Brillianter.com

Linoge seems to be quite upset on my opinions about gun modifications and accessories. A ranty bit of flamewar follows.

…what irked me initially, and what, unfortunately, continues to irk me in reference to Mostly Genius’ post, is the condescending, holier-than-thou attitude of those who choose, for whatever reason, to leave their firearm stock.

I don’t have to respect someone’s bad choices. If you believe that adding some gadget is going to make all the difference then knock yourself out, it’s your gun, your money, and your life. I am not attacking a particular modification, and I did say in my opening paragraph: The general rule regarding firearm modifications is: “Don’t” … Yes, there are exceptions and yes there are things that guns really need to have that don’t come stock.

Let me explain how I have arrived at my “condescending, holier-than-thou attitude… with a healthy dose of saccharin condescension.” I have worked for a training company for a number of years. Other instructors have worked for this company for many years as well. In this time we have seen thousands of students and thousands of firearms in classes. These classes provide a roughly uniform set of stresses on all of the guns that students bring to class. So based upon the observations of thousands of data points I can safely say that in general, most firearm modifications don’t improve the function, performance, or reliability of the gun in question. I did not say never.

On to the liabilities of making a modification. There were no systemic reliability issues with the original 1911, yet all sorts of gunsmithing had to happen back in the 1970’s and 1980’s to get reliable guns. Why? Because the original 1911 wasn’t designed to feed anything other than ball ammunition. The first modification was changing the ammo the gun was going to shoot, and that required further modifications to get it to reliably feed that ammo. Originally, this was very hit or miss depending upon the gun and the gunsmith making the modifications, but now many of those changes have become factory standard – with all of the engineering and testing necessary to change the operating tolerances.

The reliability of any gun is ultimately a guess. We can estimate based upon other guns of the same make an model and come up with a pretty good guess as to how well it is going to function and hold up, but it’s not a guarantee. Once you have built a unique snowflake of a gun we have no basis for assuming how reliable it is going to be. If you think yours works, more power to you.

On to what the pros are using. If you want to build a race gun for competition then you would be wise to pattern your purchasing decisions based upon what the top competition shooters are using. If you want a defensive gun then it would probably be wise to base your decisions on what the “experts” in that field are carrying. The optimizations for a sport or for a defensive gun are not always the same. How come national match high power shooters don’t use the same gear as the 3 gun guys? Or soldiers? Because these aren’t all the same application. As an aside, most of the top people in the field that are teaching shotgun for home defense are doing so not because the shotgun is the “best” choice (not to say they aren’t serviceable), but because they are inexpensive and a lot of people have them.

I find this quote telling:

…but taking their choices and decisions as our own, simply because they chose them… well, that is just about as bad as using some gadget simply because it looks cool.

No that is not the same at all. Theoretically if the ‘expert’ has made a choice it is probably for a reason, and generally for a very well founded reason. When you find multiple experts making the same choices despite different origins and training that bears some further consideration. It does not make something THE WAY or THE CHOICE but it is certainly worth more than a random opinion. All opinions are not equal, because they are not based upon the same level of knowledge.

On to ammunition capacity. More is probably better than less, but realistically it probably won’t matter. Short of the zombie apocalypse I have a hard time believing that wave after wave of home invaders are going to be stepping over the corpses of their fallen comrades to come steal my TV, or attack my family. I am betting that after one shoots the first couple of them the rest aren’t going to want to continue, but there are no guarantees. If ammunition capacity is the primary concern then the shotgun is the wrong weapon system.

On to ergonomics and general shooter warm fuzziness. Linoge argues that some level of gadgetry is going to make the shooter “feel” more comfortable and thus improve shooter performance. Maybe this is true. Actual training, practice, and familiarity are guaranteed to improve shooter performance. And here is the crux of the issue. Is the reason that the shooter isn’t getting hits because he doesn’t know how to shoot or because he doesn’t have the right accessories on his gun?

Linoge wants to pretend that my position is a boolean argument where all modifications are bad, all accessories are worthless, and all individuals don’t know what is going to be the best for them. And I never said any such thing. Equipment should expand our capabilities and better enable us to accomplish what we are trying to do. If you want to shoot at long range you are going to need an optic, if you want to shoot in the dark you are probably going to need a light.

