I recommended a 22LR for self defense/conceal carry today
- Thread starter eb07
- Start date
crstrode
Member
RGVshooter, I agree with you.
Furthermore; causing the bad guy to run away incapacitates his bad intent. If he is not perforated it uncomplicates the aftermath for me.
Stopped reading about half way through the page when the arguments started.
Rather an argue or take sides I'm just going to give my perspective for what ever it is worth.
1) A few years ago the FBI amended its qualification course after looking at agent involved shoots over the last 12 years or so. It found that about 75% of all agent involved shoots involved ranges of 3 yards or less and involved 3 shots or less fired by the agent in just a couple seconds.
Nationally the data for armed citizen and officer involved self defense shoots (as opposed to executing a search warrant on a crack house, etc) shows upwards of 90% occur at ranges of 5 yards or less in 5 seconds or less with 5 rounds or less fired by the armed citizen or officer.
2) LEOs do in fact have to go into dark places looking for scary people and thus face greater risks and greater potential to encounter multiple assailants, but those shoots are still statistically very low, and more often than not are predictable with the result that multiple officers will be involved at the start. That is a large reason why more shots are fired when more officers are present. The average of 3 increases to about 5 with 2 or 3 officers and to around 6 with more officers present.
Armed citizens do not have to, and should not be looking for scary people in dark and scary places. The should be using reasonable situational awareness to identify and make eye contact with prospective assailants long before they close the range enough to initiate an assault or robbery. The vast majority of the time, if a prospective victim sees an assailant at a distance, the assailant will pick an easier target. if the victim is armed and isn't afraid, a smart criminal won't hang around to find out why.
3) About 50 percent of all "stops" are psychological stops where the assailant was shot and essentially thinks "Golly...I got shot, I don't like getting shot, I'm going to stop doing what is causing me to get shot. In that 50% the cartridge used really doesn't matter as long as it does enough damage for the assailant to realize he or she has been shot.
4) It's the other 50% where the terminal performance of the bullet, bullet placement, and number of vital hits matter. In the extreme, the only thing that will immediately incapacitate an assailant is a hit in the central nervous system - the brain or upper spinal column.
A cardio pulmonary hit in the upper chambers of the heart or the large blood vessels immediately above it will produce a rapid incapacitation through rapid decrease in blood pressure, and lack of oxygen to the brain, but we're talking about 10-15 seconds of useful consciousness, and an assailant can do a lot of killing and wounding in 10 to 15 seconds.
5) Most LEOs are not "gun people" and don't shoot any more than is required to qualify once or twice a year. Most departments tend to suck at properly training officers and I still hear about officers who are issued a firearm and take their first shots in qualification. If they pass, they are considered good to go, with a total of 50-60 to maybe 100-120 rounds total fired, if they were lucky enough to get a practice run first. I shoot more than that in any given week.
6) Hit percentages for LEOs vary by department and their training programs as well as by distance (under or over 7 yards) and based on good or poor lighting conditions. But on average the hit percentage under 7 yards is around 20% and it gets worse at longer ranges as well as in low light. Which means LEOs are skipping about 80% of their rounds fired through the neighborhood. It's not a surprise at all given that the vast majority of officers report not using the sights at all during the engagement.
Some folks use that to justify not using the sights, but it's a poor argument as the reason officers don't use sights is not extreme stress but rather massively inadequate training. You default to your lowest level of mastered training under stress, and for most officers that operationalizes as "point the gun in the general direction of the bad guy and pull the trigger as hard and fast as you can".
It's a good thing LEOs have things like sovereign immunity, department provided attorneys, department provided liability insurance and courts that are generally tolerant of both poor shooting and mistake of fact shoots (about 1 shoot in 5) where the suspect is believed to be armed but is ultimately found to have been unarmed.
As an armed citizen you have absolutely none of this and will be held criminally and civilly liable for every round you shoot from the time it leaves the barrel until it comes to rest...somewhere.
Thus, given 4), 5) and 6), the general rule is to shoot center of mass and keep shooting until the assailant is down. The same is true for armed citizens but it's in their best interests to learn to shoot well, and more importantly learn to use brains, common sense and good situational awareness to avoid ever having to shoot at all.
