accurately;
• have no hesitation whatsoever about pulling the trigger. "If you hesitate," one told the study’s researchers, "you’re dead. You have the instinct or you don’t. If you don’t, you’re in trouble on the street..."

These and other weapons-related findings comprise one chapter in a 180-page research summary called "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers." The study is the third in a series of long investigations into fatal and nonfatal attacks on POs by the FBI team of Dr. Anthony Pinizzotto, clinical forensic psychologist, and Ed Davis, criminal investigative instructor, both with the Bureau’s Behavioral Science Unit, and Charles Miller III, coordinator of the LEOs Killed and Assaulted program.

When it comes to a choice of weapons, most of the criminal element will use whatever is available to them by purchasing stolen firearms on the street. While semi automatic center fire pistols are preferred, circumstances often arm them with revolvers.

Nearly 40% of the offenders had some type of formal firearms training, primarily from the military. More than 80% "regularly practiced with handguns, averaging 23 practice sessions a year," the study reports, usually in informal settings like trash dumps, rural woods, back yards and "street corners in known drug-trafficking areas."

Over 40% had participated in multiple shooting incidents both as aggressor and victim, with some reporting being involved in shootings as young as the age of 12. A number of interviewees reported being shot as young as the age of 12.

Most criminals carry their firearms stuffed into their front waistband without a holster. A few carry on a tether of some sort hanging around their neck and under their clothing.

60% of the criminals interviewed reported advanced training in "instinctual shooting" (much more practical in a short range gunfight with handguns) which is more advanced than most law enforcement officers ever get as it takes 1000s of rounds and considerable coaching to be skilled in this form of shooting.  The report also contained a startling statistic: 70% of all the criminals reported accomplishing disabling hits on their victims, while law enforcement officers only average around 30-40% accuracy in accomplishing disabling hits. (In some federal agencies, the percentage is often as low as 20%.)

Unlike the average citizen who carries for self protection, or even law enforcement officers, the average criminal has little or no restraint slowing them up from shooting or killing their victim. They hesitate less, if at all, making them faster and often better shooters than their victims.

Stopping Power - What does it really mean?

Anyone thinking of owning or carrying a handgun for self defense should be well informed on the topic of stopping power. Stopping power is the ability of a firearm or other weapon to cause sufficient trauma to an adversary to immediately incapacitate (and thus stop) the target. This contrasts with lethality, in that stopping power pertains only to a weapon's ability to incapacitate quickly, regardless of whether death ultimately occurs.

In fact, the responsible gunowner, not being an assassin, should only be interested in how fast their weapon and ammunition stops their adversary from doing something deleterious to them or anyone they are trying to protect. They don't "shoot to kill", they shoot to stop.

The problem is the internet is filled with forums where people that know little or nothing either just voice their opinion or regurgitate something they have read. That makes it more difficult for the new gunowner, or the sport shooter who develops an interest in self protection to separate the wheat from the chaff. What follows is my take on what is accurate and factual, and what isn't.

There are a very limited number of studies, some ballistic testing by methodology, and a very few live tests on living beings. There are also cumulation studies of law enforcement and military incident reports, some of which are very well done. The ballistic testing is interesting but often flawed because of the way it was conducted. Here is an example:

Most manufacturers of cartridges publish data on the velocity of their ammunition. Many paid gun magazine writers often cross check and report on their findings as well. Unfortunately, the manufacturers almost always test with the longest barrel practical and rarely report the barrel length, making the data almost meaningless. If Winchester reports on their latest and greatest offering in .38 special with data obtained by firing the round through an eight inch barrel, and another manufacturer reports on data for their new .380 offering fired through a four inch barrel, the .38 special is going to look far better than the .380 as a choice for self defense.

The problem arises first when one considers that instead of an eight inch barrel, the reader is planning on a 2 1/2 inch barrel in their revolver, or a three inch barrel in their .380 instead of a four inch barrel.  If the test had been done through the snub nosed revolver instead of an eight inch test barrel, the numbers would be significantly different and the .380 might have yielded superior numbers. This is often why conscientious gun magazine writers often redo tests through actual firearms that in a normal situation might actually be carried.

Another factor that must be considered is the gunowner's ability to actually use the firearm effectively. The recoil and muzzle blast from a J frame style .38 special when stoked with +P+ ammunition is truly terrifying to many gunowners and guaranteed to make their accuracy, techniques and speed less than it needs to be. I have owned several S&W model 36s and 60s in the past when small autos were less reliable and still own a Model 36 which is heavily engraved and gold filled which had never been fired and sits in a glass display case where it belongs.

With all of that said, velocity and ballistic gelatin penetration numbers are just that, numbers, and only a starting point to what is really important which is how many shots will it take to stop the evil doer from doing it to me? What follows are some of the basics.

