Ammo Doesn't Matter (Unless You Shoot)

By Cori Tyler

Ammunition!  It’s more valuable than currency lately.  We’ve seen .22lr become unobtanium, and fetch ridiculously high prices.  Who ever thought that would happen?  Really?  .22lr?  Seems, as the other stuff got more and more expensive, and harder to find, the value of .22lr as a training round got appreciated a helluva lot more.  I can’t lie.  I sure wish I had some .22lr versions of my favorite firearms.  I’d probably shoot a whole lot more if I did.

The market seems to be settling down a little bit recently.  I can usually find common pistol calibers on the shelves in some form, even if it isn’t the bullet weight or manufacturer I’d like.  Of course, one of my favorite pistols is the Glock 29 10mm Auto.  Anyone tried to find 10mm lately?  Don’t bother.  I have hoarded my existing supply, and almost cry at the thought of firing any of it.  That’s a sad state of affairs for a gun owner.

Of course, along with some of the more fun pistol calibers, there’s a lot of rifle ammo that’s still a challenge to find.  And, naturally, it seems that we’re all about as picky about what we feed our long arms as we are for our handguns.  My own experience deals directly with .223rem/5.56x45 NATO rounds.  I love my AR.  Possibly in ways that aren’t legal in all 50 states.  I really like that rifle.  It’s been a great gun, a great learning experience, and is almost set up exactly how I want it.  It’s a dream for me to shoot, and will hit whatever I can hold it on.  Her name is Stella.

Stella has never been fed anything with a bullet weight outside 55 grains.  I’m not 100% sure why that is, except some people I work with, whose opinions I value, only shoot 55 gr loads in their duty rifles.  I’ve modified Stella as I’ve determined and specified what I want her to be capable of doing for me.  I haven’t changed her diet, though.  I found myself recently wondering if I should do some testing.  It’s an excuse to go to the range, so wonder no more!

Of course, this whole tangent about Stella is only partially relevant to what I wanted to write about today.  Ammunition!  Some people swear by one brand, bullet weight, bullet type, etc.  I have one good friend, one of the most knowledgeable firearm people I know; who swears that his favorite hand load is the only .45 ACP round done right.  It HAS to be a 230gr Gold Dot, over EXACTLY his powder charge, each one weighed out to be perfect, in ONLY once-fired Winchester brass, using ONLY Winchester Large Pistol primers, seated ONLY to his overall length.  It took him a week to load five rounds at one point, because they had to be so perfect.

Now, the great thing about shooting is that it can be whatever kind of pastime you want it to be.  My friend likes working for perfect ammo, a perfectly set up firearm, and perfect accuracy.  Nothing wrong with that, even to the extreme he sometimes takes it.  That’s HIS shooting pastime.  Some of us like to plink, just burning ammo at cans, paper targets, or my favorite – charcoal briquettes.  I love the way they poof.  There’s training for defense and competition, too.  We can have any or all of these things from just this one sport!

So, which ammo do we choose and why do we choose it?  Plinking and competition, I think it’s whatever functions in your gun, meets the rules (if any), and is least expensive.  That varies for some people, too.  For example, I’m not fond of feeding anything with a steel casing to my firearms.  Even though I know plenty of people who shoot a ton of Wolf and Tula ammo, I just don’t.  I’m not even sure why.  I’m dead set on my defensive loads for my handguns, though.  When it comes to my shotguns, I’m not picky.  Go figure.

So, I’m picky with my defensive ammo.  I think it’s because I’m a math and science geek at heart, and I pick the stuff that shows the best numbers in the tests and specs.  Is that really the most important thing in your ammo selection?  It might surprise you when I say, I don’t think it is.  Even though I go for the defensive ammo that puts the highest energy into a target, with the right penetration, etc., I don’t think that’s most important.  Why?

I’ll tell you why!  (Big surprise, I know.)  None of those numbers matter if I miss my target, or if I can’t hit a vital enough area to stop a threat.  So, I better be able to put those rounds on target, where I can make the most of the numbers I bought.  Lower numbers with higher hit count is going to do a lot more protecting than high numbers with a lot of misses.  Now, if we’re talking about anything other than self-defense, isn’t hitting our target the point?  In fact, the whole idea behind the invention of the firearm was to propel an object so as to be able to strike a target from a distance.  All of the entertaining parts of shooting are unimportant if we can’t hit what we’re shooting at.