…I do not exactly recall asking for or expecting your approval or support. What I do expect is your consideration for people doing as they damned well please with their own firearms.

I could really care less what modifications people want to make to their firearms, or their reasons for doing so. Either my opinion has value to somebody or it doesn’t. Maybe the reason I am “narrow minded” is because I have narrowed things down to a framework for evaluating my equipment choices and have enough data points to determine what does and does not work.

Over at Walls of the City there is a post up about customization and adding accessories to your firearms. Linoge and I clearly do not agree on this topic.

The general rule regarding firearm modifications is: “Don’t” This is because every modification and gadget has a liability associated with it. Generally if you change something the gun does not work as well as it did before. Yes, there are exceptions and yes there are things that guns really need to have that don’t come stock. I am sure that I am going to get some comments about performance optimization from the competition shooters, so let me temper that a little bit: I am a defensive shooter. I have shot competition occasionally, but when I do, I shoot it with my regular equipment.

What does this gadget do for me? That is the one question that people seem to have so much trouble parsing. As an example: a barrel shroud will keep you from burning yourself on your shotgun barrel, but the manufacturer didn’t see the need to put one on. Maybe that is because burning yourself on the barrel of your shotgun is not a problem: there are no operator controls on the barrel (so there isn’t any reason to be handling it) and you have to be doing heck of a lot of shotgun shooting in a very short period of time to make this an issue.

Am I going to use whatever added capability I am gaining? I could put a bipod on my rifle, but it isn’t going to make my rifle any better for my intended role of self defense. It might make it easier to be accurate from the prone on the range or in the field, but it’s not going to help me to shoot the bad guy that is in my house – in fact the added weight and bulk on the front of the gun is going to make it more difficult to operate.

You can justify anything. To yourself. If you want to trick out your gun with every cool gadget under the sun, more power to you, just don’t expect me to buy into your reasoning for why something is a must-have. I have seen a lot of guns with a lot of gadgets over the years and I have seen very few trick guns that both work reliably AND that the owner can operate. In generally I find most accessories and customizations to be technical solutions to training problems. Personally I assign far more cool points to those that can quickly and efficiently hit the target than those that have latest and greatest gizmo.

Observe the pros. If there is a consensus between what the top people in the field are using then that is probably a good choice. This is not an appeal to authority, but rather an attempt to skip reinventing the wheel, and rediscovering a bunch of stuff that is detrimental for your intended application.

So there has been a lot of discussion about this Tactical Response video that shows an instructor standing between two targets during a live fire exercise. James Yeager responds to the criticisms of his detractors. Below I will examine the major points of his response and justification for having an instructor taking photos in front of the firing line.

Evaluating Risk. Yeager explains that driving to the range is more dangerous than standing between the targets. While it is true that there is some risk associated with driving there is a benefit (transportation) that we deem to be worth the risk. I fail to see what the benefit is for the students (or the instructor) by having the instructor stand down range.

Stress Inoculation. Yeager explains that this practice better prepares students for ‘real world’ gunfight pressures. I certainly believe that if a skill is going to need to be performed under stress then some portion of the practice of that skill should be performed under stress. There are a lot of ways of inducing stress such as time pressure, distracting noise, testing, ambiguity, sleep deprivation, etc. None of these require putting somebody in the position taking a bullet should a student make a mistake or stumble. If the goal is to simulate a gunfight for stress inoculation purposes then why not have two parallel berms and have the instructor shoot at targets that are behind the students while they are on the firing line? If ‘realism’ trumps safety then wouldn’t that be a better drill?

Safest Training. I am not going to dispute the safety “record” of Yeager or his staff, but I fail to see a procedure or system that makes this training inherently safe, or at best any more safe than that of any other shooting school. A person getting shot during training is a big deal, and some of the larger training schools have had people get shot. Generally they shoot themselves holstering or drawing the gun and in rare circumstances a student will shoot someone else. If you have cycled through 50,000 or more students one of them is bound to be an idiot – regardless of how strict the range rules might be.