-----
With all that in mind:
A) I'm a big believer in shooting a handgun that actually fits the shooter's hand well and points naturally for them. If the handgun doesn't fit well, the shooter will never become truly proficient with it.
B) I'm also a big proponent of training shooters to use the sights and verify sight alignment each and every time they shoot. Start slow, and once the student masters sight alignment, trigger control, and most importantly once they've developed a consistent grip and related muscle memory, the student can start shooting progressively faster.
It works like this:
- The shooter learns to draw (slowly) from concealment while keeping their eyes on the target.
- As the sights come up into the student's line of sight, the student places their finger on the trigger, and places the front sight on the spot he or she wants to bleed.
- The shooter then pauses, and aligns the sights, and then maintains that alignment while they release the shot, adding pressure when the sight alignment is good and holding pressure when it looks bad.
- Over time, the more the student practices the more the student will find that the sight are already aligned as the sights come up into the line of sight. That's an artifact of the brain and the muscles in the arm and hand 'learning' exactly what they need to do to align the sights, and doing it in advance as the gun is brought up.
- At that point the "pause" becomes very brief and is just used to verify the need to shoot and that the front sight is on target. The rear sight alignment takes care of itself due to muscle memory.
- By that time the shooter will have also mastered trigger control and how to smoothly release the shot without disturbing sight alignment.
- Also by that time the shooter has so many repetitions that the process of placing the front sight on target is second nature and they'll do that even under extreme stress as it is an automatic response.
Now...it's still a good idea to practice long range slow fire from time to time to ensure the basics are not lost. The student will also want to learn how to draw and shoot from a close in retention position, and the student will want to learn good foot work while shooting (side stepping to avoid tripping over your feet) and moving toward cover.
C) I'm a big proponent of not bringing a shooter along too fast too soon in terms of cartridge.
- A .22LR pistol or revolver is the ideal initial handgun as it doesn't have objectionable recoil and it will help the student learn good sight alignment and trigger control - without developing a flinch.
- Once the student masters the .22 you can move up to a larger but still moderate caliber like .32 Auto, .380 ACP, .38 Special or perhaps 9mm Para in a larger handgun.
- Once the student has mastered that and is still flinch free over a long range session, you can look at a heavier recoiling caliber and/or a lighter handgun.
D) There are other factors to consider in handgun selection:
- Can the person readily operate the slide, or manipulate the trigger with adequate accuracy? A PPK/S or similar blow back operated pistol in .380 ACP might be a great fit for a woman, but if she cannot easily rack the slide (blow back .380s require heavy recoil springs), then it's a poor choice.
The same weapon in .32 ACP, with a lighter recoil spring, may be a better choice. Similarly, a locked breech design with an even lighter recoil spring may be an even better choice. For example the Kimber Micro .380 is about 10 oz lighter an a PPK/S but it is much easier to rack the slide and the felt recoil is about the same as the heavier PPK/S as the recoil impulse is spread out more and does not feel as sharp.
Technique also plays a role. if a woman shoots a PPK/S in .380 ACP well but has trouble racking the slide, teaching her to place her left hand over the top of the slide while gripping it while pulling her hand and wrist back into her side to anchor the pistol and then locking her right elbow and pushing forward on the grip with her right hand, using the larger muscles in her upper arm to produce the power to rack the slide may work well for her. It'll work for both administrative and tactical reloads.
E) People seldom shoot light weight handguns in significant calibers well. The Micro 9 is a good example. Most people can shot a Micro .380 well, and the Micro 9 is only slightly larger and heavier - and that's the problem. The recoil of a good 9mm Para self defense round is fierce in the Micro 9.
The same is true for a good .38 +P load in an airweight J-frame and that's true in spades for a J-Magnum frame .357 Magnum. I know a lot of people who like to carry them. I don't know anyone who shoots them really well, and very few of the people carrying them ever shoot them enough with full power loads to get really good with them. They are great carry guns if weight is your primary consideration, and they'll perhaps come in handy for the above mentioned psychological stops. However, if you ever really need to deliver multiple effective hits in a gun fight, you'll find you brought the wrong gun.
