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

Are You Willing to Seriously Injure or Kill Someone to Protect Yourself?

This is the fundamental question that anyone considering purchasing a firearm or other weapon for the purpose of self defense of themselves or others needs to ask themselves first and before making any other decisions. It makes no sense to invest any time or money in buying a firearm or firearms for self defense or investing in any training if the answer to that question isn't an unqualified "Yes". "Maybe" doesn't cut it any more than a "No"does.

Many readers may think Yes but have doubts. That is O.K. because it is a starting point. It is probably a better, and more honest, answer than some positive answer not carefully considered. The truth is most people who have never faced a "Condition Red" situation as Jeff Cooper used to express it, don't really know for sure how they will react.

I've been there twice when burly macho law enforcement officers with all the proper training encounter their first deadly encounter and freeze, maybe only living through the encounter because someone else there didn't hesitate. In many ways this is different only in intensity and threat from the first time hunter who can't actually shoot the game he/she was after. Of course a deer can't shoot back, so the consequences are mostly embarrassment and maybe hunger if the game was important to the next meal. The statistics that came out of Vietnam regarding infantry failures to engage their weapons with the intent to kill or maim the enemy are startling.  (It is estimated that 20-25% of all infantrymen failed to deliberately aim and fire on the enemy even as their comrades were doing so.)

The desire not to seriously injure or kill another human being is natural and socially desirable and the truth is almost no one can predict with 100% accuracy how they will react the first time it is necessary to do so. Gender and age influence the decision as does any feelings about the aggressor that needs to be dealt with.

Before anyone makes gender assumptions that are erroneous, women are more likely to shoot to protect themselves or others than men when considered as a statistical group.  The men that think:

• Most women are too frightened to even shoot a gun;
• If a woman is going to have a handgun it should be a snub nose .38 J frame revolver with pink grips;
• If a woman is going to have her own shotgun a 28 gauge is the right choice;
• Women will never hunt or shoot sporting clays or competitive events let alone shoot another human being other than their husband.

are just plain over generalizing. No two women are alike on anything and there are many women who break all of those stereotypes, including the 5'2", 105 pound woman I am most familiar with. She shoots trap with a 12 gauge Syren shotgun and carries both a baby Beretta .25 ACP as a backup in a home designed and sewed groin holster and a Boberg XR9 - 9MM in a Hobo or other brand purse designed for quick retrieval.  Yes she can sew, but she can and will shoot when the situation dictates. So too, will a number of her female friends.

With all of that said, there are some women, just as there are men who will have trouble with acquire and fire even when their own life is on the line. Most sane humans, if given the choice, will not kill their fellow man and are extremely reluctant to do so, despite what movies and television depict.

It is worth trying to understand what makes the difference. Not everyone who fails to follow through is a coward, and not everyone who follows through without pause is a sociopath as Charles Askins was often erroneously accused of being. He was just well prepared both mentally and physically to win the hundreds of real life gunfights he engaged in.

The way we feel about our adversaries makes a difference. Those who view a criminal adversary as a victim of their upbringing, or as a mother or father, or husband or wife are going to have a problem. Those who only see a dangerous being trying to hurt or kill them will have far less trouble doing what should be done. It is important to understand that one can train themselves in changing how they view others who are threatening their life and or well being. To be ready to use a firearm in a life threatening situation requires creating a series of distances between you and the adversary.

• Create an emotional distance which means viewing the adversary as lesser in value than oneself.
• Create a moral distance by recognizing that your adversary was morally wrong in creating a situation in which one of you is going to win, and the other one is going to lose.
• Create a social distance between yourself and your adversary by understanding that you have a greater value to society than they do. Not only can you lose, but so to can your family and society as a whole.

Some reading this may decide it is easier to try to flee. Remember that every predator instinct human beings have is to aggressively attack anything that flees. Normally fleeing evokes even stronger responses than originally held. This has been proven over and over in military combat with the statistics of soldiers who held fire when the enemy was advancing, but fired in frenzy when the enemy turned tail and ran.

If a prospective or current gun owner cannot convince themselves they would fire on another human being, they should abandon the idea of owning firearms for self protection. If they own firearms intended for self defense they should sell them, because the most dangerous firearms are the ones the legitimate gun owner has that can be turned against them by others who lack the same reluctance.  

Why This Blog?

Anyone who has internet access has a cornucopia of firearms related forums to visit for information as well as the magazine based articles on the internet, plus a few gurus hawking their books and/or coursework. Knowing that evokes the question, "Who needs another source, especially in the form of a blog"?