Makes People Safer. I am sure it makes people think and focus a lot more about keeping the gun on target, and where the muzzle is pointing when the instructor is a foot away from the target. The student that trips over his own feet is an open question as far as “safety” goes. Safety is a process, not an event.

Jabbering of Internet Commandos. Having discussed this video with some actual (non-internet) commandos they don’t see any utility in the increased risk of this particular training “method” because it doesn’t meet any particular training objective. I don’t think the risks are worth the benefits unless you are going to be shooting targets in close proximity to your teammates – and have gone through a slow progression building up to running the drill live.

I don’t believe this training accomplished anything other than stir up some controversy, and generate some potential marketing buzz. My overall impression (based solely on the videos) is that Tactical Response isn’t particularly concerned with safety, and that Yeager’s response was more of an attempt at justifying an unsafe act.

A lot of the gun bloggers are arguing about cheap holsters, SayUncle has a recap so far, but here is my take on it:

• If you need two hands to reopen an re-insert the gun into the holster it is a safety issue. It leads to people sweeping the hand that is trying to keep the holster open, and in some cases shoot their support hand.
• If your holster isn’t fitted for the particular gun (i.e. “Fits most medium size autos”) it isn’t going to do the job of holding the gun securely. If your gun is longer than your holster (improperly fitted) the front sight can hang up on the bottom edge of the holster on the draw.
• Retention snaps wear out and fail. If you are counting on the retention snap to hold the gun in the holster you will be disappointed eventually.
• If your holster attaches to the belt with a spring clip, in many cases it is easier to draw the gun and holster off of the belt than it is to draw the gun. Additionally the clip allows the holster to slide around on the belt.
• A holster made out of Cordura or other fabric can fray with repeated use, and can get caught on any of the guns numerous protrusions (sights, safeties, slide stop, magazine release button, etc.)
• Cheap holsters do not hold up in retention or combatives training. As soon as the wrestling match starts the gun is no longer where you put it.

Cheap holsters are a false economy, since they don’t hold up to real use. My daily carry holster probably cost me $100 about ten years ago it is still going strong, despite countless combatives and retention classes, shooting classes, range sessions, and dry fire drills. I can’t imagine how many $20 holsters I would have burned through in the same period, but I know it would be more than five.

Holsters are not a luxury item. If the holster is part of your personal “survival equipment” then it is not the place to try and save money. Nobody said that firearms was going to be inexpensive. Substitute some dry fire practice for live fire practice, take the savings and buy a sturdy holster and belt.

Named for John Farnam, this is probably the best general purpose defensive shooting drill that I have seen. This is a good benchmark for measuring your shooting performance and progress. You will need some inert/dummy cartridges, at least two magazines, and a shot timer. The total round count for this drills is eight live rounds and one dummy round. The setup is as follows.

In the Gun:

• 1 live round in the chamber.
• 5 live rounds in the magazine. (Some sources say 4 live rounds.)
• 1 dummy round in the magazine. (Not the first or last round.

In the Reload:

• At least three live rounds.

The drill is shot as follows:

• On the buzzer draw and start shooting.
• Perform immediate action when you encounter a malfunction.
• Speed reload when you reach slide lock
• Shoot twice more.

If you followed the directions correctly you will end up with two empty magazines (one on the ground, one in the gun) and one live round in the chamber.

The “standard” is shooting a 8.5″x11″ sheet of paper at 8 meters with a disqualification for a miss. Farnam expects his students to complete this in 18.25 seconds and his instructors to complete it in 12 seconds.

Now for the “modified” part of the drill:

• Add one second to your total time for each miss. This allows you to capture your progress. It’s not perfect but it is kind of helpful to see improvements.
• Change the distance. Both closer and farther away.
• Reduce the size of the target.
• Add a step of movement on the draw, immediate action, and reload.
• Add verbal commands throughout the drill.

The people that seem to have the best success at this drill are the ones with the most efficient gun handling. Being able to quickly and precisely clear the malfunction and speed reload will give you more time to get your hits.