-----
The above points naturally lead the shooter to a pistol or revolver and cartridge that the person can shoot effectively.
For some folks that might be a .22 LR. That will be what it is and it'll be better than nothing, but .22LR has some serious limitations when it comes to self defense:
- Even high quality .22 LR ammo is less reliable than center fire ammo. It's just an unavoidable artifact of the priming system. Poor quality .22 LR can be incredibly unreliable, so if you choose to carry a .22LR buy quality ammo and shoot a lot of it in your firearm to ensure it is reliable. That will probably mean trying a few different brands.
- In a semi auto pistol, .22 LR is more susceptible to rim lock, where the rim of a cartridge in the magazine can end up behind the rim of the cartridge below it. Some magazines are worse than others, but you should always load the magazine for a .22 LR self defense pistol very carefully.
- the .22 LR is more effective and penetrates better than .25 Auto but that's the only thing it has going for it relative to other calibers. If recoil is an issue, .32 ACP is a much better choice and most shooters can manage it.
- Multiple hits with a .22LR are often lethal, but they make really small holes and seldom penetrate enough to get the CNS or cardio pulmonary hits you need to rapidly incapacitate an assailant. You may well kill the assailant but you also may well be dead yourself before he is incapacitated.
- 32 ACP is better, .380 ACP or a standard pressure .38 are better still, but .38 +p and 9mm Para, both tolerate shot barrels better and are where things really start getting effective.
Rather an argue or take sides I'm just going to give my perspective for what ever it is worth.
1) A few years ago the FBI amended its qualification course after looking at agent involved shoots over the last 12 years or so. It found that about 75% of all agent involved shoots involved ranges of 3 yards or less and involved 3 shots or less fired by the agent in just a couple seconds.
Nationally the data for armed citizen and officer involved self defense shoots (as opposed to executing a search warrant on a crack house, etc) shows upwards of 90% occur at ranges of 5 yards or less in 5 seconds or less with 5 rounds or less fired by the armed citizen or officer.
2) LEOs do in fact have to go into dark places looking for scary people and thus face greater risks and greater potential to encounter multiple assailants, but those shoots are still statistically very low, and more often than not are predictable with the result that multiple officers will be involved at the start. That is a large reason why more shots are fired when more officers are present. The average of 3 increases to about 5 with 2 or 3 officers and to around 6 with more officers present.
Armed citizens do not have to, and should not be looking for scary people in dark and scary places. The should be using reasonable situational awareness to identify and make eye contact with prospective assailants long before they close the range enough to initiate an assault or robbery. The vast majority of the time, if a prospective victim sees an assailant at a distance, the assailant will pick an easier target. if the victim is armed and isn't afraid, a smart criminal won't hang around to find out why.
3) About 50 percent of all "stops" are psychological stops where the assailant was shot and essentially thinks "Golly...I got shot, I don't like getting shot, I'm going to stop doing what is causing me to get shot. In that 50% the cartridge used really doesn't matter as long as it does enough damage for the assailant to realize he or she has been shot.
4) It's the other 50% where the terminal performance of the bullet, bullet placement, and number of vital hits matter. In the extreme, the only thing that will immediately incapacitate an assailant is a hit in the central nervous system - the brain or upper spinal column.
A cardio pulmonary hit in the upper chambers of the heart or the large blood vessels immediately above it will produce a rapid incapacitation through rapid decrease in blood pressure, and lack of oxygen to the brain, but we're talking about 10-15 seconds of useful consciousness, and an assailant can do a lot of killing and wounding in 10 to 15 seconds.
5) Most LEOs are not "gun people" and don't shoot any more than is required to qualify once or twice a year. Most departments tend to suck at properly training officers and I still hear about officers who are issued a firearm and take their first shots in qualification. If they pass, they are considered good to go, with a total of 50-60 to maybe 100-120 rounds total fired, if they were lucky enough to get a practice run first. I shoot more than that in any given week.
