Call me Ahab

posted by Caleb on Sep 13

My wife may have saved both of our lives this morning, and she definitely saved our new car from serious damage.

We were carpooling to work, and I was driving, because, well, I do the driving.  Right after crossing Keystone Ave on 116th St. (my Indianapolis readers know where that is), I was looking out my window at the car next to me and only watching the road with my peripheral vision.  I knew there weren’t any cars in front of me, so I just sort of relaxed and enjoyed my coffee.

Which exactly when my wife said “Ahab, deer-deer-DEER!” which was accompanied by a rather odd hand gesture.  Now, a lot of people have said that “you don’t rise to the occasion, you sink to the level of your training”.  I believe that, just from previous experiences in my life, and it was reinforced again today.  When Mrs. Ahab said my name in that tone of voice, I knew something was wrong and pulled my head back to the road, by the time she had finished the third “deer” I was already braking, and checking my mirrors to avoid getting rear-ended and possibly move into the left lane.

I got down to about 20 mph and the big doe jumped back into the woods off the side of the road.  The cars behind me weren’t close enough to pose a threat, which is good because the left lane wasn’t accessible to me.

The moral of the story is two-fold.  One, keep your eyes on the road.  It’s easy to get complacent when driving, especially if you drive the same route to work every day.  That’s when accidents happen.  We talk a lot about “staying aware” when we’re armed in public, it is just as important to stay away when you’re behind the wheel as it is when you’re behind the sights.

The second lesson is that since in a crisis situation you will default to your training, you had better make sure your training is good.  The worst thing I could have done with the deer would have been punching the brakes into a hard panic stop.

Situational awareness is key, in any situation whether it’s driving to work or crossing the street.  Like they say, you never see the one that gets you.

posted by Caleb on Aug 23

At least according to the World Health Organization.

In its annual World Health Report, the United Nations agency warned there was a good possibility that another major scourge like AIDS, SARS or Ebola fever with the potential of killing millions would appear in the coming years.

“Infectious diseases are now spreading geographically much faster than at any time in history,” the WHO said.

It occurs to me that I could take this in two different directions: 1) I could play it serious and discuss the potential ramifications of a major “plague” outbreak, or 2) I could play it loose and joke around about how the eventual Zombie Apocalypse will spread out of control. Since I’m not feeling particularly serious, I’ll do a little from 2, and a little from 1.

To use a fictional example, if you’ve read the book “World War Z“, which is about the aforementioned Zombie Apocalypse, then you’ve actually read a pretty accurate description of what the WHO is afraid of. People who are sick getting on planes and infecting other people, mass panic causing more infections, etc. Now, the WHO isn’t really worried about zombies, they’re worried about a mutated influenza virus, SARS, or TB.

Personally, I don’t see a lot of point for me to get all bent out of shape about something like that. It’s not even that I don’t acknowledge that it could happen, it’s more that if I got all fired up every time a UN agency told me that another “disaster” was going to happen, I’d never get anything done. The usual precautions apply, don’t fly when you’re sick, if a family member gets sick and then suddenly drops dead you should go to the hospital, and of course continue to supply the house for a breakdown in emergency services.

Of all the things that concern me, that would be number 1. It’s not getting sick, it’s that I just sort of assume that if there is a general panic, the .gov isn’t going to do anything to help me - I’m on my own. So that’s the caution for my regular readers - while it’s good to take precautions against getting bird flu or whatever, it’s also good to be prepared for the government to do exactly diddly to help you.
-

posted by Caleb on Jul 2

In what largely amounts to a “feel good” measure, the US has increased the number of air marshals deployed as a response to the recent terrorist attacks in the UK.

I like air marshals, and I think it’s a good program. It is good to have the possibility that an armed officer is on my flight so that he could plug a terrorist bastard should the need arise. That being said, my liking of the air marshal does nothing to assuage my belief that the odds of an air marshal being in precisely the right place at the right time to stop a terrorist are pretty fucking small.

Plus, if you add to that equation that the sort of people that blow up planes generally don’t care if they die; that has the unfortunate side effect of lowering the ability of an air marshal to effectively deal with a terrorist situation. But we’ve all been over this ground before, and it hasn’t changed anything.