So, go ahead and pick the ammo that gives you what you want:  lowest price, highest muzzle energy, etc.  Just make sure that, whatever you do, you can hit your target reliably with it.  If you can’t, you aren’t going to have much fun, especially if we’re talking about self-defense.  Then, practice and train whenever you can.

Learning to Pass a Test is Learning to Fail

By Cori Tyler

This time, I think I’d like to talk about some approaches to training.  I’ve been fortunate to attend some pretty fantastic law enforcement training, and spend a little time in a couple of public workshops, seminars, courses, and programs.  I always come away from training thinking about the quality of the program.  As an instructor, I often find myself looking for things to learn from other instructors, beyond the subject of the lesson.  One of the first things I find myself trying to determine is whether the class only exists to perpetuate itself, or if it has the clear goal of students learning something new.

Now, I’m not accusing every instructor in every discipline out there of doing nothing more than using each class to drum up additional, continuing business.  Though there are some of those out there, who are really just snake-oil salesmen, and care about nothing except for building their brand and creating a following, I believe most of us get into instructing as a way of keeping our own knowledge and skills fresh and helping people we respect improve theirs.  The problem, in my view, is the way many were taught to design their courses.

Usually, for a seminar, workshop, or course to be credible with many people or organizations, it has to end with a test.  To be really, super-duper credible, it should have a pre-test at the start of the course to measure progress from start-to-finish.  Now, I test well, and there are certainly some academic venues where testing can be a very useful tool.  I don’t believe I instruct any of them.

I also believe that unnecessary tests are a tremendous disservice to one’s students.  Some students don’t test well.  The pressure of a test is going to really put a crimp on what they can learn.  It’s also going to create an environment where some will focus on learning only what the test covers.  Instead of comprehending the lesson material and how it’s most useful in their daily actions, they count points with other students, in an unofficial competition.

I think it’s time to consider whether a test is actually necessary, and if it is, whether it should function in the traditional format.  In my empty-hand classes, there is a test of sorts.  It’s a test of competence from the standpoint of whether I think the student demonstrates understanding and learning in the structured practice that’s part of each class.  My students aren’t put on the spot with an official test.  I make a point of observing each of them in action, and helping them if I see them missing some of the concepts I’m teaching.  I think this accomplishes the same guarantee of competence that some find in a formal test, without forcing the students to learn a test.

My students practice concepts with their minds and hearts set to become proficient, and with an eye toward their real application.  I’ve taught courses in the past where they only strove to learn exactly how the test wanted them to perform.  Each step of that class was geared toward polishing test performance.  We had a very high rate of success on the final test, with students performing specifically tested techniques exactly as coached.  Of course, in the moment when they had to use force in the line of duty, it never looked anything like the test.

This is because the real world doesn’t happen in the sterile classroom environment of a test.  Participants in use-of-force rarely, if ever, have the luxury of positioning themselves and their opponents exactly where they practice a given technique.  The result, aside from being a cluster *&#%, was risk of injury, pretty low incidence of the techniques getting used, and generally a view of the technique and system as useful for nothing more than providing terminology to justify their actions in a report.  They saw it as a classroom exercise.

When I moved to Minnesota, I had to submit a lesson plan for approval to the State’s Peace Officer Standards and Training board.  In the process of doing so, I learned that I no longer had to teach just what a textbook or specific program demanded.  I could finally draw on my experience and training in successes and failures of using force for defense.  I could structure the class however I wanted; so long as I covered the information required by POST and could stand behind my teaching in support of someone who used what I taught.  Sure, this placed a much greater responsibility on my shoulders, but it also granted me a lot more freedom.

Testing is always the most stressful, and least favorite, part of defensive tactics training.  I started thinking of ways to eliminate that stress.  So far, the best idea I’ve had in that arena is the one discussed above.  There is no actual test, but the whole class is a test of sorts.  In a fight, there are no points for style.  There’s no ranking depending on how cleanly a technique is performed.  There isn’t even an “attaboy” for remembering proper terminology.  It’s “pass” or “fail”; win or lose.  Losing is not any part of where we want to be.

So, what is it I really want someone who takes one of my classes to learn?  I want them to learn how to successfully defend themselves or someone else in a physical confrontation.  I want them to learn how to win.  If they win, I don’t care how polished their technique was.  I don’t care what they called it.  I only care that they won.  Someone who was intent on causing harm was not successful, and the person I trained went home to their loved ones like they’re supposed to.  That’s all I ask for.

