This site is no longer supported, as all posts, and all new posts since Feb 2016, have been moved to a location internal to our website. Please visit
McKinney Firearms Training Blog
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Monday, February 1, 2016
Dry-firing for muzzle control
Some difficulty encountered by a student recently reminded me how easy it is to overlook the simple things. Dry-firing is one of those (NOTE: do not do this on a rimfire [.22] firearm unless the manufacturer approves it).
Dry-firing is simply
After firing, cock or rack as necessary, and repeat. There are four important tricks to help you do this with no movement:
Do this exercise 10 times, rest for a minute, and another 10 times, every day for 30 days. You will be amazed with the results.
Dry-firing is simply
- Verifying the gun is unloaded
- Putting it in condition to fire (cocking or racking)
- With the proper stance and grip, aiming at a spot on the wall, and squeezing the trigger
After firing, cock or rack as necessary, and repeat. There are four important tricks to help you do this with no movement:
- Identify the amount of take-up (slack) in your trigger; pull back to that point of resistance before starting the mental process of the trigger squeeze, otherwise you will hit a bump.
- Take enough time in the trigger squeeze. For new shooters, there should be at least 1 1/2 seconds between start of pressure and break. It should be gradual and deliberate.
- Consider which part of your finger in pulling the trigger. If it is either the pad or the joint, you may be exerting lateral force on the trigger that causes the gun to move. Find that spot in the middle where those lateral forces cancel out.
- After the break, continue pulling until the trigger touches the frame.
Do this exercise 10 times, rest for a minute, and another 10 times, every day for 30 days. You will be amazed with the results.
Monday, November 16, 2015
Why carry a gun?
There is a long, winding forested area in Dallas called the "Katy Trail", popular with hikers and joggers. Recently, there have been several armed robberies of joggers there, so a number of people (with the appropriate licenses) have started carrying handguns on the trail. Since open carry will be legal in Texas in about 6 weeks, some guns rights activists have started walking the trail with rifles (which is legal now), to promote to people that having a visible handgun will make it very unlikely that a robber will even approach you.
In relation to this story, a TV news crew interviewed a woman on the trail. Her reaction was,
"Why would you carry a gun? What are you so afraid of, that you have to carry a gun with you?"
She was both perplexed, and clueless. People don't carry a gun because they are afraid, but because they are responsible. Times have changed; it is not 1950 anymore, when this proposal would have been absurdly paranoid. In these times, everyone who is legally allowed, physically capable, and psychologically prepared, should carry a gun everywhere it is allowed. Both government and the private sector should git rid of "gun free zones", as there is no substantive evidence that trained and licensed carriers are a danger to the public.
Consider it as insurance. I have had fire insurance for over 30 years, but have never had a fire. Most people will never have a house fire, but they have insurance (even when not required), because, if the unthinkable happens, the personal cost is unimaginable and catastrophic. I have also never been a victim of a violent crime, but I owe it to myself and to my family to have a "Plan B" in that event. I am not going to be herded into a back room and shot like a dog.
Recent events in Paris should put a fine point on this issue.
In relation to this story, a TV news crew interviewed a woman on the trail. Her reaction was,
"Why would you carry a gun? What are you so afraid of, that you have to carry a gun with you?"
She was both perplexed, and clueless. People don't carry a gun because they are afraid, but because they are responsible. Times have changed; it is not 1950 anymore, when this proposal would have been absurdly paranoid. In these times, everyone who is legally allowed, physically capable, and psychologically prepared, should carry a gun everywhere it is allowed. Both government and the private sector should git rid of "gun free zones", as there is no substantive evidence that trained and licensed carriers are a danger to the public.
Consider it as insurance. I have had fire insurance for over 30 years, but have never had a fire. Most people will never have a house fire, but they have insurance (even when not required), because, if the unthinkable happens, the personal cost is unimaginable and catastrophic. I have also never been a victim of a violent crime, but I owe it to myself and to my family to have a "Plan B" in that event. I am not going to be herded into a back room and shot like a dog.
Recent events in Paris should put a fine point on this issue.
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Small Guns vs Large Guns
I am constantly getting in debates with people about, or reading forum postings about, "This gun is better than that gun, or more accurate", etc. It is the same as Ford vs Chevy trucks, iPhone vs Android, and all those other things. At least, most of those debates are comparing apples to apples (skip the iPhone reference). If you compare a Ford truck to a Smart car on the basis of cargo room, now you're getting delusional.