It’s the “feel good” safety mentality that bothers me. I was in DHS and DoD, I know (and they know) that if some crazy Islamist really gets a wild hair up his keister, there isn’t a whole hell of a lot we can actually do to stop it. So we get a few more air marshals, post a few more cops at the checkpoints, and maybe if we’re lucky step up the approval process for the Federal Flight Deck officer program.

But ultimately it’s just so that people feel good about their safety. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with feeling good; as long as good feelings aren’t used as a substitute for actual safety. I don’t think, even for a minute, that you or I should go around living in fear of a terrorist attack. It’s counterproductive to living an enjoyable life. However, I do believe that individuals should be cognizant that the government cannot (and should not) be relied upon to provide for your safety as an individual. Your safety is no one’s responsibility but your own.

posted by Caleb on Jun 11

Shamelessly stolen from Les Jones, we have a Ruger Frontier which has been modified to accept the magazine from an M1.

The Ruger Frontier has a 4+1 magazine, and while the new mags are actually fixed in place, you can use a 10 rounder or a 20 rounder with this modification. If you’re planning on taking a Ruger into the “woods”, quadrupling the ammo capacity before you have to reload isn’t a bad idea.

posted by Caleb on Jun 11

“There’s no such thing as a fair fight” was a favorite saying of my first martial arts instructor. His belief was that every self-defense encounter, whether it was with or without weapons, was always unfair in one direction or another. The companion saying to the first quote was “the point of self-defense is to make any fight as unfair in your favor as possible”.

My teacher was a realist when it came to self-defense; he didn’t believe in the magical gun takeaways or knife disarms that some martial arts studios seem to love. He also believed in weapons, which made even more sense in light of the fact that his “real job” was with LAPD.

Over the years, I’ve condensed a lot of his lessons about self-defense and individual combat into a simple phrase: “Cheat to win”. Now, because I’m sure I’ll get some hate mail about that, I’m not talking about cheating in baseball, or lying on a resume, or things that are immoral or illegal. “Cheat to win” applies only to the realm of self-defense.

Why then would I use “cheat to win?” Well, cheating generally means that you’re doing something to gain an unfair advantage over your opponent; in sports or games this if frowned upon as unsporting - in self-defense it’s a perfectly fine action. The second part of that phrase took some careful defining, because when you’re in a situation where your life (or the lives of your family) is on the line, the definition of “win” can get muddy. I have generally accepted that “winning” a fight means that the threat to your life has been stopped and you’re not dead or dying. This view accepts the reality of combat, inasmuch as you’re likely to sustain injuries. So long as your injuries aren’t mortal and the other guy is no longer trying to kill you and yours, you’ve “won”.

So with that definition of “cheat to win” in mind, here are some practical examples of how you can “cheat” in a fight.

Training - It might not seem like “cheating”, but if you’re trying to unbalance potential self-defense situations in your favor, learning how to fight well will do precisely that. Additionally, cross-training isn’t a bad idea. If you carry a firearm, it still isn’t a bad idea to know how to defend yourself hand to hand.

Force multipliers - The long name for “weapons”. Nothing tips the scales in your direction like being able to offer significantly more force than your prospective enemy. However, if you’re going to carry a weapon, you had better be well versed in its use.

Mindset - This is perhaps the most important way to “cheat”. While there are “alternatives to fighting”; there are also times when those alternatives aren’t available. In that situation, your mindset is tremendously important. It’s important to make the decision now and during any training that if you’re fighting for your life, you’ll do everything you can before you stop. The reason mindset is so important is that if you’re in a self-defense situation and fighting, your enemy has committed himself to a violent course of action before he ever attacked you. If you haven’t made the commitment to fight before you ever get in a fight than your enemy has a significant advantage. It’s important to decide before the fact exactly who, and what, you’re willing to fight for.

They say that “all is fair in love and war”; self defense is really nothing more than war on a person to person scale. What are you doing to tip those scales in your favor?

posted by Caleb on May 30

Show of hands: how many of my dear readers are confident in their ability to make a pistol shot on a man sized target at 50 yards? Next question, how many of you actually practice defensive shooting with a handgun out to 50 yards? I know I don’t; the longest shot I’ll take during serious defensive practice with a pistol is 20 yards.

For rifles I don’t actually practice out much further than I do with pistols. The average WW2 infantry engagement took place at 30 yards or less and while I’ll take the occasional 100 yard shot with a rifle; I generally restrict my “practical” practice with a rifle to 50 yards and closer.