6) Hit percentages for LEOs vary by department and their training programs as well as by distance (under or over 7 yards) and based on good or poor lighting conditions. But on average the hit percentage under 7 yards is around 20% and it gets worse at longer ranges as well as in low light. Which means LEOs are skipping about 80% of their rounds fired through the neighborhood. It's not a surprise at all given that the vast majority of officers report not using the sights at all during the engagement.
Some folks use that to justify not using the sights, but it's a poor argument as the reason officers don't use sights is not extreme stress but rather massively inadequate training. You default to your lowest level of mastered training under stress, and for most officers that operationalizes as "point the gun in the general direction of the bad guy and pull the trigger as hard and fast as you can".
It's a good thing LEOs have things like sovereign immunity, department provided attorneys, department provided liability insurance and courts that are generally tolerant of both poor shooting and mistake of fact shoots (about 1 shoot in 5) where the suspect is believed to be armed but is ultimately found to have been unarmed.
As an armed citizen you have absolutely none of this and will be held criminally and civilly liable for every round you shoot from the time it leaves the barrel until it comes to rest...somewhere.
Thus, given 4), 5) and 6), the general rule is to shoot center of mass and keep shooting until the assailant is down. The same is true for armed citizens but it's in their best interests to learn to shoot well, and more importantly learn to use brains, common sense and good situational awareness to avoid ever having to shoot at all.
-----
With all that in mind:
A) I'm a big believer in shooting a handgun that actually fits the shooter's hand well and points naturally for them. If the handgun doesn't fit well, the shooter will never become truly proficient with it.
B) I'm also a big proponent of training shooters to use the sights and verify sight alignment each and every time they shoot. Start slow, and once the student masters sight alignment, trigger control, and most importantly once they've developed a consistent grip and related muscle memory, the student can start shooting progressively faster.
It works like this:
- The shooter learns to draw (slowly) from concealment while keeping their eyes on the target.
- As the sights come up into the student's line of sight, the student places their finger on the trigger, and places the front sight on the spot he or she wants to bleed.
- The shooter then pauses, and aligns the sights, and then maintains that alignment while they release the shot, adding pressure when the sight alignment is good and holding pressure when it looks bad.
- Over time, the more the student practices the more the student will find that the sight are already aligned as the sights come up into the line of sight. That's an artifact of the brain and the muscles in the arm and hand 'learning' exactly what they need to do to align the sights, and doing it in advance as the gun is brought up.
- At that point the "pause" becomes very brief and is just used to verify the need to shoot and that the front sight is on target. The rear sight alignment takes care of itself due to muscle memory.
- By that time the shooter will have also mastered trigger control and how to smoothly release the shot without disturbing sight alignment.
- Also by that time the shooter has so many repetitions that the process of placing the front sight on target is second nature and they'll do that even under extreme stress as it is an automatic response.
Now...it's still a good idea to practice long range slow fire from time to time to ensure the basics are not lost. The student will also want to learn how to draw and shoot from a close in retention position, and the student will want to learn good foot work while shooting (side stepping to avoid tripping over your feet) and moving toward cover.
C) I'm a big proponent of not bringing a shooter along too fast too soon in terms of cartridge.
- A .22LR pistol or revolver is the ideal initial handgun as it doesn't have objectionable recoil and it will help the student learn good sight alignment and trigger control - without developing a flinch.
- Once the student masters the .22 you can move up to a larger but still moderate caliber like .32 Auto, .380 ACP, .38 Special or perhaps 9mm Para in a larger handgun.
- Once the student has mastered that and is still flinch free over a long range session, you can look at a heavier recoiling caliber and/or a lighter handgun.
D) There are other factors to consider in handgun selection:
- Can the person readily operate the slide, or manipulate the trigger with adequate accuracy? A PPK/S or similar blow back operated pistol in .380 ACP might be a great fit for a woman, but if she cannot easily rack the slide (blow back .380s require heavy recoil springs), then it's a poor choice.
The same weapon in .32 ACP, with a lighter recoil spring, may be a better choice. Similarly, a locked breech design with an even lighter recoil spring may be an even better choice. For example the Kimber Micro .380 is about 10 oz lighter an a PPK/S but it is much easier to rack the slide and the felt recoil is about the same as the heavier PPK/S as the recoil impulse is spread out more and does not feel as sharp.
