Bumps and Other Contraptions on Top of Our Pistols

Simple Sights on an Early S&W Revolver

Why do we have these bumps and other contraptions on top of our pistols? Regardless of whether the sights on your pistol are literally bumps or you have a sophisticated electronic or mechanical sighting system, they are there for one reason—to align the pistol’s bore with the point in space where you would like the bullet to impact.

However, if the target is close enough, the sights are often unnecessary. Although the definition of “close” is dependent upon the shooter’s skill and other factors like the size of the target, the body mechanics of pointing the pistol will allow you to align the bore and hit the target absent some intervening factor such as severely jerking the trigger. Precision and distant shots are where sight selection becomes important whether you are looking at the width of the front sight blade on adjustable iron sights or the minute-of-angle or MOA* diameter for a miniature dot sight or MDS.

When it comes to iron sights, the typical 0.125-inch blade width found on most factory pistols with iron sights is an acceptable compromise between accuracy and speed. I prefer a thinner front sight blade (say 0.115 or even 0.110 inches) because the thinner blade covers less of the target at longer distances and is therefore more precise. I personally believe that front sight blades wider than 0.125 are unacceptable because such a wide blade covers too much of the target at 20 yards and beyond. Manufacturers of tritium night sights often use blades that are 0.135 or wider to accommodate the tritium capsule. While these sights work fine up close, the excessively wide front sight makes precise distant shots difficult.

The same holds true with the dot size in an MDS. I started my MDS training with a 6.5 MOA dot in a Trijicon RMR 06 red dot and still use the RMR for steel matches and other short range, fast action events. The RMR 06 dot size works well out to ranges of 25 yards or so; however, I discovered that the 6.5 dot covers too much of the target for precise shots at longer distances. I now use a Holosun MDS with a 2 MOA green dot on my carry pistol and the smaller dot works very well for short range as well as longer shots.

Some MDS brands have multiple reticle systems including a dot within a circle, solid triangles, open triangles with a dot in the center, etc. Personally, I find these reticles too busy and distracting with a triangle reticle being the one possible exception. If you zero the pistol/rifle for the point of aim/point of impact coinciding with the apex of the triangle, then you have a precision aiming point (the apex) for longer distances and a gross aiming point (the entire triangle) for short range engagements.

The MDS does have limitations; however, if you understand these limitations it will work for you. But what if it’s raining? I carry concealed and rain is typically not an issue since the cover garment protects the sight from rain until you draw the pistol. I used an MDS during a Gunsite 3-day class and it rained hard every day—all day. The initial MDS sight picture with water present was a bit fuzzy; however, first shot cleared the water away. How about batteries? With modern battery technology, the battery in your MDS is unlikely to fail. If you replace it every six months with a quality battery, you will almost entirely eliminate this possibility.

I’ve heard discussion concerning whether iron sights or the MDS is faster. In my experience, for short-range engagements there is no practical difference. I recently shot a Sensible Self Defense Short Range Match twice—once with a SIG P320 Carry pistol equipped with an MDS and once with a SIG P320 Carry pistol equipped with iron sights. The match consisted of five stages with an average of nine target engagements per stage and movement between shooting positions, etc. Distance to the targets ranged from arm’s length to 20 yards and non-threats or hard cover rendered many targets only partially visible.

My match total raw time with the MDS was 78.94 seconds and my raw time with the iron sights was 78.00 seconds. A difference of .94 seconds in favor of the iron sights. Another IDPA Master, Steve also shot the match with substantially identical Springfield XD-M pistols, one with iron sights and one with an MDS. His times were 69.60 with the MDS­­ and 71.66 with the iron sights.

I have become a firm believer in the miniature dot sight on carry pistols and with the variety on the market today the shooter has a wide range of choices. I will discuss some of these choices in a future article.

If you enjoy reading these articles please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

*One minute of angle or MOA equals one inch at 100 yards. Therefore, a six MOA dot would cover 6-inches at 100 yards.

Home Invasion Response--Dress Rehearsal

Home invader Jonathan Perales fatally shot homeowner Michael Clayton Robinson early one morning in Universal City, Texas. According to Perales' arrest warrant affidavit, Robinson had armed himself with a 9mm Glock after his wife noticed a strange vehicle in his driveway. Robinson opened his bedroom door and moments later confronted Perales who had entered the Robinson home through an unlocked back door. As Robinson yelled, "Get out of my house," the men exchanged gunfire. Perales shot Robinson once in the torso and Robinson shot Perales in the arm and upper chest.

Doctors later pronounced Robinson dead at Brook Army Medical Center. Robinson's wife and two of his children who were inside at the time were not injured in the gunfight.