I’m a firm believer in the adage of “you fight as you train”, which means that since I’m not in the military any longer I need to train for situations that I’m likely to encounter. Mathematically speaking, the odds of me needing to engage someone with a rifle beyond 50 yards are, well, slim and none - and slim just left town. Similarly, the odds of me needing to engage someone with a pistol beyond 15-20 yards are extremely slim as well.

That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t practice long range shooting. Shooting at longer ranges is an excellent test of your skill as a marksman, at the same time shooting accurately at long range is a completely different discipline from shooting fast and accurate at close range. Both have value and are skills that should be practiced.

I like long range shooting; producing small groups on distant targets brings a smile to my face every time. I also like practical shooting, fast shooting at close range targets is just as much fun. The thing is that when I’m practicing defensive shooting, I’m working to improve skills that I could end up betting my life on. That’s why it is so important to train for scenarios you’re likely to encounter.

50 yard headshot on a moving target? Probably not. 7 yard COM shot on someone with a knife? Much more likely. Again, that’s not to say that the skills involved in the 50 yard headshot are less valuable than the skills in the 7 yard body shot.

I don’t want bullseye shooters to take any of this as a slight - what I’m trying to point out is that there is a distinct difference between training for using a gun in self-defense, and shooting a gun accurately. There also isn’t any reason that you can’t do both, but you have to remember that they are two different things entirely.

posted by Caleb on May 22

I’m link stealing from Sebastian today, although he’s stealing from Joe Huffman anyway. The gist of the question posed is that if an armed loony is plugging things, should/would you attempt to engage that person and cease their threat?

A while back, I sort of answered that question in this post, in so far as I feel that my obligation to defend my fellow citizens ends as soon as those actions put the life of my family in jeopardy. I’m a little disappointed that when I switched to Haloscan for my comments all the original comments on the site disappeared, as that post had some excellent discussion.

To reiterate my point made there, I believe that as a citizen who is not a cop or a soldier, my obligation to defend “my fellow man” doesn’t extend past my family. I agree wholeheartedly with Sebastian in that if I could secure my own area and made sure that my responsibilities were covered, only then would I take a shot if I had the opportunity.

It all goes back to the way I was raised, and by that I mean “traditionally”. I am responsible for the safety of my family, which means that I’ll take the action I deem most effective at providing the highest level of safety for that family. My in-depth research indicates that going looking for a gunfight is generally counterproductive to the my safety, and the safety of my family.

posted by Caleb on May 10

In the news I see a story regarding a pair of vegan parents who have been sentenced to life in prison for murdering their infant child. They were convicted on charges of: felony murder, malice murder, involuntary manslaughter, and cruelty to children.

When their baby died, it weighed 3.5 lbs (that’s 1.59 kilos for my European reader). That’s about five pounds less than I weighed the day I was born. The jury deliberated for a grand total of seven hours (which is not a lot) before coming back with guilty verdicts. Some excerpts from the article (with Ahab-comments) follow.

Defense lawyers said the first-time parents did the best they could while adhering to the lifestyle of vegans, who typically use no animal products. They said Sanders and Thomas did not realize the baby, who was born at home, was in danger until minutes before he died.

What? YOUR BABY WEIGHED 3.5 POUNDS. How in the name of The Duke did you miss that little detail? I could offer some intellectual commentary, but I’m too gobsmacked by the utter vapidity of the parents in this case. But wait, there’s more.

…their malnourished 6-week-old baby boy, who was fed a diet largely consisting of soy milk and apple juice.

Soy milk and apple juice. Now, I understand that crazies vegans don’t believe in using any animal products, but I wasn’t aware that breast milk counted as an animal product. All this mother had to do was pop a boob out there, and she didn’t. Instead, she let her child die because of her personal beliefs.

I’m pleased by this verdict, for a lot of reasons. Despite my personal feelings about vegans being hypocritical and foolish, I honestly don’t care what you eat or don’t eat, it’s your life do what you want. I do have a problem that when people force their belief system on someone who can’t give consent - under any circumstances. By trying to raise their child as a “vegan”, these parents denied it the essential nutrients that the baby needed to live. Whether that was because of cruelty or ignorance doesn’t actually matter.

That’s the problem with radical beliefs of any type. When take something too far, innocent lives get damaged. This baby could defend himself, he didn’t have a voice to say “feed me some fucking milk, lady”. I guess you could call him the first victim of radical vegetarianism.