So far, I seem to be doing OK.  The people I train DO win.  I don’t stress them out with a test, and I don’t browbeat them with nuances of technique that won’t help them in anything but a test.  I give them concepts, time and space to practice putting them to work, and guidance if they’re missing the idea.  Not only does this seem to work very well for the students, it inevitably lets me learn from students who bring their own experiences into the mix.

Is it Right Because it's a Right?

By Cori Tyler

We see a lot on the web, and in the news, and we hear a lot of stories about people carrying firearms.  Unfortunately, when it makes the news, it’s never a positive story.  We have to turn to our own sources to hear stories of criminals thwarted by responsible citizens going armed.  While the liberals and their media scream about the bias of the evil NRA, the sad truth is the NRA is often the only place we’ll hear about firearms used to save lives.

One of my favorite sections of the NRA journals is “The Armed Citizen.”  I think it’s great to see the good guys winning some, and doing it with responsible exercise of their Second Amendment Rights.  I also like to watch shows about shooting and hunting, because I love to see people enjoying the fun, recreational side of those Rights, too.  That’s one of the awesome things about shooting.  It can be a serious or fun as you want it to be.

The thing is, we have to do it responsibly.  If we don’t, people can get hurt or dead.  Almost as tragic; irresponsible use of firearms fuels the fires on the opposing side better than any other factor.  Have you noticed how every time someone does something stupid with a firearm, the anti-gun crowd is right there?  Before the deed is done, you can hear choruses of, “See, see, see?  We can’t trust them!”

When I say “does something stupid,” it’s a pretty broad stroke of the paint brush.  I mean, criminals do stupid things with guns.  Of course, even within criminality, there are special kinds of stupid.  There are the lunatics who shoot up schools, churches, malls, and businesses.  There are the gang-bangers who do drive-by shootings and hit children instead of their targets.  There are the careless owners that give the wrong people access.

I think all of these people are pretty obviously “doing something stupid.”  There isn’t much to discuss there.  We know there will always be those kinds of stupid people.  They will always behave in a manner that will sooner or later have a tragic outcome.  You can’t legislate intelligence, and punishing the rest of us for their actions is senseless.

I want to discuss an even more special, specific kind of stupid.  Often these ninjas are intelligent and capable enough in daily life.  Unfortunately, they seem to acquire only enough knowledge to be a pain in the ass, or even dangerous.  Their actions support the antis arguments just as strongly as those of the lunatics.  These are the ones whose discussion on the subject only extends as far as, “The Second Amendment is my permit-to-carry.”

Do not confuse my position on this matter.  I believe the Second Amendment IS the protection of the Right to carry a firearm, or other weapon.  Its intent is to arm the citizenry for defense against criminals and governmental tyranny.  Arms do not provide the benefit intended by the Second Amendment if they’re locked up at home, or in the trunk of one’s car.  They must be present and ready.

I’m not arguing those things.  I’m arguing these idiots’ inability to make themselves part of the politely armed society our forefathers intended.  In times when rifles were part of daily attire, men carried them to ward off attacks during travel or shoot game at opportune moments.  Handguns weren’t as practical at that time.  They weren’t very accurate, took just as long to reload, and weren’t very portable or concealable.  They offered no advantage for any of those purposes.  By the same token, rifles weren’t much help in an immediate self-defense situation.

Technology progressed.  Today, we have rifles that can fire hundreds of yards (or more) with repeatable accuracy.  Repeating and semi-automatic actions are commonplace.  If we want to jump through the hoops, there are many places where we can even waste ammo and money on full-auto firearms.  (Which would really be a lot of fun!)  Still, we don’t face highwaymen or sudden game opportunities to feed the family.  My point being, in day-to-day common society, our long guns aren’t the most practical choice.

I’m going to go a step further with this one.  Open carry isn’t very practical either.  Now, it’s your choice, but it doesn’t make tactical sense.  You see, concealed carry benefits the carrier AND society as a whole.  That’s because the bad guys never know just who is armed.  All they know is anyone COULD be.  This deterrent effect is established statistically.  Refer to Lott’s “More Guns Less Crime” or the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report for any place that’s gone from no carry, or open carry, to concealed carry being common.