So it is with handguns. Some are purposely made small enough to conceal (hereinafter called "small guns"), while others ("large guns") are made with no such intention. Large guns include 1911s, "duty guns", 6-inch revolvers, and other such guns. Small guns include most .380s, a plethora of small 9mms (S&W Shield, Kel-Tec pf9), and even some small .40 and .45 pistols (S&W, Kimber). Since concealed carry guns are a booming market, there are more and more of these on the market. While some are more expensive or higher quality than others, they all share one common characteristic: they are small!
Which brings us back to the debate. Comparing small guns to large guns is not apples to apples. The purpose is different, so the process of shooting them is different. Small guns are not inherently less accurate than large guns, but the shorter sight-radius makes it more difficult for the shooter to be accurate. Small guns often have harder triggers to work (or a longer pull), not as a flaw, but as a safety feature. They have less capacity (are you going to try to conceal a gun with an 18-round magazine?). Small guns are less fun to shoot. If you don't believe that, try shooting .357 Magnum from a snub-nosed revolver.
Larger guns, like 1911s and duty guns, are great for target shooting and combat. They balance recoil nicely, often have finely tuned triggers, and are very accurate at 25 yards or more. They are fun and rewarding to shoot. Small guns have little role in that world; they are for one purpose only: to save your life in that crisis that may never come.
In a crisis shooting event, the FBI has found that police officers only hit their target 25% of the time, due to stress, adrenaline, and blood pressure changes. If you chose your concealed carry gun because you could hear the click of the trigger reset, think again. If you did not buy a certain gun because the trigger felt gritty, think again. None of those things will matter. Here's what matters:
So it is with handguns. Some are purposely made small enough to conceal (hereinafter called "small guns"), while others ("large guns") are made with no such intention. Large guns include 1911s, "duty guns", 6-inch revolvers, and other such guns. Small guns include most .380s, a plethora of small 9mms (S&W Shield, Kel-Tec pf9), and even some small .40 and .45 pistols (S&W, Kimber). Since concealed carry guns are a booming market, there are more and more of these on the market. While some are more expensive or higher quality than others, they all share one common characteristic: they are small!
Which brings us back to the debate. Comparing small guns to large guns is not apples to apples. The purpose is different, so the process of shooting them is different. Small guns are not inherently less accurate than large guns, but the shorter sight-radius makes it more difficult for the shooter to be accurate. Small guns often have harder triggers to work (or a longer pull), not as a flaw, but as a safety feature. They have less capacity (are you going to try to conceal a gun with an 18-round magazine?). Small guns are less fun to shoot. If you don't believe that, try shooting .357 Magnum from a snub-nosed revolver.
Larger guns, like 1911s and duty guns, are great for target shooting and combat. They balance recoil nicely, often have finely tuned triggers, and are very accurate at 25 yards or more. They are fun and rewarding to shoot. Small guns have little role in that world; they are for one purpose only: to save your life in that crisis that may never come.
In a crisis shooting event, the FBI has found that police officers only hit their target 25% of the time, due to stress, adrenaline, and blood pressure changes. If you chose your concealed carry gun because you could hear the click of the trigger reset, think again. If you did not buy a certain gun because the trigger felt gritty, think again. None of those things will matter. Here's what matters:
- you can conceal it
- you feel it is safe to carry it with a round in the chamber
- it will cycle and fire every single time (good brand)
Thursday, October 8, 2015
.22 Pistols
Today let's talk about the lowly .22 pistol. I say "lowly" only because no one considers this a suitable caliber for self-defense. However, don't forget the first rule of gunfights, attributed to Col Jeff Cooper: bring a gun. A .22 is always better than nothing, but just barely. Yes, a .22 will kill a person, but usually only if you hit them in the head, neck, or femoral artery. Hitting other places may do the job, but not quickly enough to save your life. That said, if the pistol holds 10-15 rounds, I would be willing to stipulate that 8 or more fast shots on center mass is very likely to change the dynamic in the case of a home invasion, with only one or two assailants.
However, if a .22 pistol is small enough to carry concealed, it won't have enough ammo to help you much, and accuracy will be difficult (see Rule 1). If all you can carry is a pocket gun, then get a .380. Many people also consider the .380 to not have enough stopping power, but it is almost as powerful as a 9mm, and will clearly stop an attack if you have good shot placement, especially if loaded with +P ammo. Yes, I know +P can wear out a .380 over time, but it won't hurt to use it for self-defense; just don't practice much with it.
