Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
February 23rd, Newsletter Article
POLYMER STRIKER-FIRED COMBAT PISTOLS
Model 1911s feel great, can be made superbly accurate, and have a proud and strong heritage.
Other steel-framed guns have been produced that fulfill a need for a great variety of applications.
But polymer, striker-fired, semi-automatics have moved in to be serious contenders in providing the market with tough, reliable, dependable, and accurate combat weapons.
Move Over 1911
Glock has replaced, in many ways, the 1911 as a standard for the modern combat handgun. And now, along with Glock, Sprinfield's XD Series, and Smith & Wesson's M&P series, there are three offerings that the market can depend on for providing serious combat handguns.
There are other polymer-framed striker fired semi-autos that arguably may fit in with this group. But these three are accepted as being predictably effective firearms.
The Best Gun?
One of the questions that you and I are asked by friends and acquaintances, is, "What's the best gun for (fill in the blank)? Most of us are used to answering, "Well that depends"...(and go about determining purpose and physical needs).
While purpose and physical needs are still important criteria, most people are looking for guns to be used for self-defense.
Subsequently, for many of us, the answer may come much more easily. We can pretty much answer, a Glock, Springfield XD, or S&W M&P, and feel fairly secure in our answer. The best, as has been determined by most Law Enforcement agencies, and most gun professionals, winds up being, one of those three.
It's that easy.
But Why?
1. Reliability - These guns have been the subject of more torture tests...it's almost like television guns shows and you-tubers are on a quest to see what else they can do to one (or all) of these three guns. They have been buried in mud, frozen in ice blocks, dropped off of buildings and out of vehicles, run over by trucks, shot with other guns, and even blown up to test the limit of their reliability. Theses guys do much more to their "test" guns than we will ever do to ours, and in most cases, the guns hold up remarkably well.
2. Feed-ability - Like Glock, the XD, and the M&P, seem to chew up all kinds of ammo. Before, semi-autos usually only performed well with a particular type of ammo. But these new guns take just about everything. This puts most self-defense and combat ammo within the reach of us. If we want to use a particular type of ammo, it'll probably run in these guns.
3. Accurate - Out of the box, these combat guns are not necessarily ready for long-range target shooting. But for combat accuracy, or being able to hit, at the ranges in which we will most likely encounter trouble, all of these gun are spot on. They get the job done. And that's what most of us want.
4. Controllable - Even though the sub-compacts can bite a bit into the web of the hand under recoil, it normally is not as bad as many .380s, 9mms, and .38s. It is believed that the frame, being polymer, actually compresses upon firing, and acts a bit like a shock absorber, taming the recoil somewhat. Getting subsequent shots on target is usually fairly easy with these guns.
5. Affordability - At under $800 for most of these, they are in the range of the middle-class. We don't have to spend $3000 to get a gun that does all of these things.
Adding to these five qualities, these guns in their most recent iterations, come with different-sized backstrap inserts. That means we can customize the "fit" of the gun, within three options, to our hands.
Other Opinions
Handguns Magazine has this article comparing the three (and the H&K SP2000).
Jeff Quinn has a great website in which he yaks about all things guns. He provides a practical, and I believe, an objective view of the guns he reviews. Below he reviews:
S&W M&P
Glock
Springfield
Clint Smith has been a Springfield XD supporter for a long time. When Springfield began offering a thumb safety on select models you couldn't keep him from sounding off.
Summary
It is my, any many other's, opinion that you really can't go wrong with one of these guns. They work very well for most of us.
Finally...an easier answer to which gun is best!
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
February 9, 2012 Newsletter Article
THE IMPORTANCE OF TRAINING
Most gun owners don't seek out training.
They assume they will rise to the occasion.
Unfortunately, that is rarely what happens.
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman writes on his extensive research on how people respond to a violent confrontation in his book On Combat. Below is an excerpt.