Technique also plays a role. if a woman shoots a PPK/S in .380 ACP well but has trouble racking the slide, teaching her to place her left hand over the top of the slide while gripping it while pulling her hand and wrist back into her side to anchor the pistol and then locking her right elbow and pushing forward on the grip with her right hand, using the larger muscles in her upper arm to produce the power to rack the slide may work well for her. It'll work for both administrative and tactical reloads.
E) People seldom shoot light weight handguns in significant calibers well. The Micro 9 is a good example. Most people can shot a Micro .380 well, and the Micro 9 is only slightly larger and heavier - and that's the problem. The recoil of a good 9mm Para self defense round is fierce in the Micro 9.
The same is true for a good .38 +P load in an airweight J-frame and that's true in spades for a J-Magnum frame .357 Magnum. I know a lot of people who like to carry them. I don't know anyone who shoots them really well, and very few of the people carrying them ever shoot them enough with full power loads to get really good with them. They are great carry guns if weight is your primary consideration, and they'll perhaps come in handy for the above mentioned psychological stops. However, if you ever really need to deliver multiple effective hits in a gun fight, you'll find you brought the wrong gun.
-----
The above points naturally lead the shooter to a pistol or revolver and cartridge that the person can shoot effectively.
For some folks that might be a .22 LR. That will be what it is and it'll be better than nothing, but .22LR has some serious limitations when it comes to self defense:
- Even high quality .22 LR ammo is less reliable than center fire ammo. It's just an unavoidable artifact of the priming system. Poor quality .22 LR can be incredibly unreliable, so if you choose to carry a .22LR buy quality ammo and shoot a lot of it in your firearm to ensure it is reliable. That will probably mean trying a few different brands.
- In a semi auto pistol, .22 LR is more susceptible to rim lock, where the rim of a cartridge in the magazine can end up behind the rim of the cartridge below it. Some magazines are worse than others, but you should always load the magazine for a .22 LR self defense pistol very carefully.
- the .22 LR is more effective and penetrates better than .25 Auto but that's the only thing it has going for it relative to other calibers. If recoil is an issue, .32 ACP is a much better choice and most shooters can manage it.
- Multiple hits with a .22LR are often lethal, but they make really small holes and seldom penetrate enough to get the CNS or cardio pulmonary hits you need to rapidly incapacitate an assailant. You may well kill the assailant but you also may well be dead yourself before he is incapacitated.
- 32 ACP is better, .380 ACP or a standard pressure .38 are better still, but .38 +p and 9mm Para, both tolerate shot barrels better and are where things really start getting effective.
What a great follow up. Sharing your hobby with a sensitive shooter in a way that elicited informed interest, and an urge to shoot socially.
Congratulations on a job well done.
Hobby????
There’s gotta be a better word than ... hobby.
Apparently he needs some testosterone. There’s clearly an abundance in this thread.
BB57 hit many excellent points in his treatise.
Many here denigrate the .22, BB57 actually makes some sense of many of the "urban legends" concerning the unreliability of the .22.
As BB57 says, you need to try various brands and loads to find what works reliably in your firearm. Bulk ammo might be OK for practice, but you shouldn't carry it. Junk ammo by the pail full is not what you should trust your life with. In the instance of using .22 ammo, a revolver would obviously be the right firearm for the shooter he is dealing with.
I shoot several thousand rounds of .22 each year in Bulls Eye competition, as I state in another post, due to the shortages in the market a few years back, I had to buy a foreign brand from a country south of the border, the stuff is fairly good, but I get a failure rate of about 2%. I only use that stuff for practice, and use a CCI product for matches (no failures).
That being said, my choice for carry is no less than 380 ACP. If all I had was a .22, I would carry that using proven, quality ammo.
Trying to get back on track, accolades to the OP for getting a non shooter into the ranks, even if she will only shoot a .22 right now.
Many here denigrate the .22, BB57 actually makes some sense of many of the "urban legends" concerning the unreliability of the .22.