What is your protocol for a possible home invasion? Have you rehearsed it, at night, under circumstances similar to those you might encounter in a real home invasion? One of the best techniques the military uses is immediate action drills. The immediate action drill encompasses all of the tasks necessary to prepare you to respond rapidly to a specific set of circumstances without the application of a deliberate decision-making process.

As an example, let’s say my house cameras detect a disturbance and then my alarm begins to sound indicating a possible home invasion. Among my immediate actions is to secure my pistol, move to a location in the bedroom area where I will don a relatively heavy set of body armor, and then secure my shotgun as the primary defensive weapon.

A friend of mine suggested that we rehearse our home invasion protocols or immediate action drills on the live fire range. We performed each task to prepare and arm ourselves and then engaged randomly designated targets to simulate our response to a home invader using unlawful deadly force.

I immediately had difficulty quickly donning my body armor. I had never actually tried to don it in the rapid manner I would use during a home invasion. The design of my armor’s cummerbund when coupled with side plates caused the cummerbund to twist and made securing the armor very difficult. Upon further reflection, I decided the side plates were unnecessary and I removed them. This solved the cummerbund twisting issue and allowed me to don the armor in less than 30 seconds.

I then practiced securing and charging the shotgun with my eyes closed to simulate doing the task in the dark. My friend was monitoring my actions from a safety perspective to ensure I did not inadvertently do something unsafe. I am familiar enough with my "house ready" shotgun storage that I was able to perform this task easily.

I then moved to the target area and engaged the specified targets with the buckshot rounds I keep with the gun. Although this was the first time I had conducted live fire with this armor combination, my defensive shotgun’s 12-inch length of pull allowed me to manipulate the shotgun and fire it effectively with the body armor in place. (Note: A shotgun with typical 13-14 inch length of pull may be too long to manipulate effectively with while wearing body armor. This is particularly true for pump guns.)

This is one example of my home invasion protocols. My wife and I rehearse the others periodically; however, this was the first live fire immediate action drill that I have conducted with the actual armor and shotgun combination I keep for home defense. I learned a few lessons in the process and made some modifications to my armor. I have subsequently dry practiced it at home several times with dummy rounds in the shotgun and my modifications were sound.

My friend forgot to bring his body armor to our live fire rehearsal and the shotgun he brought was not his home defense shotgun. As a result, he decided he would do a dry practice run in his house one evening in the dark. He keeps his shotgun and body armor under the bed. His immediate action is to roll out of the bed, reach under it, secure and don his body armor, and then retrieve the shotgun.

He rolled out of the bed, reached under it—and no body armor, no shotgun. He stretched as far as he could reach and still no body armor, no shotgun. He got a flashlight and discovered that his wife had shoved the armor and shotgun to the center of the king-sized bed because she did not like seeing it and bumping into it when she vacuumed. He had to get a cane to fish the armor and shotgun out from under the bed. Imagine discovering this during an actual incident. Until that moment, he did not know that his home invasion response protocol had a serious flaw.

Periodically checking your equipment, doing dry runs to test your home invasion immediate action drills, and rehearsing with your family is a very good idea. My friend and I both discovered that our home invasion response plans required modification to ensure we could effectively execute them.

If you enjoy reading these articles please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

The Least Amount of Physical Force?

Training exercise (AP Photo/Ted S. Warre)

With the defund the police movement in some large, more liberal leaning cities and other feel good measures some state legislatures are considering or adopting, the private citizen who is involved in a self-defense incident may face the flawed concept of “the least amount of force” necessary to resolve an incident. 

On the surface, it would appear that the requirement to use the least amount of force necessary to resolve a problem has merit; however, when you consider the actual application of this concept in the heat of the moment, it is clear that the idea is impossible to implement.

In Washington State for example, recent legislation requires police to: “use the least amount of physical force necessary to overcome resistance under the circumstances, which includes a consideration of the characteristics and conditions of the person for the purposes of determining whether to use force against that person and, if force is necessary, determining the appropriate and least amount of force possible to effect a lawful purpose.”

The difference between police use of force versus a private citizen’s use of force under the law in most states is that police may use necessary force – i.e., force that is one-step above that of the criminal when is necessary to mitigate an incident, make an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm. 

Private citizens on the other hand may only use equal or proportional force to stop a threat. In other words, a private citizen may only respond to another’s use of unlawful non-deadly force with non-deadly force and may only use deadly force in response to the threat or use of unlawful deadly force.

When deadly force enters the equation, there is no difference between police use of deadly force and a private citizen’s use of deadly force. 

The thoughtful article linked below discusses the challenges inherent in determining how one would identify the "least" amount of physical force necessary to resolve a situation. This is a good read and is particularly useful if you live in a state adopting or considering such legislation.

Article here

If you enjoy reading these articles please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

Winchester, Herters, and Browning 115gr 9mm Ammunition Recall

If you have purchased any Winchester, Browning, or Herter’s, or 115 grain 9mm ammunition after 25 March 2021, the ammunition may be subject to recall. (Note: apparently Winchester loads/loaded this ammunition for Browning).