One police officer gave another example of learning to do the wrong thing. He took it upon himself to practice disarming an attacker. At every opportunity, he would have his wife, a friend or a partner hold a pistol on him so he could practice snatching it away. He would snatch the gun, hand it back and repeat several more times. One day he and his partner responded to an unwanted man in a convenience store. He went down one isle, while his partner went down another. At the end of the first aisle, he was taken by surprise when the suspect stepped around the corner and pointed a revolver at him. In the blink of an eye, the officer snatched the gun away, shocking the gunman with his speed and finesse. No doubt this criminal was surprised and confused even more when the officer handed the gun right back to him, just as he had practiced hundreds of times before. Fortunately for this officer, his partner came around the corner and shot the subject.
Whatever is drilled in during training comes out the other end in combat. In one West Coast city, officers training in defensive tactics used to practice an exercise in such a manner that it could have eventually been disastrous in a real life-and-death situation. The trainee playing the arresting officer would simulate a gun by pointing his finger at the trainee playing the suspect, and give him verbal commands to turn around, place his hands on top of his head, and so on. This came to a screeching halt when officers began reporting to the training unit that they had pointed with their fingers in real arrest situations. They must have pantomimed their firearms with convincing authority because every suspect had obeyed their commands. Not wanting to push their luck, the training unit immediately ceased having officers simulate weapons with their fingers and ordered red-handled dummy guns to be used in training.
Consider a shooting exercise introduced by the FBI and taught in police agencies for years. Officers were drilled on the firing range to draw, fire two shots, and then reholster. While it was considered good training, it was subsequently discovered in real shootings that officers were firing two shots and reholstering--even when the bad guy was still standing and presenting a deadly threat! Not surprisingly, this caused not just a few officers to panic and, in at least one case, it is believed to have resulted in an officer's death. Today, in most police agencies, officers are taught to draw, fire, scan and assess. Ideally, the warrior should train to shoot until the deadly threat goes away, so it is best to fire at targets that fall after they have been hit with a variable number of shots. Today, there are pneumatically controlled steel targets on which photo realistic images are attached. The shooter might fire two rounds and the target falls, or the exercise can be designed so the target is supposedly wearing body armor and remains standing even after it is shot multiple times. To knock it down, the shooter must hit it in the head. Even better, in paintball or paint bullet training, the role players are instructed not to fall until they have been hit a specific number of times. You do not rise to the occasion in combat, you sink to the level of your training. Do not expect the combat fairy to come bonk you with the combat wand and suddenly make you capable of doing things that you never rehearsed before. It will not happen.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
January 26, 2012 Newsletter
Another Run at Open Carry in Oklahoma
This 2012 Legislative Session
Oklahoma State Senator Steve Russell has again introduced Open Carry Legislation
SB 1092
(a summary)
A. Allows the carrying of loaded or unloaded, shotguns rifles and pistols, open and not concealed without an SDA (concealed carry) license.
1. When hunting animals and fowl.
2. During competition, a class, or sporting event.
3. During participation or preparing for a military function.
4. During participation or preparing for a police function.
5. During practice or performance
6. When:
a. Issued a document from a certified instructor.
(Certification as NRA or Oklahoma SDA instructor). The document attests that:
1. "the undersigned has been instructed and understands the open carry laws of Oklahoma."
2. "the undersigned has been instructed ans understands the safe use and handling of firearms."
(NOTE: This may leave it up to the instructor to determine what standards are to be met for a person to merit a document from him.)
b. The firearm is carried in a holster that is wholly or partially visible or in a scabbard or case designed for carry firearms, and the person is 21 years of age or older.
7. For any legitimate purpose not in violation of Oklahoma Law.
B. A person shall be permitted to carry unloaded shotguns, rifles and pistols, open and not concealed and without a handgun license as authorized by the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act pursuant to the following conditions:
1. When going to or from the person's private residence or vehicle or a vehicle in which the person is riding as a passenger to a place designated or authorized for firearms repairs or reconditioning, or for firearms trade, sale, or barter, or gunsmith, or hunting animals or fowl, or hunter safety course, or target shooting, or skeet or trap shooting or any recognized firearms activity or event and while in such places; or
2. For any legitimate purpose not in violation of the Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971.
C. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit educational or recreational activities, exhibitions, displays or shows involving the use or display of rifles, shotguns or pistols or other weapons if the activity is approved by the property owner and sponsor of the activity.
(If passed and signed into law, this would become effective on November 1, 2012.)