Whether a person will be incapacitated (i.e. "stopped") when shot, depends on a large number of factors, including physical, physiological, and psychological effects. In considering these in the general, all are of equal importance.

When considering the physical effects on a person shot, much depends on where the bullet enters, passes through, and ends up. A bullet in the brain pan is almost always going to stop the person from continuing, but a torso hit which is where law enforcement officers are trained to aim for, may or may not be a "one shot stopper" depending on the areas damaged.

A heart hit will cause loss of pumping efficiency, loss of blood, and eventual cardiac arrest. A hole through the liver or lung will be similar, with the lung shot having the added effect of reducing blood oxygenation; these effects however are generally slower to arise than damage to the heart. Hitting the spinal cord will instantly interrupt the nerve signals to and from some or all extremities, disabling the target instantly.

Hitting the arm or leg will hit only muscle which causes a great deal of pain but is unlikely to be fatal, unless one of the large blood vessels (femoral or brachial arteries, for example) is also severed in the process, and equally unlikely to stop the person being shot if they are using drugs or drunk, or even just highly motivated to maim or kill you. Despite the old Westerns, trying to shoot someone in the arm or leg is not only a bad idea from the difficulty of marksmanship in a stressful situation point of view, it is also a bad idea when it comes to getting them to cease and desist.

Thus the tales of people being stopped with a single shot with a .22 LR and others surviving multiple chest wounds with a .44 magnum emerge to confuse people. Every experienced survivor of gun fights knows, or should know, that shot placement is just as important as the caliber and configuration of the bullet.

This is not to underplay, the importance of caliber and bullet configuration, because those things are also very important. It is more to point to the inadequacies and limitations of ballistic studies. No knowledgeable expert is going to deny that more penetration or expansion of a bullet is important. The FBI, after a major shootout disaster with epic public relations problems as a result in 1986 finally decided to learn more about calibers and bullet configurations. They conducted a massive study and came to these conclusions:

The FBI investigation placed partial blame for the agents' deaths on the lack of stopping power exhibited by their service handguns. Noting the difficulties of reloading a revolver while under fire, the FBI concluded that agents should be armed with semiautomatic handguns. (The agents were armed with three inch .38 special revolvers and three with S&W Model 459 9mm handguns. They also had, but were unable to deploy several Remington 870 shotguns.) One of the conclusions was that the 9mm was not effective enough, which is interesting because the latest FBI study indicated the 9mm is sufficient with "newer ammunition".

This of course adds to the confusion. Where once the FBI thought the right cartridge was a .45 ACP Federal Hyda Shock 230 grain, today they have backtracked to the 9mm. No wonder people are confused by ballistic studies. It is important to note that the FBI decision was not based on stopping power however. It was based on a number of issues including the ability of the agents to handle a 9mm easier than a .40 or a .45 ACP, and that 9mm offered more rounds without reloading which they considered important because the average agent when engaged in an actual gunfight only hit the target 20-30% of the time.

Better, more extensive, and more realistic training might overcome both of those issues. For you, only you know if you can and will devote the time it takes to master the stress filled situation of a serious social situation and higher caliber handguns. Lets move on to other factors.

Another important factor in stopping power is psychological in nature. Emotional shock, terror, or surprise can cause a person to faint, surrender, or flee when shot or shot at. Emotional fainting is the likely reason for most "one-shot stops", and not an intrinsic effectiveness quality of any firearm or bullet; police incident reports have documented situations where people have instantly dropped unconscious when the bullet only hit an extremity, or even completely missed. People react differently to pain, and for some, the pain accompanying a gun shot wound is enough for them to quit the fight. While not as reliable as true physical incapacitation, psychological reactions further confuse the conclusions of any studies on stopping power.

Here is a piece of information, those making decisions about what guns and what caliber to carry or use for self defense, can depend on. The holy grail of a one shot stop, every time, is a myth, no matter what handgun is being used unless shot placement causes a vital area to be affected. What can and does happen is the odds of stopping someone (usually with multiple connecting shots) go up as the caliber goes up.

Someone considering what gun and caliber to choose should try various firearms of various caliber to find the gun and caliber they feel they can comfortably master and can and will carry. If that is a .380 Seecamp so be it. As once becomes more comfortable with a gun, they might be able to "move up" in caliber to a 9mm, and maybe later yet to a .45 ACP. The really important thing is to be comfortable with the choice so that skills and tactics become the most important part of the training, rather than fighting with the gun or caliber choice.

Here are some thoughts for consideration:

• Elmer Keith preferred a hot .44 special in a .44 magnum revolver for defensive work;
• Jeff Cooper preferred the .45ACP in a 1911 style pistol until he "discovered" and profited from the 10MM Bren Ten;
• Bill Jordan preferred the .357 magnum in a S&W Model 19;
• Skeeter Skelton preferred the .44 special but often carried a .357 magnum;
• Many Navy Seals prefer .45 ACP in a semi automatic and select it on option over the standard military issue 9MM;
• FBI SWAT team members carry the .45 ACP in a semi automatic.