So, for this discussion we've mostly eliminated the .22 from concealed carry (see Rule 1). That leaves us with bigger guns, which are mostly target pistols. Competition target shooters will often spend big bucks on these, over $1000 for models from Walther, Hammerli, or Smith & Wesson, but there are some very nice models available for $300-500. Two of the best known are the High Standard Sport King and the Browning Buck Mark, but I am going to write about two that I own: the Ruger Mark III 22/45, and the Colt 1911 (22). Both are fairly heavy, have large capacity, and have long barrels; accuracy is quite good, and recoil almost non-existent. Keep in mind that the kind of accuracy inherent with guns like these means hitting a 4 inch circle at 25 yards; even a fairly new shooter could hit a person 10 times in a row at 7 yards.
Ruger Mark III 22/45
This is the newest version of a gun first produced in 1949, that popularized the .22 pistol. The standard Mark III has a 60 degree grip angle, like a Luger, while the 22/45 version has a 75 degree grip angle, like a 1911. They come with a fully adjustable rear sight, and threaded mounting holes for a rail (also included) for mounting a scope or red dot. There are also many available accessories, like fiber optic front sights, competition triggers, springs, grips, etc. You must get a speed-loader for it, as the magazines are difficult to load by hand. Cleaning the gun is also difficult, as the break down process is complicated and frustrating. Still, this is one of the most accurate and popular guns on the market, in its class.
Colt 1911
This is not actually made by Colt, but by Walther in Germany, under license to Colt. It is, however, absolutely identical to a Colt .45 1911, including the weight. Many parts, like grips and springs, are interchangeable with real 1911 pistols. It is a finely engineered handgun, equal in most ways to the Ruger, and better in some. Disassembly and cleaning are very easy, and accuracy is very slightly better. Walther makes two models of this gun: the Government Model (the more tradional M1A military style), and the Gold Cup (which has adjustable rear sights). This model does come with a speed-loader. I have the Government Model, but wish I had spent a little more for the Gold Cup, for the adjustable sights. However, I am not unhappy at all with mine. It is fun to shoot, and cycles the finicky .22 rounds perfectly.
There are other benefits to shooting a .22 target pistol:
Don't forget Rule 1.
However, if a .22 pistol is small enough to carry concealed, it won't have enough ammo to help you much, and accuracy will be difficult (see Rule 1). If all you can carry is a pocket gun, then get a .380. Many people also consider the .380 to not have enough stopping power, but it is almost as powerful as a 9mm, and will clearly stop an attack if you have good shot placement, especially if loaded with +P ammo. Yes, I know +P can wear out a .380 over time, but it won't hurt to use it for self-defense; just don't practice much with it.
So, for this discussion we've mostly eliminated the .22 from concealed carry (see Rule 1). That leaves us with bigger guns, which are mostly target pistols. Competition target shooters will often spend big bucks on these, over $1000 for models from Walther, Hammerli, or Smith & Wesson, but there are some very nice models available for $300-500. Two of the best known are the High Standard Sport King and the Browning Buck Mark, but I am going to write about two that I own: the Ruger Mark III 22/45, and the Colt 1911 (22). Both are fairly heavy, have large capacity, and have long barrels; accuracy is quite good, and recoil almost non-existent. Keep in mind that the kind of accuracy inherent with guns like these means hitting a 4 inch circle at 25 yards; even a fairly new shooter could hit a person 10 times in a row at 7 yards.
Ruger Mark III 22/45
This is the newest version of a gun first produced in 1949, that popularized the .22 pistol. The standard Mark III has a 60 degree grip angle, like a Luger, while the 22/45 version has a 75 degree grip angle, like a 1911. They come with a fully adjustable rear sight, and threaded mounting holes for a rail (also included) for mounting a scope or red dot. There are also many available accessories, like fiber optic front sights, competition triggers, springs, grips, etc. You must get a speed-loader for it, as the magazines are difficult to load by hand. Cleaning the gun is also difficult, as the break down process is complicated and frustrating. Still, this is one of the most accurate and popular guns on the market, in its class.