As BB57 says, you need to try various brands and loads to find what works reliably in your firearm. Bulk ammo might be OK for practice, but you shouldn't carry it. Junk ammo by the pail full is not what you should trust your life with. In the instance of using .22 ammo, a revolver would obviously be the right firearm for the shooter he is dealing with.
I shoot several thousand rounds of .22 each year in Bulls Eye competition, as I state in another post, due to the shortages in the market a few years back, I had to buy a foreign brand from a country south of the border, the stuff is fairly good, but I get a failure rate of about 2%. I only use that stuff for practice, and use a CCI product for matches (no failures).
That being said, my choice for carry is no less than 380 ACP. If all I had was a .22, I would carry that using proven, quality ammo.
Trying to get back on track, accolades to the OP for getting a non shooter into the ranks, even if she will only shoot a .22 right now.
keith44spl
Member
Gees,
What a bunch of ol ladies..........
A 22 LR in the hand beats the hell outta of a knittin' needle.
.
Oh, I've been shot with a 22 lr hp....
Don't really want any more of it neither. Ouch and double ouch.
.
What a bunch of ol ladies..........
A 22 LR in the hand beats the hell outta of a knittin' needle.
.
Oh, I've been shot with a 22 lr hp....
Don't really want any more of it neither. Ouch and double ouch.
.
The NRA tells us that every year there are approximately 2 million
incidents where people use guns for self defense. In 96% of these
incidents shots are not necessary because of the intimidation value
of the gun.
When shots are necessary, about two thirds of the remaining 4%
stop voluntarily. Maybe they were not even hit. Maybe they were
hit but it did not cause a deadly wound. Whatever the cause, they
don't want to get shot at again, so they run, or stop and surrender.
The remaining approximately 1.36% is our main concern. Up to this
point the lowly .22 can, and does, fill the bill. But when the S.H.T.F.
we need to stop the attack.
I have not been in enough gun fights to think of myself as an expert,
so I rely on folks who have been there and done that. People like
Jim Cirillo and Bob Stasch.
Jim was in a lot of gun fights, but he said he had only seen 2 one shot
stops. They were both shots to the brain. He said even accurate heart
shots are not instant stoppers. Bob's experience is similar.
A solid hit to the attacker's deep brain will cause immediate
incapacitation. The deep brain is right behind the attacker's nose.
Practice getting your gun out quickly and shooting accurately
at close range. Practice moving, blocking, and parrying, while doing
so.
That's my 2 cents worth.
incidents where people use guns for self defense. In 96% of these
incidents shots are not necessary because of the intimidation value
of the gun.
When shots are necessary, about two thirds of the remaining 4%
stop voluntarily. Maybe they were not even hit. Maybe they were
hit but it did not cause a deadly wound. Whatever the cause, they
don't want to get shot at again, so they run, or stop and surrender.
The remaining approximately 1.36% is our main concern. Up to this
point the lowly .22 can, and does, fill the bill. But when the S.H.T.F.
we need to stop the attack.
I have not been in enough gun fights to think of myself as an expert,
so I rely on folks who have been there and done that. People like
Jim Cirillo and Bob Stasch.
Jim was in a lot of gun fights, but he said he had only seen 2 one shot
stops. They were both shots to the brain. He said even accurate heart
shots are not instant stoppers. Bob's experience is similar.
A solid hit to the attacker's deep brain will cause immediate
incapacitation. The deep brain is right behind the attacker's nose.
Practice getting your gun out quickly and shooting accurately
at close range. Practice moving, blocking, and parrying, while doing
so.
That's my 2 cents worth.
Last edited:
Ziggy2525
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,530
- Reaction score
- 3,247
It’s all about assessing your risk, right? There’s something like 225 million adults in the US. Using your numbers from the NRA, that would mean there’s a .01% (1x10e-4) chance in any year of being in a circumstance that a .22 might not work. That doen’t factor in any skew that occurs due to people’s bad lifestyles choices (people that buy illegal drugs, etc.) or the crime rate where people live. I don’t carry a .22, but even a .22 improves your odds a lot.