According to Winchester, some lots of 9mm Luger 115 FMJ and JHP ammunition may contain propellant that may not properly ignite and burn when the cartridge is fired. Even if the cartridge propellant does not fully ignite, it may still generate enough pressure to cause the bullet to enter the barrel and lodge in the pistol's bore.  Commonly known as a squib, if the cartridge's failure causes a bullet to be lodged in the barrel, subsequently loading and firing another round with the bore obstructed will very likely cause firearm damage and may render the firearm inoperable or destroy it. It could also injure the shooter and potentially bystanders.

Since squib loads generally fail to expel the bullet from the barrel, you must use a metal rod or wooden dowel and some impact (e.g. a hammer or hard surface) to drive the bullet out before the firearm can be placed back into action.

I have witnessed a squib load result in the destruction of a pistol. The competitor believed she had failed to chamber a round when she reloaded the pistol, she then executed a Tap-Rack malfunction clearance, immediately came back on target, and fired another round. This round was noticeably louder (I heard the unusual report) and the pistol jammed with the slide locked in place. The Safety Officer said he didn’t realize the competitor had a squib due to the noise from nearby shooting bays and because the shooter’s body was obstructing the SO’s ability to see the pistol (a tight corridor in the stage—a poor stage design).

The competitor had trained herself (as many of us have) to clear the malfunction automatically. The Tap-Rack maneuver chambered a fresh round, which when she fired it blew the stuck bullet free, caused excessive pressure that bulged the barrel, stressed the slide rails out of specification, and jammed the pistol solidly in a partially open position. The local gunsmith had to cut the barrel in half to get the slide off the pistol. Smith and Wesson later x-rayed the plastic frame and determined that it was stressed as well—the pistol was essentially a total loss. If this happened in a self-defense situation instead of during a competition, the competitor would have had a serious problem; a problem only a backup gun could likely have solved.

So if you have any of this ammunition, go to the Winchester and Browning websites and determine if the lot numbers of your ammunition match the recall. Note: If ammunition was purchased before March 25, 2021, it is NOT subject to recall.

Shameless plug: We manufacture the FreeBore titanium squib removal tool and key chain designed to remove squibs, cartridges stuck in the chamber from a broken extractor, or jammed cartridges in a revolver. You can buy one here: FreeBore

I also did a video demonstrating what a squib sounds like and how to remove the stuck bullet: Squib

Buckshot or Bullshot?

As I was conducting research for a series of articles on buckshot ammunition, I was surprised to discover that most of the #00 buckshot loads I encountered were not actually loaded with #00 buck. Has this always been the case and no one told me?

I initially noticed what seemed to be a size difference in the pellets when I cut apart buckshot loads from two manufacturers for some pictures -- even though both were supposed to be #00 buckshot loads (a standard #00 pellet is 0.330 inches in diameter). At first I thought it was the color difference playing visual tricks; however, when I measured the pellet sizes from each shell, the pellets in the shell shown on the left in the picture were larger than the standard diameter of a #00 pellet and the pellets in the shell on the right were smaller.

Once I discovered the discrepancy, I acquired as many factory 12 gauge #00 buckshot loads that I could put my hands on and a bag of #00 nickel plated buckshot pellets from Ballistic Products, Inc. I cut five shells open from each manufacturer and measured the diameter and weight of all the pellets in each shell. I then averaged the diameter measurement and the weight for all pellets from each manufacturer including 45 pellets I randomly selected from the bag of Ballistic Products #00 buckshot pellets.

The #00 buckshot loads from all U.S. manufacturers (except one) had an average measurement of just over .320 inches or the diameter of #0 buckshot. Remington was the exception due to what I suspect is an issue of “roundness.” The Remington pellets were almost oblong with some measurements over .33 inches and others well under .32 inches. I averaged the Remington measurements to the best of my ability.  I discuss this in more detail below.

All of the Fiocchi “00” buckshot rounds were loaded with #1 buckshot. The Tornado #00 was the only round actually loaded with #00 buckshot. Tornado is a brand name from the M90 Ammunition Factory in Croatia. The Ballistic Products buckshot and the Sterling and the Luce #00 buckshot shells all had pellets larger than #00 buckshot. Sterling and Luce are brands that appear to be loaded in Turkey. The table below details the average size for each manufacturer’s pellets.

* Update: I received some Hornady TAP Light Magnum #00 loads, some Nobel Sport #00 Law Enforcement 12-pellet shells, and some Tunet (made in France) #00 Law Enforcement 9-pellet shells.  The TAP pellet's average diameter is 0.318, the  Nobel Sport #00 pellet's average diameter is 0.328, and the Tunet #00 Law Enforcement pellet's average diameter is 0.325.