Parents have a right to raise their child as they wish. What that means is that my parents can raise me Christian, or vegetarian, or however they please. What they don’t have a right to do is endanger my life because of something they believe in. There was one person at the trial that understood exactly what was going on, however.

“No matter how many times they want to say, ‘We’re vegans, we’re vegetarians,’ that’s not the issue in this case,” said prosecutor Chuck Boring. “The child died because he was not fed. Period.”

And that’s all she wrote.

Update: Eric at Classical Values has more.

Update Part Two: Electric Boogaloo - Ambulance Driver informs me that I don’t do metric conversions very well, in the comments section. Silly me and getting my pounds to kilos conversion bassackwards.

posted by Caleb on May 2

I still get a lot of hits for people searching for survival rifles and that sort of thing, so I thought I’d write another piece on them - that and because the topic is utterly fascinating to me. This rifle that I’m going to describe below doesn’t exist (that I know of), but I could put one together for a semi reasonable cost by performing some modifications to existing rifles.

Concept
The rifle must be suitable for taking game to fill the pot, defense against local predators, which are generally not bigger than coyotes; light enough to hump all over the countryside, and able to place accurate fire out to 100 yards. This isn’t a bear rifle, or a battle rifle, I’m not planning on taking this rifle to Iraq and testing its combat readiness.

Caliber
I’ll probably take some flack for this, but the caliber I would choose for my ultimate survival rifle is (surprise) .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire; or as it is more commonly known: .22 Magnum.
I’ve blogged about my deep and abiding love for the .22 WMR on a couple of occasions. My actual decade of experience with the cartridge is what brings me around to choosing it for my survival rifle. It’s not merely the big brother of the .22 LR, it’s a real bullet with actual jackets that has excellent killing power. Add to this the wide variety of bullet selection, ranging from 30 grain CCI TNT rounds for little animals up to 40 grain Jacketed Soft Points from Remington for bigger game that requires a bit more penetration. While it’s not the perfect load for deer, or the best rifle for squirrels; the .22 WMR cartridge provides excellent power in a very light package. The weight of the cartridge is actually the final deciding factor, I can pack A LOT of .22 WMR ammo around before the weight starts to become an issue.

Action & Magazine
For action type, I’d prefer a bolt action. Hypothetically, I’m going to be sloughing this pea-shooter around the woods, and a bolt action is generally more resistant to inclement weather, dirt getting in the action, etc. Plus, since I’m in a “survival” situation; a good bolt rifle encourages me to make my shots count. The rifle would feed from detachable 10-round box magazines, I’d also locate the magazine release in roughly the same position as the mag release on the M14 family of rifles. Now, I personally feel that if I’m firing this thing fast enough to need a rapid magazine swap I’m probably in deep shit; however it is nice to have the capacity for a quick magazine change.

Stock, sights, barrel, & finish
The stock for my dream rifle is made of polymer, and is (of course) black. While I prefer wood stocks, a black polymer stock is again going to hold up better in the wild than a nice wood stock. The same thought goes into the finish, again I prefer a nice blue steel finish for my guns, but in this case the rifle would be finished in a more weather resistant stainless. The disadvantage to stainless is that it reflects more light - but again if I’m engaging hostile forces I’ve probably already given my position away with rifle fire. For the sights, I want some sort of aperture sight, no glass sights. If I’m off in the woods, I don’t need something that could break and leave my rifle without an aiming method, so sturdy iron aperture sights are the ones for me. Finally, the barrel should be no longer than 18 inches in length. This is long enough to squeeze maximum terminal performance out of the .22 WMR, without being so long as to cause me problems carrying it.

Marlin makes a rifle that is almost perfect, but it’s lacking iron sights and only comes with a seven round magazine. It would certainly do in a pinch, but hey, this was a hypothetical exercise anyway.

Your mileage may vary of course, but if you were wondering what I’d take, that’s it. A bolt action, polymer stocked, fixed sighted, .22 WMR with detachable magazines and an 18 inch barrel. Now if I could just get Marlin or Savage to return my calls…

posted by Caleb on Jan 23

I’ve been thinking about rifles again; in part prompted by the utter lack of centerfire rifles in my gun locker. Specifically, I’ve been thinking about this concept of a “Homeland Defense Rifle”, i.e. the first rifle you would grab to defend your country in the event of a total “Shit Hits the Fan” (SHTF) situation. Since I’m in the market for a rifle, and I don’t hunt; I figured it might as well be a Homeland Defense Rifle (HDR). Below, I’ll list out the capabilities I think this rifle should have, then I’ll go through various action types and list rifles that I think would fit the bill. Again, please bear in mind that this is entirely the subjective opinion of me. Your actual mileage may vary.