The Ubiquitous .38 Snub Nosed Revolver

If there ever was a handgun more recommended for self defense to beginning shooters, and especially to women that a short barreled, .38 Special, five shot revolver, I have no idea what it would be. Internet blogs and gun magazines alike routinely recommend this as a first (if not last) self defense handgun. The clerks in most big box stores selling firearms are almost universal in this recommendation to women. Most of those giving this advice are well meaning and believe they have sound reasons for their recommendations, but I would contend they are often very wrong. To understand why they make these recommendations lets take a look at the thinking.

1. People giving that advice believe revolvers are inherantly easier to learn to operate and clean, and further, they are safer and more reliable than semi automatic pistols.
2. Recognizing that revolvers are bulkier than semi automatics and more difficult to conceal they gravitate to recommending the smallest revolvers of a caliber they think sufficient, or nearly sufficient for self defense.

Interestingly, I agree with their reasoning, as far as it goes. The problem is that reasoning does not go far enough. Let us deal with each flaw one at a time.

First, the .38 special fired out of a short barrel is a very poor stopper. Even when J. Edgar Hoover ran the FBI they at least were issued .38 specials with 3 inch barrels to improve the stopping power somewhat.

Here is where actual experience is important. I have been shot on three separate occasions with snub nosed .38 special revolvers. On one of those occasions I was hit in the lower torso with three rounds fired by two people. On another I took a single "through and through" hit that impacted a rib and slid along the contour of the rib. On another I took a single round through the side of my jaw that broke my jaw on one side, knocked out two upper teeth on the other side and exited my cheek.

In none of those situations was I immediately stopped, and in two situations I was able to effectively return fire stopping their action. In the other situation I was able to wrest the firearm away from the assailant and render him unconscious long enough for additional help to arrive.

Granted, in all three cases I needed a hospital emergency room and a hospital bed along with a lot of medical help, but in only one case was I incapacitated and not until several minutes after the two shooters had been effectively dealt with and an ambulance was on its way. In short, the chosen ammunition and firearms had failed the shooters miserably in all three situations.

This is one of the reasons I believe that people that have not shot at people or been shot by people should not be giving advice on what calibers to use for self defense. The gun magazine writers who have been there in personal defense or close quarters combat almost unanimously have radically different opinions than those who have not. If I ever am wounded again, which I seriously hope never happens, I would prefer it be a .32 or a .38 out of a short barreled revolver.

Thus, I cannot recommend a snub nosed .38 as a serious defensive weapon. In a four inch or longer barrel it becomes a much more serious weapon, but that sort of defeats the idea of a small concealed weapon.

Second, while revolvers are easier to operate, the most recommended J frame size are difficult for most people to learn to fire accurately and, for many, the recoil near impossible to master.

Moving up in size to a S&W K frame, as in a model 19 or 66 in stainless doesn't really help in the shorter barrel for effectiveness, but has advantages in the four inch or greater barrel stoked with .38s, especially the +P .38s, but that only worsens the issue of size and concealability. It does however correct the recoil problems of the smaller J frame revolvers and their Taurus, Rossi, and Charter Arms clones. A size compromise might be the Ruger SP 101, but it is still too large and too heavy for most people to carry actively and daily concealed.

Note: Some people might wonder why I am discussing revolvers chambered for .357 magnum, but they work very well with .38 specials and they help tame recoil. My only issue is a concealability issue because of increased size, and that the barrel needs to be at least 4 inches in length.

Conclusion:

Physically strong and highly experienced shooters may find some advantages in the small frame short barrel .38 special revolvers. For most people, and especially beginning shooters, it is a horrible choice.

.25 ACP - A Foolish Choice?

When one googles .25 ACP semi autos, many, many forum hits will show up with a question about
What is the best .25 ACP semi automatic pistol?" or "What is the best .25 ACP ammo for self defense?" and invariably the person asking the question will receive numerous responses that fit into one of the following categories:

1. Never every buy or carry a .25 ACP caliber pistol for self-defense;
2. If you must carry a small gun, the .22 LR is a far better choice;
3. Buy this gun or this ammunition because that is what I use.

Other than number 3, none of the responses help the questioner, and any helpful responses are overwhelmed by those, often unqualified, seeking some form of undeserved self-importance by making statements like, "Forget the .25 ACP and buy a (fill in the blank) in (fill in the blank) caliber".

No qualified and experienced expert would ever make any of the above statements because their experiences tell them otherwise. There are numerous reasons why a .25 ACP semi auto handgun deserves serious consideration and anyone experienced in serious social considerations would know it.