Last edited:
Untrained people with absolutely no training or range time successfully defend themselves with firearms all the time. Even children. Usually just producing a weapon does indeed end the conflict or firing off shots does. If not, the gun itself does most of the physical work and the distances involved in civilian self-defense are extremely short, so a high level of marksmanship skill is not necessary. I just don't think it takes much(or perhaps any) range time to likely be able to defend oneself with a suitable firearm in many possible defense scenarios, so much of what is prioritized by many shooters is irrelevant IMO. It's just not that difficult to shoot someone that is two to three feet away.
Does anybody have any stats on incidents of people who were armed during their assault, but unable to get to their weapon? Civilian shootings are relatively rare, but violent crime isn't and most people don't carry a gun. The problem(s) that needs addressing are the most likely potential points of failure in defending oneself and choosing a weapon that is inherently more efficient in that contex. Thise things are often completely overlooked by many shooters, and it's not lack of marksmanship since longer range civilian shoot-out are astronomically rare, but an inability to see the situation soon enough to avoid or escape the situation or get the gun out. Beyond that, protecting against the initial assault, effectively using the gun due to contact, movement, instability, or an inability to retain the gun. And yes, I think caliber matters in instances where the (determined) attacker(s) is not deterred by the defender simply having or firing their weapon or even being shot.
These are not advanced skills when conducted in the proper context, but can be taught immediately. I used to hold corporate self-defense and sexual assault prevention courses for executives when I lived in the city. These were relatively short-lived classes, so no time was wasted and functional skills were taught from the get-go. I don't see basic avoidance tactics and ECQ gun skills being any different or more difficult to learn.
Does anybody have any stats on incidents of people who were armed during their assault, but unable to get to their weapon? Civilian shootings are relatively rare, but violent crime isn't and most people don't carry a gun. The problem(s) that needs addressing are the most likely potential points of failure in defending oneself and choosing a weapon that is inherently more efficient in that contex. Thise things are often completely overlooked by many shooters, and it's not lack of marksmanship since longer range civilian shoot-out are astronomically rare, but an inability to see the situation soon enough to avoid or escape the situation or get the gun out. Beyond that, protecting against the initial assault, effectively using the gun due to contact, movement, instability, or an inability to retain the gun. And yes, I think caliber matters in instances where the (determined) attacker(s) is not deterred by the defender simply having or firing their weapon or even being shot.
These are not advanced skills when conducted in the proper context, but can be taught immediately. I used to hold corporate self-defense and sexual assault prevention courses for executives when I lived in the city. These were relatively short-lived classes, so no time was wasted and functional skills were taught from the get-go. I don't see basic avoidance tactics and ECQ gun skills being any different or more difficult to learn.
Ziggy2525
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,530
- Reaction score
- 3,247
You keep saying that you have this special knowledge, based on your 30 years as a DT instructor, of a few simple skills that can be taught immediately with no time wasted that can save peoples lives. What are they?
Why not either start a new thread about it (like some here have requested) or just post them right here. Think how many lives you could potentially save with a single post.
Last edited:
buzzkillbob
US Veteran
It's easy to be a tough guy on the interwebs. Heck, a true lion doesn't need to tell you he's a lion! There's something to be said for quiet professionals... :-|
These posts pretty well nail it and it's why both armed citizens and police officers get away with carrying and even shooting firearms that they in no way shoot effectively in a real world shoot.
If you already shoot an Airweight .38 badly, carrying a .22 LR that you shoot better isn't much if any of a handicap.
And that's the irony I see in the arguments in this thread. Shot badly, no handgun cartridge is significantly more effective than any other, but most of the time you just need a handgun that is "good enough". It goes like this:
1) carry a concealed handgun, and you may start displaying better situational awareness and/or appear less afraid in the face of an approaching threat and your odds of avoiding a life threatening situation increase, even though the gun is never even drawn.
2) Draw a gun in the face of an imminent threat and a competent petty street criminal will do what he or she is trained to do - turn and run to avoid getting shot - and your odds of getting killed or injured again decrease because a gun is present, even if you never fire it.
3) If you shoot it and miss, a fair percentage of assailants will turn and run because they are facing an armed victim who is actively shooting at them, even if they are shooting badly.
4) If you do have to shoot and hit your assailant - anywhere - the statistics are pretty clear that about half the time the assailant will stop the assault once he or she has been shot, in order to avoid being shot again.