Open carry accomplishes only one thing.  It makes people who don’t know you nervous.  Then, someone calls the police, because that’s who we call when we’re scared of someone.  Then the police show up and see a person carrying a gun.  Now, EVERYONE is nervous, because the guy with the gun is either A) realizing that he’s in a precarious situation, or 2) intentionally triggering a confrontation with law enforcement.  You know the guys I’m talking about.  They’re the ones shouting, “Am I being detained, sir?” over and over, while they just coincidentally have their video camera rolling for YouTube.

Is it their Right to be walking down the street, rifle or shotgun slung or even at low-ready?  I believe it is.  I also believe just because you have the Right to do something does not make it the right thing to do.  Judicious exercise of our Rights is the best way to strengthen them.  Not only does it take away the ammunition opponents might use against our cause, but also puts us in a different public light.

Here’s the thing.  If you aren’t carrying your firearm daily to be a protector, professionally or otherwise, you should examine your motives for carrying.  Our Second Amendment doesn’t specify an exact reason to carry.  It leaves that decision up to you.  Despite all my advice here, it really IS your decision, just as it ought to be.  I’m suggesting that the righteous citizen, who carries, is one whose goal is to enjoy peace while keeping the ability to protect peace, freedom, and all they love, should those things be endangered.

In daily life, the tactical element of surprise is your best bet to do that.  That means a concealed handgun, if a firearm is your choice of tool.  I’ll also add in that you should get trained to safely and effectively use that firearm, as a service to yourself and those you’d protect.  I’m not saying this as a plug for LLDT, thought we certainly CAN help you there.  I’m saying, if the choice is to be untrained or trained, I want you to be trained, even if that means you go somewhere else for your training.

Because I say I am!

By Cori Tyler

Sometimes, it seems, people occasionally want to hear our opinions on a few things, or to discuss their own, at least.  If you’ve come to know us at all, you already know that freedom is our most-loved human trait.  Open, honest, free discussion is one of the cornerstones of that freedom, all defended by our Right to Arms.  I’m going to kick off the Last Line Blog with a discussion on freedom, what liberty means to me, and the dangers I see all around today.  I hope you’ll throw a comment or seven below and share your own thoughts.

I’ve seen, and even used to agree with, intelligent people who argued that we don’t actually have any true freedom at all.  They cite several historical examples of countless freedoms being trampled by governments.  I remember reading this and thinking, “Holy crap!  We really have nothing!”  Well, life moved me in directions I never anticipated.  I’ve had to rethink a lot of my own beliefs.  Many came out strengthened, but some also changed.  I’d have to say this is probably the biggest one that’s different for me, now.

Do you know why I’m free?  Is it because my government allows it?  Is it because an academic somewhere defined freedom in such a manner as to match my circumstances?  I say no.  It is neither of those things.  By implying that a government can allow me freedom, the inverse implication is they can take it from me.  I’ve seen it on internet memes, and I can’t think of a better way to say it.  I am free because I say I am.  I know, believe, and behave that I am.

Government can restrict and try to take my freedom, to be sure.  I can be incarcerated, sued, gagged, and indoctrinated.  However – comma – as long as I hold myself as a free person, fight to protect and preserve that freedom, exercise that freedom, and show others what it looks like, I am free.  I have liberty to choose!  I have free will to plan and fight!  I have a voice to speak!

This brings me to the dangers I see for all of our liberties.  It’s like a muscle.  If you don’t exercise it, liberty can waste away until atrophied so much that you can’t use it anymore.  In our society of apathy, it seems to me this is dangerously close to happening.  What’s come to pass, then, is that as peoples’ liberties fall into disuse, there always seems to be a predator who is more than willing to follow closely behind.  I picture a guy with a mustache, with a garbage can and broom on a cart.  “You don’t need THIS anymore.  You haven’t used it in ages!”

It’s hard to even pin it on one political party anymore, too.  To me, that’s a sign of real trouble, when they’re all out to get us.  You’ve got the Left, including the current administration and Senate majority, who treat “journalists” (maybe we’ll discuss THAT profession’s decline another time) according to their support for their pet policies.  Anyone who dares disagree with them, or oppose their power grabs, is a racist, sexist, or one of several other radical bad guy names.  All the while, they’re using bailouts and incentive plans to place government control on as much of our world as they can.  So far, they’re deeply entrenched in technology and communications, transportation, banking, education, and medicine.  There aren’t many reaches of our daily lives where they don’t already have control.