A secret that many people don't know is that many of the famous big bore advocates often carried a 25 in addition to their big bore favorites on a routine basis. Like everything else in life, everything depends on many factors.

Here are some real world examples:

My mother, a WAVE during WWII was attached to Naval Intelligence, and was one of only a few women authorized to carry. She qualified, carried and used, a service issued 1911 in .45 ACP in a Navy issued purse, and a couple of Germans could testify to her expertise if they were still alive. She had grown up as the oldest of nine during the Depression. Using a .22 rifle and a 410 shotgun it was her job to put meat on the table so she was firearms experienced prior to enlisting in the WAVES.

When the war was over and she had returned home, she had a .44 revolver, a side by side 12 gauge, and an M-1 Carbine for protection of our farm, our livestock, and family when my father wasn't around. In the years I was growing up I watched while she ran off/or stopped a variety of people intent on stealing livestock or other farm items and once, four guys intent on robbery and whatever else they had on their mind. She was my first shooting instructor.

Move forward many years, and age had caught up with her. Much more frail, her gun of choice was a Beretta 950 (.25 ACP) because she could no longer rack a slide, nor withstand the recoil of other firearms. She could still shoot accurately but the circumstances of her advanced age, made her choice of firearms the best she could dependably handle. It was the right choice for her.

I once used a .25 ACP on a bear that was intent on climbing the same tree I had climbed seconds before. I freely admit I would have been much happier with a much larger gun, but it was all I had available to me at the time. In all candor, I emptied that gun into the bear's mouth and eyes and while that caused him to desist by falling out of the tree blind, it didn't kill him. The Rangers took care of that 4 hours later. How all of that came to be is a long story, but the .25 did the job of least stopping the bear from his mission of possibly making a meal of me.

One should also consider that the LW Seecamp Company kept their business afloat for many years with the manufacture of a very high quality and expensive .25 ACP semi automatic pistol that was sold primarily to active law enforcement officers. The important fact is thousands of them were made and sold primarily to LEOs who had experience in serious social situations. At one time, almost every member of the POTUS detail of the Secret Service had ordered and paid for a .25ACP Seecamp with their own money as a backup to their issued primary weapons. Obviously, many experienced law enforcement professionals find a value in 25 caliber firearms.

A number of law enforcement operators engaged in deep cover work have carried .25 automatics in groin holsters that can be accessed through an unzipped fly as their primary weapon, and in two cases with different officers in New York City, both officers credited their .25 automatics with saving their respective lives. I am also aware of law enforcement officers being relieved of their primary weapon in a serious social situation who ended up responding to the threat successfully with their back up .25 ACP weapon.

When I was engaged in soft cover law enforcement I carried a Colt Commander LW in .45 ACP as my primary weapon, a baby Browning as my 2nd weapon, and a tiny and no longer manufactured .22 short revolver as my 3d weapon (which I have replaced with a North American Arms in .22 short).

Obviously there are circumstances in which these small guns are the only answer. That can be because of age and a frail body, it can be because the clothing or lack thereof makes other guns difficult to conceal, or as a 2nd or 3d backup weapon. It can also be because it was the only gun you had with you at the time.

Anyone considering carrying or utilizing a .25ACP for defensive purposes, needs to understand the limitations of the caliber. They should abandon any thoughts of a "one shot stop" because experience has taught us the chances of that happening are minimal with these smaller calibers.

Consequently, there is a very real need for constant practice to both improve shot placement, and to develop successful strategies for their effective use. 21 feet is a long shot when aiming at the brain pan which is the only place anyone should be practicing at hitting. 10 feet is far more practical, and actual contact with the head is even better.

Choice of ammunition is even more critical than normal. Because of the limited selection of choice, the only round I can recommend in this caliber is Winchester Silvertips with the small ball in the hollow point. If at all possible, use that same ammo for most practice as well.

One Last Thing

If one visits one of the many online forums with questions about .25 caliber, one is almost invariably going to hear the specious argument advising the purchase of a small semi automatic in .22LR caliber citing the vastly superior velocity and penetration. Numbers will often be cited "proving" their arguement. The first problem is their numbers are not a proper comparison, because the .22LR numbers are usually from a handgun with a longer barrel than these small automatics possess, while the .25 ACP numbers are from the actual, and much shorter barrel. Actual tests on the short barrel semi automatics in .22LR often show virtually equal numbers with a lot more recoil and muzzle flash.

The other problem is every small semi automatic pistol chambered for .22LR malfunctions on a regular basis because of issues with the length of the case in relation to the size of the gun and the very fact they are rimfire rather than centerfire which makes them inherantly less reliable . Quality .25 ACPs are very reliable and I can recall only one malfunction out of 1000s of rounds and that was actually caused by operator error.

Brands I would bet my life on:

1. Browning
2. Beretta
3. Seecamp