5) However, in that other half of self defense shoot, you're going to need to keep shooting until the assailant is down.
6) If he or she is also armed with a hand gun you'll need to shoot effectively while receiving fire, which will produce a great deal of stress and your shooting will need to be second nature as there will be no mental bandwidth available to focus on any thing you have not completely mastered.
6 1/2) This should include the ability to move away from the attacker and toward cover.
7) If the assailant is armed with a knife or blunt object, then you again need to know how to move to get off the X, how to create space to employ a handgun, and how to retain and shoot a handgun from a close in retention position.
----
In 1 through 4 above, it doesn't matter what you carry. Anything is better than nothing.
In 5 and 6 above, if you learn to shoot the way I described above, you are covered. Here, what you shoot matters but what matters more is that you start with a handgun that fits you well and doesn't cause you to develop a flinch or other bad habit. You can always move to a more effective cartridge later once you've mastered the basics.
In 6 1/2 and 7 it matters a great deal what you carry as you need to be able to shoot it well and you need a cartridge with good terminal performance. However 6 1/6 and 7 also require another skill set that blends the use of a handgun with movement, and with other self defense techniques.
You'll note I never discussed focusing on a tactical reload, as a reload is almost never required in an armed citizen self defense shoot. That said, it's not a big deal to add it to your training. Make every reload, including administrative reloads, a tactical reload. If you practice once a day you'll get 365 repetitions per year. Practice 3 times each day an you'd have over a 1000 reps a year, and you'll start to get good at it under stress.
If you carry a revolver learn how to reload it quickly using a speed loader and the FBI, Universal or Stress Fire methods. There are pros and cons to each.
The FBI reload is fastest, but it was designed for revolvers with full length ejector rods shooting .38 Special, it has reliability issues with short ejector rod revolvers (barrels less than 3 inches, and with the longer and often sticky .357 Magnum cases.
The Stress Fire reload is a bit slower, but it works with DA revolver with a swing out crane, and with sticky .357 Magnum cases.
The Universal reload is a bit of a hybrid. It's slightly slower but much more reliable than the FBI reload. It's also slightly faster and slightly less reliable than the Stress Fire reload.
All of these methods use the strong hand to manipulate the speed loader, and it should be carried on the strong hand side.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you're wanting, am I supposed to write a book on here? There are too many variables to give overly simple solutions although people do it all the time. Trying to learn to fight by the numbers simply doesn't work. It's like asking me for an easy solution and fail-safe moves to win a street-fight. It's not as simple and as straight-forward as target shooting, but it's not necessarily as complex as many make it out to be as being some super-advanced set of skills.
I've already gave the outline of what I would address. I hold no special knowledge that you can't find through many sources. Most of my self-defense understanding and knowledge comes from my martial art background, not defensive tactics. The DT came later and was simply a branch-off from my martial arts background. Armed ECQ training is very similar to training unarmed skills and pretty much any instructor well-versed in it will have an extensive H2H/Combatives/Martial Art foundation. It's very different from pure shooting, but shooters want to approach the issue like they do pure shooting problems, when effective solutions are better achieved by addressing it as a Combatives problem, which is what it truly is.
The self-defense/sexual assault prevention courses I mentioned usually took place in three hour blocks over three days, but some applicable skills were learned over the first hour. Longer term training is obviously much better, but few will commit to it and you never know when an assault could happen, so learning some effective skills as soon as possible makes sense and how I recommend approaching the issue.
I think he’s asking what certifications do you hold? That’s assuming that a piece of paper means anything.
I already asked and was ignored. That means a lot.
Ziggy2525
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,530
- Reaction score
- 3,247
Why would it take a book? You taught these basic skills over a few hours.
I'm not interested in your certifications like @Kanewpadle suggested. I could care less about your resume. You've been pretty vocal with your critique that pistol people just don't get it. Cool. You're right, they're all wrong. What's your solution that you're able to teach to non-athletic business women in 9 hours that's better than the OP teaching his wife's friend to protect herself with a .22 as a starting point?
Last edited:
Similar threads