The weight averages for the pellets that each manufacturer loaded tracks with the normal weight for the specific buckshot sizes with some exceptions. In other words, the Fiocchi #1 buckshot pellets weighed an average of 41.0 grains which is close to the standard #1 buckshot weight of 40 grains. Federal, Speer, and Hornady pellets weighed in the 48 grain range that was close to the #0 standard weight of 48.3 grains. The table below details the average weights for each manufacturer’s pellets.

* Update: The Hornady TAP Light Magnum #00 pellet's average weight is 48.8 grains. The Nobel Sport #00 Law Enforcement 12-pellet shell pellet's average weight is 58.5 and the Tunet #00 Law Enforcement 9-pellet average weight is 57.3 grains.

As you can see, Remington, Winchester, Nobel Sport, and Tunet were the exceptions when it comes to pellet weight. This is where “roundness” seemed to enter the picture for the Remington buckshot loads. As I measured the Remington pellet’s diameter, I noticed that they were far from perfectly round and this may account for the weight of the Remington pellets.

From a roundness perspective, pellets from Ballistic Products Inc, Federal, Speer, and Hornady as well as the pellets from foreign manufacturers were all very close to spherical and their weight range reflected this consistency. I am guessing that the lead alloy in the Winchester, Nobel Sport, and Tunet pellets might play a role in accounting for the above standard weight.

Does the target object to the size or weight of the pellet hitting it? Probably not. However, I do find it interesting that many manufacturers are not loading the #00 pellet size that they are advertising. If you think about it, a pellet that weighs 5 grains less than the norm per pellet saves a pound of lead for every 1400 buckshot pellets produced.** This is a significant amount of lead when we consider the hundreds of thousands of buckshot pellets that manufacturers produce.

If you enjoy reading these articles please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.

**There are 7,000 grains to a pound.

Is Flite Always Controlled?

This is part III in a series of articles concerning a recent qualification where I noted some erratic behavior in the form of “flyers” from the Federal LE133 00 round with the FLITECONTROL® wad system. (I define a flyer as one or more buckshot pellets that take a different trajectory than the one that the majority of the pellets in the load follow. From a home defense perspective, when these flyers fall outside of an acceptable target area at a given distance they pose a danger to innocent people who may be nearby.) Part l  and Part II

In that qualification I had one shot at 25 yards put all eight pellets in the center of the target and a second shot that put four of the eight pellets in the bottom of the target. I believe the other four pellets went into the target’s center. I suspect that the flyers I experienced are the result of FLITECONTROL® wads that did not perform as advertised.

The difference between the FLITECONTROL® wad system and the traditional wad is the way the wad releases the pellets as the buckshot exits the barrel. The traditional wad has forward facing petals that open when they exit the barrel. High speed videos show that often the petals on traditional wads open unevenly. This in turn causes the traditional wad to release the shot load unevenly and can disrupt the shot pattern.

Shot Separating from a Traditional Shotgun Wad

In contrast, the FLITECONTROL® wad system has a set of petals six facing rearward and a set of three petals in the body of the wad facing forward. As the buckshot load in the FLITECONTROL® wad leaves the barrel, the gas pressure from the powder forces the rearward facing petals to open. These petals then act as a sort of air-brake and begin to slow the wad. Simultaneously, the air pressure forces the forward facing petals to open to assist with the buckshot separating cleanly from the wad—ideally without producing flyers. 

Unfired versus Fired FLITECONTROL® Shotgun Wad

Buckshot Separating from a FLITECONTROL® Shotgun Wad

During the qualification I was able to recover the FLITECONTROL® wads from fifteen Federal 8-pellet LE133 00 shells that I had fired through my Beretta 1301. Three of the wads had deformed when they struck the ground or target frame; however, twelve were fully intact.

I grouped the fired FLITECONTROL® wads in roughly three different behaviors. Some wads evidenced little to no opening from either the rearward facing petals or the forward facing petals. Other wads showed the rearward facing petals opening partially and the forward facing petals opening very little. Some of the wads performed as designed with the rearward facing petals opening fully and the forward facing petals opening to varying degrees.

I fired all of these rounds in one sequence. I do not know if what I observed is a quality control issue or some other factor is causing the difference in wad performance; however, there clearly is a difference.

Patterning your particular gun with the ammunition you would like to use is a good idea. Patterning your load lets you know exactly where the gun shoots and at what range you may experience flyers or where the pattern is too large for acceptable home defense purposes. I now view the Federal 8-pellet LE133 #00 load as a 25 yard or closer load in my shotguns. That is not necessarily a problem, in an urban setting a justifiable shot beyond 15-20 yards is probably rare.

If you enjoy reading these articles please subscribe. The link is on the upper right side of the page. All that will happen is that you will receive an e-mail when I post an article. Your information will never be distributed.