Of course, the so-called Right can’t seem to help themselves either.  They really kicked the surveillance machine into overdrive on us with the USA PATRIOT Act.  The recent string of bailouts opened with Bush’s banking and automotive industry fiascos, too.  It seems you can’t turn on the TV or look at Facebook without someone claiming to be Republican either misquoting the bible in diatribe against a group of people, or using their church attendance record as part of the reason they should be in power.  It seems like both sides’ primary interest is growing their power base and proving each other inferior.

The whole time, those of us who take exception to this kind of treatment and point out how far we’ve strayed from an actual Constitutional Republic often hear how we’re reactionary or radical.  Sadly, some of the loudest voices are the ones with the least understanding on their subject.  What I’m saying is, it looks like the morons often get the spotlight.  We’re represented by the guy who carries his rifle slung down the street, and is absolutely surprised and shocked when police stop him.  Coincidentally, he has his video camera running the whole time, and knows just enough of the Constitution (and watched just enough SVU) to repeatedly ask “Am I being detained?” in response to every question the officer asks him.

We’re represented by the people who think liberty for all is fine, except for whichever phobia or prejudice they harbor.  And they’re the last ones to recognize their position as such.  Often, they go back to misquoting the bible, or misrepresenting the people they oppose.  Nobody seems to use any logic or sense in their discussions anymore, unless you ask them, of course.  Then, it’s the other side that makes no sense.

I think this is where the power brokers want us.  Look at where they’ve taken us so far.  Realistically, the current government controls the media.  Freedom of the press is withering.  Gun restrictions seem to be the cause du jour.  Some states, and groups in all of the others, push every day to see how close they can get to a ban and registry/confiscation list.  Judicial activism is rampant, circumventing the legislative process entirely.  Just the other day, Democrats virtually eliminated the filibuster as a legislative blockade, but only so long as the majority party chooses.  Each day, we see stories of governmental agencies detaining people without a warrant, or exigent circumstances based on probable cause.  The recent DNA and fluid sample checkpoint in Texas, run by the NHTSA on the premise of research comes to mind.

There’s a constant fight over reallocation of wealth versus a free market.  There’s constant concern over so-called militarization of police versus increasingly brutal and remorseless criminals (Knock-out game, anyone?).  There’s countless other examples we can put here of ways that our nation does not respect the individual freedoms our Constitution says it should.  For the most part, much of the country seems content to just allow it to happen.

So, what now?  I’ve given a lot of thought to that question over the last few years.  Countless quotes address it.  Edmund Burke:  ““The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”  I, of course, learned that one from Michael Caine’s portrayal of Alfred, Bruce Wayne’s butler.  I ponder this every day.

You see, a portion of my family can trace its roots back directly to the Mayflower.  I have a few ancestors who were involved in our Revolutionary War against the tyranny of the British Crown.  You may have heard of some of them:  John Tyler, John Adams, John Quincy Adams.  These are some of the men who really had to put their money where their mouths were.  As the quote goes, they staked their fortunes, their lives, and their reputations on the war for independence.  Had they failed, history’s only memory of them would have been as traitors to the King.

At one point, they had to look at what was happening around them, look at their families and friends, and decide their cause was important enough to leave their homes behind and risk everything in hope their children would live independent from British attempts to control them.  They had to LEAVE THEIR HOMES.  That was a conscious decision they had to make.  History tells us that only three percent of all colonists made that decision.

So, what now?  Do we face a decision on leaving our homes and going to war?  I can’t say we won’t at this point.  I don’t think today is that day, but it’s something I’ve had to worry about increasingly lately.  And I do worry.  I think if we ever reach that point, it may be our Republic is forever lost.  Even if we won, we’d be weakened to such an extent that some outside power would surely swoop in and take control.  That doesn’t mean we’ll be left with a choice.  Not if we’d call ourselves free.

As I write this, the estimated U.S. population is 317,121,603.  Three percent of that is still almost ten million people.  What would happen if all of those people voted, and voted their conscience, in all future elections, instead of along party lines?  What if three percent said, “I am free because I say I am”?  If almost ten million people took to the internet, or any other form of public discourse, to push for a return to our nation’s Constitutional protections and a departure from Washington D.C. power and wealth brokering, would we see a change?  I think so.