***********************************************************
MY NOTES
1. I saw nothing to indicate a caliber restriction
2. The holster description only says that it must be designed for carrying firearms. To me, it seems one could argue that a fanny-pack holster, or other side-mount, full coverage holster may meet that definition, as long as the holster is wholly or partially visible.
3. Carrying full-sized handguns will not be a big of an issue.
***********************************************************
Download a .pdf copy of the proposed legislation here. Click on "Versions" and then "Introduced".
Monday, January 2, 2012
Newsletter Article, January 9, 2012
As you likely know, I am not an attorney and have had no education in law.
If you need clarification on any of this information, seek out a qualified attorney for a legal opinion.
Any of my personal opinions below will be parenthesized, italicized, and in a different color or shade.
OKLAHOMA STATUTES
TITLE 21 § 1289.25 -
PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes or places of business.
B. A person or a owner, manager or employee of a business is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or a place of business, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business; and
(From what I understand, entry into my place of business, dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, without my permission, constitutes "unlawful entry")
(It's also my understanding that in Oklahoma, breaking the plane of entry into my place of business, dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, is considered "forcible entry". So if I had my doors open, with flies flying in and out of the house, and someone walked in, that could be considered "forcible entry". )
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(It seems to me, that #2, above, indicates that I don't need to have to actually see them unlawfully, and forcibly, entering. I just have to have a reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry had occurred. What do you think?)
C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business to further an unlawful activity.
(So, the way I see it (per # 3 above), if I'm cooking meth in my kitchen, or selling stolen car parts, or engaged in any other unlawful activity in my dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business, I can't use this law. It doesn't apply to me.)
D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(To me, the above section "D." is where the statute addresses folks who may have to use deadly force and may have a concealed carry license. I notice two things right away:
1. I can't be engaged in an unlawful activity
2. I have to have a right to be there. So even if I'm a licensed CCW holder, carrying in a business which has a "No Concealed Guns" sign, of some sort, means...I am engaged in an unlawful activity and this statute wont necessarily protect me.
One thing that bothers me on this paragraph is where it says the part about "meeting force with force, including deadly force...to prevent the commission of a forcible felony". I am careful about interpreting this too widely. Using deadly force when it is not reasonable or necessary, such as a property crime, might set me up for a bad day in court!
One other thing:
It seems that "D" may apply to someone without a concealed carry license who has to use deadly force to protect themselves or another. But...they can't be involved in an unlawful activity, so they can't be carrying unlawfully. The deadly force instrument must be lawful.
What other instrument may constitute lawful deadly force? I don't know...maybe an improvised deadly force instrument, such as: The bad guy's gun or weapon, or a stick or rock which is laying around and available.)
E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle of another person, or a place of business is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(My impression of "E." is... the law "presumes" that a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters a dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business, is there to commit a crime. Not just any crime, but a crime involving force or violence.
If there were an attorney handy I might ask, "If the law presumes such a thing, doesn't it mean that I can presume that as well?" It seems that way to me. If so, I think this tells me I have the legal right to come to the conclusion that the intruder is there illegally and intending to use force or violence.)
F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.
("Immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force". I'm thinking here that if I meet the presumptions in "B" and "D" I can't be charged with a crime and the law won't allow a successful civil suit being adjudicated against me.
You and I know, just about anybody can sue just about anyone else for just about anything. It's my understanding that if this happens, and it is found that I meet the presumptions in "B" and "D", I can't be found "guilty",
And... (according to "H", below) if such a thing should happen, the folks who brought the suit against me can be made to pay my attorney fees and any reasonable expenses incurred in my defense! Yippee!)
G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.
I. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.
(When I read this, I think they are saying to me, that I don't necessarily need a concealed carry license to use deadly force. I believe they are saying that this statutes regulates the "use" of deadly force, not the carrying of concealed handguns.)
J. As used in this section:
1. "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people;
2. "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest; and
3. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
(If a "dwelling" is not necessarily a "residence" that means it can be other things. In particular, it seems to me, it is a building or conveyance of any kind. A building of any kind describes all buildings, does it not? So, it seems to me that that a dwelling is any building that is designed to be occupied by people. It is not a residence because residence is defined differently.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