Colt 1911
This is not actually made by Colt, but by Walther in Germany, under license to Colt. It is, however, absolutely identical to a Colt .45 1911, including the weight. Many parts, like grips and springs, are interchangeable with real 1911 pistols. It is a finely engineered handgun, equal in most ways to the Ruger, and better in some. Disassembly and cleaning are very easy, and accuracy is very slightly better. Walther makes two models of this gun: the Government Model (the more tradional M1A military style), and the Gold Cup (which has adjustable rear sights). This model does come with a speed-loader. I have the Government Model, but wish I had spent a little more for the Gold Cup, for the adjustable sights. However, I am not unhappy at all with mine. It is fun to shoot, and cycles the finicky .22 rounds perfectly.
There are other benefits to shooting a .22 target pistol:
- Ammo is quite cheap, about 12-15 cents/round. A few months ago it was hard to find, but the supply has recently caught up to demand. Don't buy the cheapest you can find, or subsonic, or high velocity (except for defensive purposes). There is a substantial difference in accuracy between brands. My favorites are Norma Target and CCI Standard Velocity.
- They are very easy to shoot, so shooters can concentrate on technique without the fear of recoil getting in the way. Many people actually have .22 conversion kits on high powered pistols and rifles, for inexpensive training.
- Some people simply have a fear of guns that keeps them from trying to shoot, and would paralyze them in a crisis. The .22 solves that. It shoots like a BB gun.
Don't forget Rule 1.
Thursday, October 1, 2015
Oregon: active shooter on campus
Oct 1, 2015
As I write this, the news is aflame with the story of yet another mass shooting on a college campus. The gun-grabbers wasted no time taking advantage of a crisis; within minutes, they were tweeting about the need for "common sense gun laws". Indeed. If we really had "common sense gun laws", there would have been several veterans on that campus with concealed handguns, and we would now be talking about 2 or 3 dead instead of 13.
Oregon already has laws against guns on campus, and the shooter was not eligible to possess a handgun, so what laws exactly do the "Moms" think would have prevented this crime? The operative word here is "think", as their screed is just the usual knee-jerk reaction to any gun crime.
The real crime here, is called "gun-free zone". John Lott, an economist with the Crime Prevention Research Center, has demonstrated that, since 1950, every mass shooting in America that took more than 3 lives (with one exception) has been committed in a gun free zone (schools, movie theaters, etc.). This is just one more predictable example. As I tell my classes, these people are crazy, but they are not stupid!
In 2012, one of those crazies, James Holmes, went into a movie theater in Aurora, CO, and killed 12 people. He lived just a block from another theater, but it was NOT posted as off limits to guns. Being not stupid, he went over a mile to the Century 16 theater, which WAS posted as off limits. His was the biggest mass shooting in American history. Until today.
Fourteen? Fifteen? Going once, going twice. Sold, to the next crazy who wants to be famous. No one is safe, until we run out of gun free zones.
As I write this, the news is aflame with the story of yet another mass shooting on a college campus. The gun-grabbers wasted no time taking advantage of a crisis; within minutes, they were tweeting about the need for "common sense gun laws". Indeed. If we really had "common sense gun laws", there would have been several veterans on that campus with concealed handguns, and we would now be talking about 2 or 3 dead instead of 13.
Oregon already has laws against guns on campus, and the shooter was not eligible to possess a handgun, so what laws exactly do the "Moms" think would have prevented this crime? The operative word here is "think", as their screed is just the usual knee-jerk reaction to any gun crime.
In 2012, one of those crazies, James Holmes, went into a movie theater in Aurora, CO, and killed 12 people. He lived just a block from another theater, but it was NOT posted as off limits to guns. Being not stupid, he went over a mile to the Century 16 theater, which WAS posted as off limits. His was the biggest mass shooting in American history. Until today.
Fourteen? Fifteen? Going once, going twice. Sold, to the next crazy who wants to be famous. No one is safe, until we run out of gun free zones.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Ballistics 101
The average defensive handgun user doesn't spend much time reading about ballistics; it can be an arcane science, full of numbers, distances, and formulae. It is, however, an important topic, and one that can save your life.
Any caliber of gun will kill, even a .22 if you hit the right spot. That is not as important in defensive gun use as, will it stop the threat quickly? Some years ago, a police officer was attacked by a felon with a large knife. The cop shot him 6 times with a .38 Special. The felon died, but lived long enough to get to the cop, and kill him.
The issue at hand here is not killing power, but stopping power. That is a difficult metric to measure, but can be best expressed as energy transfer.
energy = mass x velocity
That is, given a constant speed, a larger (heavier) bullet creates more force, and greater stopping power, than a lighter bullet. The problem is, heavier bullets require more powder to achieve the same speed (ignoring for the moment that hollow-points have greater wind resistance). In fact, larger calibers do tend to use more powder to offset the greater weight, but there is a ceiling beyond which manufacturers cannot go and stay within established safety limits.