Capabilities

Caliber - You’d probably want your rifle to be chambered in a relatively common caliber, in the event that you’re reduced to scrounging for ammo. This doesn’t mean just military calibers either, as .270 Winchester (for example) can be found in practically every sporting goods store in the nation.

Capacity - My perfect HDR would have an ammo capacity of at least 10 rounds, and should be able to be reloaded via detachable magazines. I would make the exception that a rifle with a fixed magazine that can be rapidly recharged with stripper clips is just as acceptable in this regard.

Accuracy - Sub-MOA groups not required. Honestly, you need to be able to hit a man sized target in the upper body at 150 yards with the standard sights on the weapon every time. Most rifle engagements during WWII took place at 30 yards or less, so I might even be willing to shrink that 150 to 100 yards if pressed.

Sights - Rugged, fixed sights are preferable (for me at least). In the event of a very naughty situation, I distrust anything with batteries, glass, or moving parts, because these things can break; and if they do Murphy Hizzown-Bad-Self will ensure that your neato-torpedo EOHolotech-CQB-Ultimate-Xray scope breaks at the most inconvenient time possible. Like when you’re taking fire. Iron sights are really, really hard to break.

Size/Weight - Not too heavy? This depends on the strength and endurance of the poor bugger who is going to be lugging this thing around. If you’re strong enough to tote a Barrett .50 around, go right ahead. I’d go for something lighter, as I am of small stature.

Action type - I’m accepting all applications in this category. For the HDR, you may have a semi-automatic, a lever action (I went there), or a bolt action. I would probably rule out single shot rifles since they don’t allow for serious sustained fire. I would add the caveat that if you’ve got a single shot .223 and that’s it, than learn to use it well and to reload it in a hurry.

I’m flying by the seat of my pants here, so if you think of anything else, let me know. From here, I’ll break out the three main action types, and list a few rifles that I feel would be good contenders.

Bolt-Actions

Ishapore 2A1 - Essentially, this is a Lee-Enfield rifle re-engineered for the higher pressure 7.62 NATO round, instead of the standard .303 British. These were new manufacture rifles made in India at the Ishapore Armory, hence the name. This would probably be my first choice for a HDR if I was going with a bolt action. Chambered for a powerful and common caliber, the magazine is detachable, the sights are excellent, and the Lee-Enfield models have a bolt that allows for very fast operation.

Spanish FR8 - This was a stopgap rifle issued to the Spanish military and police. The linked website gives a pretty good picture of the rifle, but essentially it’s a 7.62 NATO rifle on a Mauser action. I like that.

Ahab’s Dream rifle - A Bolt action .223 built on a Mauser action with an 18 inch barrel. Fixed magazine that can be charged with stripper clips or loaded with single rounds. Boy…that would sure be cool.

Semi-automatics

Honestly, I should just skip this section. Everyone knows that what I’m going to type. Volumes have been written on why the AK or the AR are The Best Rifles Ever, so I’m not going to enumerate the reasons below.

AK/Clones - Do I actually need to explain this one?

AR/Clones - See above.

SKS - …come on. It’s cheap, ugly, but it takes a licking and keeps on ticking. Plus, it can be had with detachable magazines or a fixed magazine if that strikes your fancy.

I probably left some onenulls pet rifle off this list, but for the sake of brevity, I’m listing the rifles I would take in the order I would take them.

Lever-Actions

I can hear you all now. “Lever actions? Are you crazy?” The answer is probably.

30-30 Rifles - I’d say you’re well armed with a .30-30 lever gun. Again, the round is very common, although not a military round it can be found at almost every sporting goods store in the universe.

Summary

I guess I revealed my bias towards fixed magazine rifles for guerrilla/survival type situations. Oh well, such is the life. I’m probably going to go buy a new rifle here in the next month or so. I really do need a good reason to stockpile centerfire rifle ammo. I’ve already got 2700 reasons for Nancy Pelosi to hate my house, I reckon I should probably give her at least 500 more.