The problem with much of the information floating around on the internet is that much of it is either inaccurate or incomplete. Many of the firearms forums are populated with self-appointed experts who love to be 'helpful" because it is an ego boost for them to see their screen names in print. Unfortunately, most of the posters have little or no real world experience on what they write about and much of what they post is simply regurgitated material they have read elsewhere. I once read a series of posts from a poster on what is the best handgun for self-defense who turned out to be 19 years old and who had owned a changing series of handguns in the two years he had been shooting.

I believe that people should not be posting as knowledgeable, let alone expert, specific advice unless they have actual real world experience sufficient to allow them acquire knowledge and expertise. 

To do so is doing a disservice to those seeking knowledge, and that is especially true when it comes to self defense with a weapon. Thus, I will never write about swords, because all I know is that they are both dangerous and deadly when they are well made and handled by an expert. I also don't consider the one fencing class I took years ago in college to qualify me as an expert even if I did get an A for the semester. Bouncing around with a face shield, and a canvas tunic using foils with button tips would not qualify me to enter into potentially deadly combat nor to advise someone on the subject. Anyone who has not been involved in real life combat situations where they have shot at another human being, or been shot at or even wounded, should seriously consider what qualifications they have as an expert on this type of self defense. I'll go even further. If a writer was in the military and never saw combat, their qualifications are not sufficient. The grunt whose whole experience revolved around squad combat with M-16s and related weapons is qualified on certain subjects but not others, especially those relating to the use of handguns one on one in a non military setting.

When it comes to writers for gun magazines, the whole angst changes. Most of the gun writers of the past were in fact highly experienced and very knowledgeable people. Jack O' Connor was unquestionably one of the leading hunting experts in the world and Outdoor Life knew it. Bill Jordan, who authored many books (many of which I own) wrote for Guns N Ammo but had a long career in the Marines and as a member of the US Border Patrol. He saw plenty of combat in WW II and Korea, and plenty of action situations in his 30 years in the Border Patrol. Charles Askins also served in the Border Patrol as well as the US Army. According to him, he was in at least one gunfight for every week he was with the Border Patrol and was officially credited with 27 kills. The actual count is widely believe to be much higher that the official tally. He knew what he was talking about. Skeeter Skelton, a prolific writer for Shooting Times, was a Marine Corp veteran, and also a veteran of the Border Patrol, the DEA, and sheriff of a county in Texas. These were all experts whose comments you could trust because they knew what they wrote. George Nonte who wrote numerous books and for both Guns n Ammo and Shooting Times had a more shadowed background with constant rumors of contract work with the FBI and CIA, was one of the best technical experts on handguns, especially handguns designed for combat or self defense work of the 20th Century, and a personal friend until his death in 1978.

Here is the problem with gun magazines and writers both then and now. Gun writers need to make a living just like most of the population. To do that, they need to write books that people buy. To get people to buy their books, they need the publicity that comes from writing for gun magazines. They need the financial help that comes from good relationships with the gun manufacturers and the ammunition manufacturers because evaluating and reviewing guns is expensive if they actually have to buy rather than try. The magazines they hope will publish their articles make their living selling advertising to the various manufacturers. As a consequence, their articles must make the products they are reviewing look as good as they can either by omission or by careful wordsmithing.

If a writer was supplied with a 4" barrel Ruger Security Six to review, he might have concluded that it was a well build and very substantial revolver offering a "practically accurate" choice that was both inexpensive and worry free piece especially in .357 Magnum. All of that would have been true, but it would have left many important considerations out of the conclusions. ( I know, since I wrote that article for a gun magazine I will not name years ago.) What was left out were how hard it was to rapidly acquire a site picture given the tiny sights, or how awful the trigger pull was, or the horrible recoil from that small gun and the lousy factory grips when shooting Super Vel .357 Magnums through it.

Gun writers, in print or online must write carefully if they expect to be welcome at the table. Now experienced gun owners and shooters can often read the code and between the lines, but the new gun owner usually cannot. So, even if the gun writer is a real expert, even their material must be taken with some consideration.

The point to this blog is to offer an alternative to those other sources that is free of manufacturer considerations and is actually authoritative and accurate in nature. Not every piece will be a gun review, but will range on a variety of topics related to the use of firearms in a number of situations. Never will I write that only crazy people would own or cary a small semi auto chambered for .25 ACP, or that the 1911 style .45 ACP is the only handgun one needs. Instead, I will try to explain when and how a baby Browning in .25 ACP is the right choice, and when and how a 1911 style .45 ACP is the right choice for certain people and not for others.

I will also write about rifles and shotguns and the differences between self-training and attending group training classes, and how to choose the right training from the right instructors. I hope you as the readers enjoy and learn from this blog. Your responses and your traffic will either prove the need for this blog or not.