A lighter bullet traveling very fast can generate the same energy transfer as a heavier bullet going somewhat slower, but efficiency tapers off at both ends, creating what scientists call a "bell curve". From a practical standpoint, this is complicated by the fact that larger caliber guns make rapid shooting more difficult, due to recoil affecting sight picture acquisition. For that reason, the FBI stopped using 10mm handguns (which will kill a bear), and went back to the .45, and sometimes the .40. Many police agencies have moved from the .45 all the way back to the 9mm. Even though the 9mm generates less energy, follow-up shots are quicker and more accurate, and the guns typically carry more ammo, as much as 18 rounds. No one is going to still be a threat after taking 10-18 bullets. Recent ballistic tests have shown that 9mm +P ammo generates more energy than a .40 caliber. [+P are hotter factory loads]
The lesson there is, either carry bigger bullets, or more of them.
Much of the above, however, relates to full-size service pistols and home defense guns. The person carrying a concealed weapon has to make allowance for the fact that most easily concealable guns will be smaller, lighter, or both. That affects the ability to make rapid follow-up shots, similar to the 10mm problem, but on a smaller scale. If that is not clear, try shooting a polymer snub-nosed .357 Magnum revolver.
A small .45 probably puts many people at a disadvantage, considering weight vs recoil. Add 3 points for the greater energy of the bullets, but subtract 1 point for the smaller round count. An experienced, skilled shooter could make that work to his advantage, but for many average gun owners, a good compromise would be a 9mm carrying at least 9 rounds of +P hollow-points.
Don't overlook another devastating option: an all steel snub-nosed or 4 inch revolver loaded with .357 Magnum. That will definitely make someone change their career plans!
Any caliber of gun will kill, even a .22 if you hit the right spot. That is not as important in defensive gun use as, will it stop the threat quickly? Some years ago, a police officer was attacked by a felon with a large knife. The cop shot him 6 times with a .38 Special. The felon died, but lived long enough to get to the cop, and kill him.
The issue at hand here is not killing power, but stopping power. That is a difficult metric to measure, but can be best expressed as energy transfer.
energy = mass x velocity
That is, given a constant speed, a larger (heavier) bullet creates more force, and greater stopping power, than a lighter bullet. The problem is, heavier bullets require more powder to achieve the same speed (ignoring for the moment that hollow-points have greater wind resistance). In fact, larger calibers do tend to use more powder to offset the greater weight, but there is a ceiling beyond which manufacturers cannot go and stay within established safety limits.
A lighter bullet traveling very fast can generate the same energy transfer as a heavier bullet going somewhat slower, but efficiency tapers off at both ends, creating what scientists call a "bell curve". From a practical standpoint, this is complicated by the fact that larger caliber guns make rapid shooting more difficult, due to recoil affecting sight picture acquisition. For that reason, the FBI stopped using 10mm handguns (which will kill a bear), and went back to the .45, and sometimes the .40. Many police agencies have moved from the .45 all the way back to the 9mm. Even though the 9mm generates less energy, follow-up shots are quicker and more accurate, and the guns typically carry more ammo, as much as 18 rounds. No one is going to still be a threat after taking 10-18 bullets. Recent ballistic tests have shown that 9mm +P ammo generates more energy than a .40 caliber. [+P are hotter factory loads]
The lesson there is, either carry bigger bullets, or more of them.
Much of the above, however, relates to full-size service pistols and home defense guns. The person carrying a concealed weapon has to make allowance for the fact that most easily concealable guns will be smaller, lighter, or both. That affects the ability to make rapid follow-up shots, similar to the 10mm problem, but on a smaller scale. If that is not clear, try shooting a polymer snub-nosed .357 Magnum revolver.
A small .45 probably puts many people at a disadvantage, considering weight vs recoil. Add 3 points for the greater energy of the bullets, but subtract 1 point for the smaller round count. An experienced, skilled shooter could make that work to his advantage, but for many average gun owners, a good compromise would be a 9mm carrying at least 9 rounds of +P hollow-points.
Don't overlook another devastating option: an all steel snub-nosed or 4 inch revolver loaded with .357 Magnum. That will definitely make someone change their career plans!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)